1-2-13- R~64'1206168/i o : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 P. 02 Parapsychological Research:A Tutorial Review and Critical Appraisal RAY HYMAN Invited Paper Beginning in the 18soit, some eminent scientists sve~` As Robert Hare-, Alfred Ruoel Willace, and Sit William Cfookeo investigated the claims of spitilujilit mediums and behaved th y hid demonsteoted scientifically the existence of psychic ~=mef% Critics, without examining the tvidence, dismissed the claims out of hand and charged the offending scientists with gross jr)com- potence or with' fraud Encouraged by the work of these early psychical researchers, a group of scholars founded the Society f4w Psychical Research in LorWon in IN12, In spite of this beginning, psychicil nisearch remained on amatewand uncoordMated jet of activities until the publication of Rhine's Exim-Semory Perception in 4934, The card-guessino experiments featured In Rhine's book bocame the model for experimental parapsychology for the next 40 years. Since the 197N Rhine's paradigm has been replaced by a number of research proromg such as remore viewing, the C*nzfIeld experiment, and poychokirmtk investigations using Ran. dom Event G#Aeraws, rhe ?men( paper examines examples of who( were considorod, In likeir 6mo, the beat examples of scientific eviderw.# for paranortnal phenomena, Each generation of pifi- psychololios has set aside the work of earlier Sentrotions and offered up as sufficient scientific evidence the best work of its own day. As a msult, parapsychology ticks not only lawful and repil- cable phenomena, but also a tradition of cumulatIve evidence. Two systematic &valuations of (he best contemporary research progromf in Parapsychology toveAled that the experiments departed from the minimal standards of adequate randomization of largets, ap- propriare use of stAtittical inferenro, and controls agiftist sensory leakap.. The historical survey In this paper suSpits that the same themes and inadequacies that haunted the vmy earliest Investilia, tions still charoctwize contemporary parapsychological research. Both proponents and critfes throughout the 130 years of the can- troviersy over psychical research, have deviated ready from those standards of fair-play ind rationality that we would like to believe characted.res the bell scientific argumenix Same encouragingg signs hw progress towards resolving some of the isjoes raised by the controversy have recently appeare4 The criticism of the para- psychological claims i's becoming more Informed and constructive. Many younger parapsychologists have been workinAr for higher ,itandheds within their field 7h# boor lines of s)itemadc research In paraMychology are not of sufficient quality to be put before tht scrutiny of th* Ivit of the scientific community. Howeveir, with thv rr,cont Ocreaso in constructive criticipm and with the $rowing awa-romoss; within the pirapsycholagical community that it needs to spr,rify ininimal slindan* and set its own howa, in ordor, 1hew-4 hope that in the near tail rp find fvider~c# for or/ or will be mdy Iq _C&dtnM the scientific community wrim the sw? at evidenee that it connot 4n!Lwe. Manuicript received January 25,19M; revised August 21, 1985. Tho author lit with the Psychology Deparlmonf, UnIvorsily of Owlion, EuSemp, OR 97403, uSA. INTRODUCTION Robert Jahn, Dean of the School of Engineering And Applied Science at Princeton University, can be taken as a representative example of what hsppens when an eminent and established scientist takes the time to carefully examine the evidence for paranormal phenomena, About seven years ago, an undergraduate requested him to supervise her in- vestilation of psychic phenomena [1). Although I had no previous experience, professional or personal, with this subject, lot a variety of pedagogical reasons I agreed, and together we mapped a tentative schol- arly path, involving a literature search, visit% to appropriate laboratories and professional meetings, and the design, con- struction, and operation of simple experiments. My initial oversight role In this project led to a degree of personal involvement with It. and that to a growing Intoilactuai bemusement, to the extent that by the tirme W6 student graduated. I was persuaded that this was a. legitimate field for a high technologist to study and that I would erjoy doing to. I As a result of his own survey of the field as well as his own initial experiments in parapsychology, Jahn concluded that [11, once the illegitimate research and Invalid criticism have been set "de, the remaining accumulated evidence of psychk phenomena comprises an srray of experimental ob- servations, obtained under reasonable protocols In a variety of scholarly disciplInes, which compound to & philosophical dilemma. On the one hand, effects inexplicable in terms of established scientific theory, yet having nummus common characteristics, are frequently and vAdeiy obG*mt&d: on the? other hand, these effects have so far proven qualitatively and quantitatively Irreplicable, in the strict scientific sense, and appoear to be sensitive to a variety of psychological and environmental factors that are difficult to specify, lot alone control. Jahn, like many of his predecessors who took a serious look at the evidence for the paranormal, finds the phonom- ena to be erratic, evasive, and ephemeral. Indeed, he admits that when judged according to strict scientific standards, the evidence for the actual existence of the phenomena is not "ful(V persuasive." But he is Intrigued. Like his prede- cessors, he is optimistic that with the right application of technology and scientific Ingenuity the phenomena c4n be captuted mind made, lawful. . Approved For Release 200OM/14-:/CMPRBP-grotOWOOR003800330001-4 "' "" '- "e-1 VA WtI. k 111W ~Whh 1 823 12- ,61994V0 :~2 Re, 703+fib+(*8g~1.0 ppro 621 or ease : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Thic is one of a number of justifiable reactions one can have as a result of fairly examining the case for psychical research, Jahn is willing to risk his tirne and reputation on the possibility