mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP (01/12/87)
[]
In the U.S., there are perhaps three dozen full time researchers who have
actually performed psi experiments and are familiar with the relevant
literature. By "performed an experiment," I don't mean they've tossed
a few dice or played with some ESP cards once. I mean scientists,
trained in traditional experimental methods, affiliated with recognized
academic, industrial, or private research laboratories, who are
knowledgeable about conducting proper experimental programs. Most of these
scientists and scholars are members of the Parapsychological Association,
a professional organization affiliated with the AAAS. There is a big
difference between the public's view of psychic research and actual
academic research. If you get your information about this field from the
newspapers, TV, magazines or popular books, you are getting entertainment,
not science.
On the other hand, the vast majority of those who make their livings
"debunking" parapsychology have not and do not conduct their own
psi experiments, with very few exceptions. Why? Because (a) they a priori do
not believe in the phenomena and therefore feel that such experiments would
be a waste of time, and (b) because many don't know how to conduct
proper experiments in the first place. For example, look at the breakdown
between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the
Skeptical Inquirer.
Who is likely to have more reliable information? Scientists working in the
field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field?
A number of uninformed and unsupported statements about psi research
have appeared in this newsgroup. For example,
Parapsychology is the belief system, as demonstrated by the many
cases of experimenter fraud motivated by an obviously preconceived belief
that in the end the subject matter would prove to be real.
Fact: There have been two celebrated cases of experimenter fraud in
parapsychology. Both cases were discovered and reported by parapsychologists.
In any case, the extent of experimenter fraud in parapsychology is no greater
(and I believe, less so) than that found in other scientific disciplines.
Witness the dozens of fraudulent medical research studies brought to light
in the last few decades.
Parapsychology is a pseudo-scientific extension of the nineteenth century
cult of spiritualism, as is made clear by, for instance, William James'
summary of the early work of the Society for Psychical Research
Fact: William James was one of the founders of the American Society for
Psychical Research. While it is true that psychical research 100 years ago
was primarily concerned with spiritualism, James never considered it a
pseudoscience, nor did Freud or Jung, or dozens of other prominent scientists
involved in the field.
There is still not a single repeatable experiment to demonstrate the
existence of any psychical phenomenon, after over a century of ostensibly
scientific work.
Fact: There are several repeatable experiments that do demonstrate psi
phenomena (see references below). The real issue is the degree of robustness
required for the demonstration. If "every single time" is the criterion,
then the criticism is correct. However, there are very few experiments
outside of Physics 101 that work every time. Virtually all experiments
involving living systems (biological, medical, psychological, you name it)
are replicable only *to a degree*. With such systems, one can only talk
about the likelihood of an effect, often in terms of odds against
chance results. With this as a criterion, then there are indeed psi
experiments that in the aggregate are repeatable. Note: this doesn't
mean that Joe Sixpack will automatically be able to conduct a successful psi
experiment. But a sincere Joe Scientist probably can.
No legitimate science has ever suffered from this problem [lack of
repeatable experiments].
Fact: The above statement illustrates profound ignorance about the history of
science and the varieties of activities called "science."
Are we supposed to believe that psychical effects are somehow harder to
study than nucleon shells. If physics worked like parapsychology, we would
all be making up rationalizations for the existence of the ether despite
Michelson-Morley.
Fact: This writer seems to think that science is an orderly, logical
progression. Need I remind you that all theories, models, and even
physical laws ARE in a very real sense, rationalizations? Why do you suppose
that whimsical, metaphorical names like 'beauty' and 'charm' are used to
represent certain properties of sub-atomic particles?
Here are a few references mod.psi readers may like to read.
Child, I. L. (1985) Psychology and anomalous observations: The
question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.
Eisenberg, H. & Donderi, D. C. (1979) Telepathic transfer of
emotional information in humans. Journal of Psychology, 103, 19-43.
Honorton, C. (1985) Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A
response to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51-92.
Hyman, R. (1985) The Ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical
appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3-50.
Jahn, R. G., Ed. (1981). The role of consciousness in the physical world.
