cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper) (11/07/84)
LINES: 69 (This has also been posted to net.crypt but this group seemed more approriate). <<A note came into net.general asking for help. A subject in an ESP (sic) experiment, who had been thinking onto a magnetic tape had died during a run. The subject, Albert Hall, while dying had pointed desperately at the tape before kicking off. The problem: decode the tape by applying a random collection of UNIX(tm) utilities to it. A fair amount of discussion ensued in net.crypt on the basis that the problem is essentially cryptographic in nature>> This message is clearly a hoax. First, without going into detail here, the author shows little knowledge of the field of parapsychology, either the terminology or experimental standards. This establishes the author as either incompetent or a charlatan. As the author him/her-self points out the field attracts many people in both categories. Second, the dramatic scene of Bert, dying of a heart attack, recording his final thoughts on tape is lifted directly from a recent SF movie entitled "Brainstorm". Third, Bert's name is obviously phony. The Royal Albert Hall is the name of a large concert hall in London. While I don't doubt that there are parents with the poor taste to name their children "Albert Hall", this plus the second point stretches my credulity past the breaking point. However, much of the discussion took as its starting point that there is "no scientifically hard evidence for ESP." This is simply not true. There exists a great deal of scientifically hard evidence. Though it has some "inelegant" characteristics, it is many times what would be required to establish a less controversial hypothesis. The question is not whether or not their is hard evidence but whether there is enough to overcome our (very reasonable) a priori theoretical bias against it. If your only source of information about parapsychology is "The Skeptical Inquirer" then you are somewhat in the position of having publications from the American Tobacco Institute as your only source of information about the health risks of tobacco. SI publishes a lot of good work but it is very selective about its targets. For the other side of things I would suggest a careful (even skeptical) reading of back issues of the "Journal of Parapsychology" and of the "Journal of the American Society For Psychical Research." If you can't get these, then I recommend the excellent (though necessarily rather limited) survey found in the Proceedings of the IEEE, February 1982 (Vol. 70, #2). It's entitled "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective", and its by Robert G. Jahn, who is the Dean of the Princeton University School of Engineering. One final point ... Chuq stated a personal belief in ESP despite the lack of scientific evidence, presumably on the basis of personal experience. lanl!jlg responded with a discussion of the difference between empirical and "meta-physical" (sic) subjects. The claim being that ESP is a pseudo-science unjustly claiming empirical rather than metaphysical status. This is not a fair response to Chuq's comments. If I see ball lightning rolling down the street towards me, than this is strong, legitimate evidence for the empirical existence of ball lightning. It is likely to convince me of the reality of the phenomenon, even if it is not yet accepted by the scientific community (as it wasn't until relatively recently) and even if I don't have a camera so as to collect SCIENTIFIC evidence so as to convince others. My belief in ball lightning would be empirical and accusations of metaphysics or pseudo-science would be unjustified. This would be so even if my interpretation was wrong and what I had observed was, for example, an afterimage of an ordinary lightning flash. Ultimately, personal observation is the basis of all empirical evidence. Topher USENET: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA: cooper%pbsvax@decwrl.ARPA CSNET: cooper%pbsvax@decwrl.CSNET work phone: (617)568-5819 home phone: (617)646-4018