that careful and diligent investigation will bring some lawfulness to this unruly area of inquiry. Jahn's research into anomalous phenomena began over seven years ago, but it will be several more years before we know whether it has managed to progress much beyond previous attempts to bring scientific order into the field. During the 130 year history of psychical research many other scholars and scientists initiated Investigations of pw chic phenomena with equally high hopes of tamlng the phenomena, one was the philosopher Henry Sidgwick who was the first president of the Society of Psychical Research founded in 1882. According to William James, Sidgwick and his colleagues "hoped that If the nuterial were treated rigorously and, as far as possible, experimentally, objective truth would be elicited, and the subject rescued from sentimentalism on the one side and dogmatlzing ignorance on the other. Like all founders, SIdgwick hoped for a certain promptitude of mult; and I heard him say, the year before his death, that if anyone had told him at the outset that after twenty years he would be in the same identical it& e of doubt and balance that he started with, he would hai e deemed the prophecy incredible. it appeared impossib that the amount of handling evidence should bring so litt finality of decision" (2). James, who made this observation in his list article on psychical research in 19W, continu#d as follows 121! my own experience has been sitnilat, to Sidgwick'i. For twenty-flw years I hay* boon in touch with the literature of posychical rn&afch, and have had acquaintance with numer- ous "reseuchem" I have also spent a good many hours (though far fevt~er than I ought to have spent) In witnessing (or trying to witmm) phenomena, Yet I am theoretically no " further" than I was at the begloolng; and I confess that at tirnei I have b"n tempted to believe that the Creator ha eternally intended this department of nature to remain bal. flirti, to prompt our curio6ldes and hopes and suspicions all in equal measure, to that, although ghosts and clairwyanctis, and rapsand messagei from spirits, are always ittefftins to exist and can new be fully explained away, they alto can never be susceptible of full corroboration. Tho peculiarity of the case Is just that t1wo, or* to many sources of possible deception in most of the obiervations that the whole lot of them may be worth[*%, and yet that In comparatively few cas&4 can aught more fatal thart this vague general poulbility of error be pleaded against the record. Science, meanwhile needs wiriething more than bait possibilities to build upon; so yw genuinely scientific inqui(or-I don't roman your Ignoramus "sclentlst"-has to remaln unsafiiifiecl. Some 67 years after James' final word an the matter, the philosopher Antony Flow summed up his 25 years of Inter- est in parapsychology with remarkably similar sentiments [3]. My longi-out-ol'-print first book was #nritled, perhaps too rAfhly, A N*w Approach to Psychic4l *NO-tych - - - , When I reviowad tha astidential situation at that time it weined to me. that there was too much evidence for one to dismiss. Honesty feqiAfed some sort of continuing interest. ev#n if A dhAtant inlentit, On the other harid. it seemed to me then th.1i there was no such thing as a reliably ropeatable phe- nivnennn in the area of parapsychology ond that thore was rvally almoo nothing positive that could be pointed to with ,im.wance. The really definite and deciiivob piece, of work sPenw(I to km, uniformly negailyr in thvir autCM0. P. 03 It Is most depressing to have to say that tho ganew situation % quarter of a century later still scoms, to me to be wry much the same. An enormous amount of further work has been done, Perhaps more has been done in this latest p(,riod than in the whole previous history of the subject, Neverthelest, there is still no reliably repeatable phenomenon, no partlicu- lar solid-rock positive cases, And yet there still is clearly too much there for us to dismiss the wholo businew Sidgwick was assessing the first 50 years of psychicai research. James was evaluating the same period with another ten years or so added. flow based his assessment on an additional 67 years of inquiry, Yet, all three agree that they could detect no progress. in each case, after a quarter of a century of personal involvement, the investigator found the evidence for the paranormal just as inconclusive as It had been at the beginning. James openly concedes that all the claimed phenomena might be the result of self-deception or fraud. Yet he, and the other two philosophers, cannot quite shake the conviction that, despite all this inconclu- siveness, "there might be something there." Over this saime spn of history, the critics have con- sistently Insisted that "there ii nothing there." All the alleged phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance, psychoklne- %is, levitation, spirit materialization, and premonitions can be accounted for in terms of fraud, self-delusion, and simple Syllibility, The proponents have naturally resented such dismissals of their claimi, They have argued that the critics hay* not fairly examined the evidence. They have accused the critics of attacking the weakest evidence and of Ignoring the itronger and better supported evidence in favor of the parancirmal. Unfortunately, as Any reading of the history of psychical research quickly reveals, the pjychical researchers are car- rect in their appraisal of their critics, Too often, the major critics have attacked strawmen and have not dealt with the actual claims and evidence put forth by the more serious repearchers. The fact that most of the criticism of the psychical research has been irrelevant and unfair, however, do4K not rwiceturilly mean that the psychical researchers have a convincing case. indeed, the me"age that we get from Sidgwick, James, Flew, arid Jahn is that the evidential base for psychic claims Is-very shaky at best. At motit, these scholars, after carefully weighing all the evidence available to them, are claiming only that they cannot help feeling that, despite