(AAAS Selected Symposium 57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jahn, R. G. (1982) The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An
engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.
Jahn, R. G. & Dunne, B. J. (August, 1986) On the quantum mechanics
of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena.
Foundations of Physics.
Ziemelis, Ugis. (September, 1986) Quantum-mechanical reality, consciousness
and creativity. Canadian Research, 19, 62-72.tps@sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) (01/14/87)
[] In article <926@ulowell.UUCP> dean@mind writes: >In the U.S., there are perhaps three dozen full time researchers who have >actually performed psi experiments and are familiar with the relevant >literature... >On the other hand, the vast majority of those who make their livings >"debunking" parapsychology have not and do not conduct their own >psi experiments, with very few exceptions. Why? Because (a) they a priori do >not believe in the phenomena and therefore feel that such experiments would >be a waste of time, The CSICOP states in their charter that it "Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but rather examines them objectively and carefully." CSICOP reports on members' experiments in almost every issue of their journal. Have you ever read it? >and (b) because many don't know how to conduct >proper experiments in the first place. For example, look at the breakdown >between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the >Skeptical Inquirer. Breakdown of CSICOP fellows as listed in Fall 86 issue of Skeptical Inquirer: scientists 18 philosophers 8 writers,publishers 8 entertainers 3 That's 6 times as many scientists as entertainers. Are you lying, or what? If anything, I would say they need a few *more* magicians. The fact is, if you have no experience with (entertainment) conjuring, and you don't work with professional conjurers, you should not be testing those who claim to have psi powers. If you don't know how Mark Wilson does all his sleight of hand, how can you be sure that your psi subject is not fooling you? The "scientists" at SRI were completely fooled by Uri Geller (who is a former professional magician, current psi charlatan). >Who is likely to have more reliable information? Scientists working in the >field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field? Nobody makes a living debunking psi. Hundreds make a *killing* promoting psi. Are you saying that if you don't have a PhD you can't be a scientist? I would consider James Randi a scientist when he is doing controlled studies. He is a very clever man, and in my opinion does the best work in this field. >In any case, the extent of experimenter fraud in parapsychology is no greater >(and I believe, less so) than that found in other scientific disciplines. >Witness the dozens of fraudulent medical research studies brought to light >in the last few decades. The problem is not with *experimenter* fraud, it is with experimental subject fraud. > There is still not a single repeatable experiment to demonstrate the > existence of any psychical phenomenon, after over a century of ostensibly > scientific work. > >Fact: There are several repeatable experiments that do demonstrate psi >phenomena (see references below). The references below don't look like experimental (as opposed to theoretical or speculative) papers, judging from the titles. Which of them report (first hand) actual experiments? >required for the demonstration. If "every single time" is the criterion, >then the criticism is correct... >Note: this doesn't >mean that Joe Sixpack will automatically be able to conduct a successful psi >experiment. But a sincere Joe Scientist probably can. The trouble is that NO Joe Scientist can repeat any of the positive experiments. || Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry tps%chem@sdcsvax.UCSD
mod-psi@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (01/21/87)
[] In article <926@ulowell.UUCP> dean@mind writes: >proper experiments in the first place. For example, look at the breakdown >between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the >Skeptical Inquirer. > >Who is likely to have more reliable information? Scientists working in the >field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field? This is a poor argument. CSICOP has published many excellent critisisms of PSI research. The ratio of scientists to entertainers or deoderant testers among their Fellows is irrelevant; the substance of their critisisms are. There are in fact very few "entertainers" among their Fellows; there are a couple of magicians, who do in fact have special skills relevant to examining psychic research claims. While experimenter fraud in PSI research is rare, *subject* fraud is definitely not. A magician such as James Randi is well qualified to detect situations containing or permitting subject fraud. Scientists are not necessarily familiar with precautions needed to prevent subtle trickery on the part of an experimental subject. The number of such cases which have been exposed, and the ease with which honest researchers have been fooled by the simplest and most blatant of conjuring tricks is ample and eloquent evidence. -- Russell Williams ...!{sun|styx}!elxsi!rw