Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekgvs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekgvs!jeffma From: jeffma@tekgvs.UUCP (Jeff Mayhew) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Gene Spafford on Psychic Phenomena Message-ID: <21@tekgvs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 20:34:50 EST Article-I.D.: tekgvs.21 Posted: Fri Jan 20 20:34:50 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Feb-84 09:09:55 EST Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 128 Gene's old chestnut about keeping an "open mind" sounds very stylish, but the rather cavelier meaning used in this context has a dangerous tendency to lead to intellectual atrophy (i.e. don't criticize any public statements about psychic research, because "nothing is impossible"). The act of holding all theories and "world views" as equally valid, regardless of the evidence, is about as pathological as dismissing them all out-of-hand. In the world of "psi" there's a whole lotta shakin' goin on, and precious little in the way of hard evidence (as responsible psychic researchers will admit). And that's the way it's been for over a hundred years. Don't get me wrong: I'm not opposed to cautious claims made on the basis of experimental evidence (and there is some provocative work work going on), but the ridiculous fairy tales that cloud the media are just too much. And another thing: pro-paranormalists as a group are remarkably antagonistic to criticism, something a legitimate scientific enterprise ought to thrive upon. At the same time they are often remarkably unwilling to learn from the criticism offered. This tendency has caused some considerable embarrassment recently; any McDonnell Lab folks out there on the net?? Gene closes his note with a variation on the tired old "they persecuted Galileo" line: "Your thoughts on matters like this may serve as great amusement to our descendents, along with people claiming that planes would never fly and radio was impossible." Very cute, but totally irrelevant. I could say the same about someone who scoffs at Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Attitudes like this are a luxury affordably only by those who prefer not to get involved in the process of untangling claims and would rather "stay mellow" on the sidelines. It's not a very satisfying substitute for solid evidence, however, and wouldn't get you diddly in a formal debate (in fact, you'd be laughed out of the room): "Your thoughts on matters like this may serve as great amusement to our descendents, along with people claiming that you can detect personal characteristics by bumps on the head (phrenology) and that a special ray which enhances vision was discovered by Blondlot (the infamous 'N-ray')." Let's avoid this sort of kindergarten interchange; it may make you look smug and clever to the naive, but otherwise it just wastes everyone's time. One thing Gene seems to be forgetting is that there is probably no field more in need of merciless discipline and criticism than psychic research. Why? The answer is obvious: the claims being made--even the cautious, responsible ones by fellows like Schmidt--fly in the face of all known properties of physics. Furthermore, they often involve complex points of perceptual psychology (such as the subjective validation element of remote viewing experiments), statistics, and experimental design (check out Hansel's book "ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Re-Evaluation"). Hence any reasonable researcher must expect to have to present rather spotless and indisputable results before responsible scientists are ready to go back to the drawing board. Surely anyone informed on the history of psychic research is fully aware of the many incidences of blatant fraud and unbelievable carelessness/sloppiness. If the field remains insulated from external criticism, this sort of disease can easily spread. One way to shield researchers from criticism is to chastise critics for "attacking people's beliefs," as Gene is doing. In the case of national defense, I think Gene's concern is entirely misplaced: we simply cannot afford to devote military spending to this stuff, since we can't even afford to fund the "real" weapons and defense measures. Even if we could afford it, it would be a foolish investment until there is solid evidence to suggest that psychic phenomena represent a tangible, repeatable controllable, and formidable force--and this evidence SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. Heck, the best "psychics" in the world have to cheat just to bend a soup spoon. I suppose we could wreak culinary havoc in Moscow by attacking their silverware. In the meantime, if we applied Gene's "keep an open mind" approach to defense funding, without sensitivity to the strength of available evidence, we'd also have to foot the bill for research on voodoo dolls and witch's spells. After all, since nothing is impossible, people may one day be laughing at those silly 20th century types who used 747s instead of broomsticks. But unfortunately we've only got so much money, Gene; let's be responsible with it. If I went to the defense department with a new weapon that only "worked