the Incon- sistencies and nonlawfulness of the data, that "there must be something there." As will be discussed later in thi's paper, both the critics and the proponents subscribe to what I refer to as. the False Dichotomy, When a scientist or scholar, after investipting possible psychic phenomena, concludei that the phenom- enA are real, the assumption is that either his conclusion Is justified or he is delinquent In some serious way-being either incompetent or subject to some pathology. When the critic donlos that the claim it Justified, the propoinent feels that his integrity or competence is being challenged. And the critic, sharing in this assumption, feels that he must show that the claimant is incompetent, gullible, or deficient in some serious way 141. I consider this a false Dichotomy because competent and honest investigators can M34- serious )udgmental errw when investigating new phenomena. Competence and ax- portise, in any given field of endeavor is bounded. Cognitivv 824 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3806~1666f!,e' I 111 1111, VOL. 7.1, P40. t-, It INI IV6 12713-1994 09: 3 + 4 a-'-I+ 14 4 4 Approv&Hor Re~eoaSe 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 psychologists, historiam of icii,ruo, )nd solioh)gisl~ Of kiiowledgi, havi. iwi.li &,itt)vring diti wimh donionowtv how thInking is guided by conceptual frameworks and paradiRms within which the thinker operates. Successful scientific thinking, for example, is not successful because it operates according to abstract, formal rules of evidence, Rather, it succeeds because the thinker is guided by the often implicit rule6 and procedures. Inherent within the specific content and practices of the narrow field of special- lzation within which the problem is being pursued, These "heuristics" or guidelines for tuccessful thinking are not foolproof and under changed circumstances they can trap the thinker Into erroneous convictions. In other words, competence in a given scholarly or scientific discipline and high Intelligence are no barriers to becoming trapped into asserting And defending erroneous positions. In this paper, I agree with Sidgwick, James, Flew, and Jahn in the most general sense that "something" is Indeed going on. However, I do not see any need to assume that this "something" has anything to do with the paranormal, I think we should not lightly dismiss the fact that for 130 years some of our best scholars and scientists have seriously carried out psychical research and have become convinced that they have demonstrated the existence of a "psychic force" or a supernatural realm occupied by Intelligent and superior bein8s. As far as I can tell, these proponents were competent scholars, sane, and highly intelligent. They made every apparent effort to ern*y what they believed to be objective and scientific standards In observing, recording, and reporting their findings. Yet, as I will argue, contrary to Jahn's as5essment, the total accumulation of 130 yeaes worth of psychicall investi- gation has not produced any consistent evidence for paranormality that can withstand Acceptable scientific scrutiny. What should be Interesting for the scientific e;tab- lishment is not that there Is a case to be maide for psychic phenomena, but rather that the majority of scientists who decided to seriously Investigate believed that they had made such a case, How can It be that so many outstanding scientist$, including several Nobel Prize winners, have con- vinced themselves that they have obtained solid, scientific evidence for paranormall phenomenal If they are wrong, "at has made them wrong? Does this suggest weaknesses or limitations of scientific method and training? And If these investigators have not actually en- countered psychic phenomena, what Is It that they have discovered? I am not sure that I can provide satisfactory answers to these questions, out I believe that it will help to look at some selected cases in which investigators believed that they had obtained adequate scientific evidence for the reality of psychic phenomena, I will %tan at the beginning by describing the sort of eviderKe that convinced the first scientists who took ptychical claims seriously. Even some contemporary parapsychologists believe these early scien- tists may have been wrong, but their cases are still worth eitarninino because in them we will find many of the same issues and problems that characterixt contemporary para- psychological research. These early psychic investigators tested spiritualistic mediums who were noted for their ability to produce powerful psychic phenomena such as levitations, materializations, and other physical feats. P.04 P,,vi hi(al research became tranOormed into what i., now i.illod patapsychologN wheii Ow lo(us shiftod, .1fitir tho first half cvntury of inve stigation, to thv study of oxtrasonsory perception and psychokinesis in ordinary individualI. by means of standardized testing materials and procedures. I will examine what was, at the time, considered to be the most rigorous and successful application at this form of parapfiychological research-the now notorious invemiga- tions by Soal an Shacklelon and Mrs. Stewart. Again, the purpose is not to beat a dead horse but to abstract out principles and issves that still haunt contemporary para- psychology, . . The card-guessing experiments begun by Rhine in the 1930s established the paradigm which dominated para- psychology for the next 40 years. New technology and interest in altered states resulted in departures from Rhine's paradigm beginning about 1970. Experiments with Random Event Generators, Remote Viewing, and the Ganzfeld tech- nique have been the strongest contenders for providing paraptychology with Its long-sought-for repeatable experi- ment, I will argue that a fair and objective assessment of this latest work strongly suggests that, like Its predecessors, it still does not stand up to critical scrutiny. SCIENTISTS AND PSYCHICS The first major scientist to test experimentally a psychic claim was Michael Faraday in 1853, As will be described in more detail in the next section, Faraday concluded that the phenomena he had investigated, table-turning, had a nor- mal explanation. Robert Hare, a major American chemist, at first agreed with Faraday's conclusion. But, then, after per- sonal investigations of his own, changed his mind, and openly supported the claims of spiritualistic mediums. A clecade~,later. Alfred Rusiel Wallace, the cofounder with Darwin of The theory of evolution by natural selection, and Sir William Crookes, the discoverer of thallium, astounded their scientific colleagues by openly endorsing parano(mal claims. Wallace and Crookes, as, had Hare, believer'. that their own inquiries had established scientific proof to iup- pon their paranormal claims. . Hare, Wallace, and Crookes were the first of a continual succession of eminent scientists who have en-dorsed paranormall claims as a result of their esparlmental tests of allegbd psychics. These scientists have established a tradi- tion which has plAyed a major fole In the development of psychicAl research. The first half-centm of psychical re- search consisted mainly of testing paranormal claims within this tradition. Beginning in the 1M a second approach, experimental investigations according to sundard protocols and using unselected subjects, became the dominant ap- proach under the name of parapsychology. Today para- psychology Includes both approaches. in the first half of the present paper, I will focus on the first approach. The research of Sir William Crookes will be used as an example of this approach. in the second hall of the paper, I will deal with the second approach. Again, I will use the research of a single investigator to bring out the more general issues and problems with the field of para- psychology. in both parts of the paper I will also briefly mention other investigators and lines of research which also bring out the sarne themes illustrated by the more detailed exampliss. Finally, I will briefly look at the contem- Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 825 12713-lft&W~d For RNAN21666?bwo : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 P. 05 porary situation in parapsychology to argue that the con* cerns and difficultips that hauntpd thp earlier investigations still persist. TABLE-TuRMNC AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH Modern spiritualism began when unaccountable raps were heard in the presence of two teen-age girls, Margaret and Kate Fox, in 16Q. By using a code, the girls' mother was able to converse with the raps and concluded that they originated from the spirit of a peddler who had been murdered in the very house in which the Fox family then lived. Word of this miraculous communication spread quickly and soon a variety of means for communicating with the unseen spirits via "the spiritual telegraph" were developed in the United States and then spread to Europe. The Individuals through whom the spirits produced their phenomena and communicated with mortals were called mediums. The mediums, at first, displayed phenomena such as rapping sounds, movements of tables and objects, play- ing of musical Instruments by unseen agencies, and the oc- currence Of strange lights in the dark. Later, more elaborate phenomena were produced such as the levitation at ob- jects or the medium; the disappearance or appearance of objects; the materialization of hands, faces, or even of complete spirit forms; spirit paintings and photographs, and written communications from the spirit world 151, (61, By the early 1850s, table-turning (also called table-tilting or table-rapping) had become the rage both in the United States and In Europe. A group of Individuals, usually called "sitters," would arrange themselves around a table with their hands resting flat upon the table-top. After in ex- tended period of waiting a rap would be heard or the table would tilt up on one leg. Sometimes the table would sway and begin moving about the room, dragging tho sitters along. On some occasions, sitters would claim that the table actually levitated off the floor under the conditions in which all hands were above the table. Reports even cir- culated that sometimes the table levitated when no hands were touching It, Table-turning was a,specially popular be- cause it could occur with or without tho presence of an acknowledged medium, Any group of Individuals could get together and attempt to produce the phenomenon in the privacy of their own living room, Table-turning plays an important role In the history of psychical research because it wit what first attracted the attention of serious scientists to alleged paranormal pM- nomena (61, The phenomenon had became so widespread in England b~ the summer of 1853 that several identitts decided to look into it. Although the prevailing explanation for the table's movements favored the agency of spirits, other explanations at the time were e1wricity, magnetism, "attraction," Reichenbach's Odyiiic Force, and the rotation at the earth. Electricity, which in the public mind was then considered to be an occult and mystical force, was espe- cially popular. Indeed, many spiritualists prob4bly thought that the spirits operated by electricity, In June 1853, a committee of four medical men held seaticer to Investigate table-turning. 7hey found that the table did not move at all when the sitters' attention was divened and they had not lormed common expectations about how the table should mow, In another condition flivy found that the table would not movits it hall the sitters expvc lod it it, movi, w the righlaod flit, olhm 11,111 Ilypedvel it to move to the left. "But when expectation was allowed froo play, and especially if the direction of the probable movement was indicated beforehand, the table began to rotate after a few mintaes, although no one of the sitters was conscious of exercising any ef fort at all, The conclusion formed wit that the motion wit due to muscular action, mostly exercised unconsciously" 161. Other investigators came to similar conclusions. But, by far, the most publicized and influential Investiga- tion was that by England's most renowned scientist, the physicist Michael Faraday. Faraday obtained subjects who were "very honorable" and who were also "successful table-movers" (71. Faraday found that he could obtain movements of the'table in a given direction with just one subject sitting at his table in the laboratory. His first tests were designed to eliminated as explanations well-known forces such as magnetism and electricity. He demonstrated that substances such as sand-paper, miilboard, glue, glass, moist clay, tinfoil, cardboard, vulcamized rubber, and wood did not interfere with the table-turning. He could find no ItAC06 Of IOICCtriCAI Of MAgne'tic effects. "No form of experi- ment or mode of observation that I could devise gave me the slightest indication of any peculiar force. No attractions, of repulsion.... nor anything-which could be referred to other than the mwe mechanical pressure exerted inad- vertently by the turner." Although Faraday suspected that the sitter was uncon- sciously pushing th4 table in the desired direction, the sitter adamantly Intisted that he wiu not the agency but, instead, was pulled in the expected direction by some force within the table. Far"y created some ingenious arrangements to see if the sitter's claim was true, He placed four or five pieces of slippery cardboard, one over the other, on the table top, The pieces wem attached to on* another by little pellets of a soft cement. The lowest piece was attached to a p8iece of sandpaper which rested on the table top. The e ges of the sh"ts overlapped slightly, and on the under surface, Faraday drew a pencil line to indicate the position. The table-tufner then placed his hands upon the upper card and waited for the table to move In the pretAously agreed upon direction (to the left). Faraday then examined the packet. It was easy to see by displacement of the p4rts of tho line, that the harid had moved further than the table, and that the lattef had lagged behind;-that the hand, in fact had pushed the upper card to the left and that the under cards and the table had followed and been dragged by It" (7]. In another arrangement, Faraday fixed an indicator to two boArdg on the table,top such that. if the sitter was pulled by the table the indicator would slope to the tight, but if the sitter pushed the tab,le, the Indicator would slope to the left, The tabLe moved as before as long as the sitter could not see the indicator. But as soon as the sitter was able to watch the indicator, which gave him Immediate feedback when his hands pushed in the expected direction, all move- ments of the table ceased, "But the most valuable effect of this test-appAratus ... is the corrective power it possesses over the mind of the table-turmer. As soon as the index is placed before th* nwit earnest, and they perceive-as in my presence they have always done-ihat It tells truly whether they are pressing downwards only a( obliquely; then all effects of table-turning cease, even though the parties perwvere, earnestly desiring motion, till they be- (omv wvary Alld worn out. No pfornoling or checking of a16 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800'336bbl~V""t H Li. VOI. 74, NO. 4. JUNE 1"6 12-,13-WdU~&TFor ReF&Ad'k66fi(f8110: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 I the hands Is needed-the power is ?OnP; and this only because the parties are made consciou$ of wh.It thvy arv really doing mechanically, and so are unable unwittingly tu dec,nive themselves" (7). Faraday's investigation convinced several scientists that table-turning was the result of self-deception resulting from unconscious motor movements guided by expectation. His report is even credited with 'dampening the enthusiasm, fcx a few years, for spiritualism In England 16). But several spiritualists and table-turners were not convinced by Faraday's arguments. And this brings up another Issue that invariably accompanies the controversy over paranormal claims. Whenever a skeptic demonstrates how an alleged psychic phenomenon can be duplicated by mundane means, the claimant usually responds,. "It's not the same thing[" To many spiritualists and those who had witnessed table-turning, Faraday's explanation appeared hopelessly in- adequate. Professional mediums, for *xample, while sitting at the table could provide meaningful answers by means of table-rapping to questions that sitters put to their Assumed spirit communicators. In addition, the table often moved in a variety Of WAYS which seemingly could not be explained by simple muscular pressure applied by the sitters, For example, the table often levitated above the floor with all the titters' hands resting on ths top surface. And ~some reports claimed that the table moved and levitated when no human was In contact with It. Faraday's explanation dealt with only one important cause of the table-turning. He did not attempt to account for the various ways In which the table could be moved and levitated by trickery. Not did he cleal with the problem of the notorious unrellability of eyewitness testimony. Nor did he and his fellow skeptics realize that an abstract, even If correct, explanation of table-tuminj wAs Impotent when matched against the personal and powerfulIV emotional experience of a sitter who has been converted during an actual tAble-turning wsion, Them Larne limitations on any attempt to "explain away" an alleged paranormal event by a mundane account continue to provide loopholes whereby the proponent can maintain the reality of a paranormal claim. Two striking illustrations of the power of the experience that "it is not the same thine' can be found in the conversions to spiritualism of the next two major scientists to investigate psychic phenomena. Both Robert Hare and Alfred Russel Wallace were familiar with Faraday's rftearch and explanation when they first Investigated spiritualistic' phenomena by meant of table-turning. And both were immediated convinced that their personal experiences could not be accounted for by Faroday's th". in these In- stances, the forewarning, rather than serving to forearm, actually disarmed. And this, too, is a recurring theme In the history of psychical research. SIR WILLIAM CROOKES Faraday, the first major scientist to seriously Investigate spiritualistic phenomena, concluded that self-deception was sufficient to explain what he observed. At A (siult, he remained skeptical and critical of all further claims of paranormal phenomena. Faradays scientific colleagues were obviously grateful for his investigation and conclusions. But within the next two decides three other major scientists P. 06 trary to Faraday, that thny had witnerued truly paranormal phonomena. Robert Hari-, the eminvot Aivicricin chomist, kvgart his Inquiry into spiritualistic phenomena in 1853 immediatrly after ,Faraday's invettigation. Alfred Russel Wallace, the c6fourWer with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natu- Y21 selection, initiated his Investigations in 1865, And Sir William Crooke%, the discoverer of thallium, beXan his Investigations in 1869. All three had already achieved repu- taflon% as outstanding scientists before they surprised their scientific colleagues with their assertions of having wit- nessed psychic phenomena, Their colleagues were dis- turbed and puzzled by such assertions from obviously com- petent scientists. Their reactions, unfortunately, were not always rational and tended to make a confusing situation worse. I believe It Is Important to try to understand how these otherwise competent scientists became convinced that they had acquired evidence sufficient to justify the billef In paranormal phenomena. The investigations of these sclen- tists can be credited with the initiation of psychical te- search as a field with scientific aspirailont, And many of the same issues of scientific justification of claims for the paranormal that we find in their work are still with us today. Robert Harewas Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and 72 years of age when cir- cumstances conspired to launch him on a now career &6 a psychic investigator In 1853 [81, Hare, the author of more than 150 scientific papers, had invented the oxy-hydrogen blowpipe which was the predecessor of today's welding torches 191. According to Asimov, Hare was "one of the few strictly American products who in those days could be considered within hailing distance of the great European cher~i,$is" 110). Both Hare and his critics took it for granted that a competent scientist could carry out observations and ex- periments, on a variety of phenomena and, as a result, come to trustworthy and sound conclusions. Until he announced his conversion to the spiritualistic hypothesis, Hare's col- leagues did not doubt his competence as an observer " experimenter. When he announced that he had not only experimentally verified paranormal ph*nomena, but had been communicating with the spirits of his departed rela- tiv*& and also with George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Benjamin Franklin, Byron, and Isaac Newton, this placed his lmredul*Lx colleagues In A quandary (8), for half a century, the scientific world had accepted Hare's scientific papers and conclusions with respect and admiration. His scientific accomplighn*nts were widely re- cognized arW honored. But now this respected fellow sci- entist, by using appmently the sarm obmrvationai and CAPV1 ,r"Cnldl %16111lb tFISL FIAW V*fWMU 149111 F118 1W11WVV11) W&O claiming to have demonstrated the reality of phenomena that scientists fell were just too preposterous to be true. instead of examininti; Hare's arguments and evidence, his colleagues reacted emotionally and re*ted his conclv- slons out of hand. Furthermore, they treated him as a traitor to the scientific enterprise and refused to allow him to present his case in the regular scientific forum. From Hare's perspective thit reaction was both unfair and unscienlific. His arguments were being rejected without also i estigated aranwrmal claims and concluded, con- even being given a hearing. In his last few years he turned "Approved"Por elease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HYMAN 0A R 4ASVC*H0kO-04CAL 4164ARCH 827 12-13 W$% VQ f S r Re j e`alig 4,Wd/W i o : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 away from his scientific colleagues and confined hi~ tocial Interactions antirely to his spiritualistic associates. From the perspective of the scientific establishment, Hare had sud- denly gone insane or had suffered some other form of pathology. Here we see the False Dichotomy in action. And this same false Dichotomy will be found throughout the story of psychical research right up to the present. Alfred Russel Wallace's conversion to spiritualism began In the same way that Hare's did-5itting at an animated table during a seance. Wallace's experience, just as Hare's did, convinced him that Faraday's explanation of the table's antics would not do. Unlike Hare, however, Wallace Was not 72 and at the end of his career. Instead he was 42 years old and in the middle of a long and productive career. It had only been saven years earlier that Wallace had indr pendently conceived the theory of evolution by natural selection, the very sAme theory that Darwin had been secretly working on for many years 111H131. Critics have found it easy to dismiss the psychical evi- dence of Hare on the basis of old age and of Wallace on the assertion that, while he was a great naturalist and observer, he was not an experimenter 1111. Neither criticism can be applied, hoviovvft, to William Crookes, who was the next great scientist to Investigate and endarse the reality of paranormal phenomena. Crookes was generally acknowl- edged, even by many who opposed his psychic beliefs,as one of the preeminent chemists and physicists of his day. Crooket-the discoverer of thallium, Inventor of the radi- ometer, developer of the Crookes tube, pioneer investigator of radiation effects, and a contributor to photography and other flelds-wart elected a Fellow of the Royal Society at age 31, was latey knighted, and received just about every honor available to a scientist of his time. When Crookes bQpn attending seances with Mrs. Marshall (the sme medium who helped convert Wallace) and 1, J. Morse in 1869, he was 37 years of ago. He had been very upset by the death of his youngest brother and ap- parently believed he had received spirit communications from him through the semices of these mediums. In )uly 1870 Croaket announced his Intention to conduct a sden- tific inquiry Into spiritualistic phenomena. He wrote, "I prefer to enteir upon the Inquiry with no preconceived notlons whatever as to what can or cannot be, but with all my senses alert and ready to convey information to the brain; believing, as I do, that we have by no means ex- hausted all human knowledge or fathomed the depths of all physical forces" 1131. Although most of the scientific community assumed that Crooke% was undertaking the inviestigation as a skeptic, his biographot wrote, "But it is certain, at all tivents, that when In July 1870 Crookei, at the request, it is said of a London daily paper, announced hit Intention of 'Investigating spirl- tuAlism, so-called,l he was already much inclined towards spiritualism What he really Intended to do was to furnish, It possible, a rigid scientific proof of the objectivity and genuineness of the 'phytical phenomena of spiritualism,' so as to convert the scientific world at large and open a now era of human advancement" N6). Crooke% packed itirnoa all his research into psychical phenomena into the four-year period 1870-1874 (171. When he failed to sway his scientific colleagues-and as a fesult of bitter attacks by hit critict, Crooke& quietly dropped this P. 07 work and devoted his scientific effort% from 1875 onwards to more mainstream subjects. But he never gave up his beliefs and he never severed hit ties with the field. in his final years, he began attending seances again and believed, near the end, that he had finally found proof of survival when he obtained a qArit photograph of his dead wife (15). By today's standards, the investigations that come closest to being "scientific" were those that Crookes carried out with the.celebrAted medium Daniel Dunglas Home. Home is probably the most colorful and enigmatic psychic In the history of spiritualism (6), 191 in one session, which look place at Crooke's home on May 31, 1871, Home held an accordlan (which had Just been purchased by Crookes for this occasion) by one end so that the end with the keys hung down towards the flow. The accordlan was placed in a special cage under the table which just allowed Home's hand to be inserted to hold the accordlan. Home's other hand was visible above the table. The individuals sitting on either side of Home could we hit hand as well as the accordian In the wire cage. "Very soon the accordian was seen by those on each side to be moving about in it somewhat curious manner, btx no sound was heard..." After putting the accordi&n cla", Home picked It up again. This time several mtes were heard. Crookes' assistant crawled under the table and said that he saw the accordian expanding and contracting, but Home't hand was quite still [151. At the same session Crooket reported in experiment that he regarded at even "more strikins, if possible, than the one with the accordlan." A ma"any board, 3 ft long, with one end resting on a table and other and supported by .1 spring balance, was In a horizontal position. Home, while disitting in a low eaty-chair` placed the tips of his fingers lightly on the extreme end of the board which was resting on the table. "Almost Immediately the pointer of the bal- ance was seen to descend. After a few seconds It rose "again, This movement was roosted several times, As it by successive waves of the Prtxhk Force. The 4nd of the board was observed to mdilate slaWy up and down during the experiment" [IS). To see if were possible to produce an effect on the spring balance by ordinary pressive, Crookes stood on the table and pressed one foot on the end of the board whore Home had placed his fingers. By using the entire weight of his body (140 lb), Crookm was able to get the index to register at most 2 lb. Home had apparently achieved a maimurn displacement of 6 lb. Because of such results Cmakes concluded that, "Those experiments Appear conclusively to establish the existence of a new force, in some unkr~ manner connected with the human organisation which for convenience may be called the Psychic Fewce" 115), The skeptics were not con- vinced. They raised a vahety of objections to the expefi- ment measuring the m&vomnt of the board. Crookes thought some of the criticism were unfair and I"tilevant. But others he felt were reasonable and could be answered. He repeated the expedmorit with additional controls. To avoid direct contact with the board, he altered the appara- tus slightly in a manner that had previously been uted by Robert Hare in some of his experiments. A bowl of water was placed on the end of the board not supported by the spring scale. inside the bowl of water was lowered a "herni- 82#pproved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330M'ft'V:s (it Too Ifft, VOL. 74, NO. 4. JUN( 49L- "7"_A'pr'p'ro'V'eV~or ReF~a's+e"kdd/N8/1o : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 I spherical copper vessel perforated with several holes at the bottom." The copper vessel was suwnded from a larAv iron stand which wat separate from the rest of 1he ippara- tus. Home placed his fingers lightly in the water in flip copper bowl. Presumably, this prevented him from having direct contact with the board. Yet, under these conditions Home managrd to cause the other end of the board to sway up and down, Finally, Home was removed & few feet away from the apparatus and his hands and legs were held. Even under these conditions, Crookes was able to record movements of the board, although the displacement was less the farther Home was from the aipparatus. In further answer to critics, Ctookes describes similar experiments carried out success- fully by othar researchers including Robert Have. Crookes also got similar results Wng a lady who was not a profes- slonal medium In place of Home. This 'ieries of experiments Is by far the most imprettive, from a scientific viewpoint, of any that Ctookes conducted. Indeed, so far as I can tell although them were among the very first serious attempts' by a Wentist to test a psychic, they have not been exceeded in degree of documentation and experimental sophistication during the subsequent 114 years, This is despite the fact that following Crookes' exam- ple, eminent scientists during almost every decide since Crookes' experiments have conducted tests of famous psy" chics. The comments In the preceding paragraph should not be taken as an endorsement of Crooka' results, His expert- ments on the "Psychic Force" are superior relative to what has'been reported by other scientists, including contem- porary ones, In their tests of psychic superstars. On an absolute scale of judgment the experiments still leave much to be desired. A major problem is documentation. Crookes omits many cletalls which, from todays perspective at least, seem important In assessing what might have taken place. Responding to the accusation that his witnesses were not reliable, Crookes wrote, "Accustarned as I am to have my word believed without witnesses, this is an argument which I cannot concletcond to answer. All who know me and read my articles will, I hope, take it for granted that the facts I lay before thorn are correct, and that the experiments were honestly performed, with the tingle object of eliciting the It 115), truth Here Crookes raises an Important issue. When he re- ported finding a green line In & spectrum where one had never been reported, and followed this up with various analyses and controls to support the attertion that he most have discovered a now element (thallium), his scientific colleagues did not Insim that he import skeptical witnesses, nor did they question his observations, The reported ob- servation was made by using standard apparatus and re- cording procedures. The necessary controls and possibilities of error in such a context were well-known to workers in the field and It could be safety assumed that any trained chemist in this situation would behave according to both implicit and explicit rules. But Crookei and his critics seriously err when they as- sume that similar confidence and trust can be placed in observations made In a field outside the investiptor's train- Ing and one In which no standardization exists for initru- mentation, making obsarvatiom, instituting controls, ve- P. 08 cording the data, and reponing the rpsults. The difficulties kill (4)(11pounded iwirihw whon iho obsorvations are made, not of inanimate and wasionably pamivsl materials, but of events involving humans who have a capacity to anticipate the experimenter's objectives and Alter their behavior accordingly. I recently discovered that Padmore, back in 1902, antic- ;pated most of my reservations about Crookes' experiment on the movements of the balance [6). The experiment as it stands, even without the modifications Introduced later by Mr. Crooke% in dtference to his scien- tific critics, seems. Indeed, conclusive against this, possibility of Home'i affecting the balance by any pressure on his end of the boircl. But, tested by the canons laid do" by Mr. Crookei; himself at the outset of hit investigations, we shall find the conditions of the experiment detective in on* Important particular. Mr. Crookos had shown that It Is the province a( scientific inwitigatiam not merely to ascertain the reality of the alleged movements and measure their extent, but to establish their occurrence under conditions which tender fraud impossible. in tht passage quoted on page 1113 it is Implicitly recognised that such conditions ire to be secured by ellminatinit the necessity for continuous observation on the part of the investigator. The proof of the thing done should depend upon something skis& than the mere observation of the experimenters. however skilled, Now In the experiment quoted these conditions were not fulfilled. On the contrary, we are expressly told that all present guarded Home's feet and hands. it is pertinent to point out that a duty foe which the whole company were collectively responsible may well at times have been inter- mitted. Moreover, Or, Huggins and W. Crookes had to watch the balance also, and Mr, Crookes had to take notes, Again, the experiment de6cdbod wat not the fint of the kind; it occurred in the middle of a long Wes. it Is Indeed stated that Home was not familiar with the apkparatus em- ployed. But as similar apparatus had been employed, prob- ably at previous trials by Mr. Crookei himself. conainly by earl)q~ Investigators-smonsil them Dr. Hare, with wfiose published writings onSpirituOism we cannot assume Home was unacquainted-the statement carries little weight. Fur- ther, a point of capital Importance, theft had apparently been many previous trials with various modifications of the apparatus and many failures, in Mr. Crookes' own words, "the apetiments I have tried havii been very numerous, but owing to out Imperfect knowledge of the conditions which favour or oppose the manifestations of this farce, to the appamotly capricious manner in which it is exonW, and to the fact that Mr. Ham himWf is subject to unaccountable ebbs and flows of the ftxc*, it has but sitidarn happoned that a rejuit obtained an one *cation could he iubso- quendy, confirmed and tested with apparatus specially can- triv*d for the pu"se." The real significance of this statement Is that Ham#-& practised conjurer, as we are entitled to assume-wat in A position to dictate the conditions of the experiment By the simple device of doing nothing when the conditiorks were unfavourable. he could ensure that the light (gas in the present instance) was such and so placed, the apparatus to contriviii,cl, and the sitteft so disposed, as to suit his purpose, and that In the actual experiment ihe attention of the Investigators would necessarily be concoviltatsid an the wrong points. Under such conditions, as ordinary experem shows, and as the experimenti described in " last chapter have abundantly demonstrated, five untrained observers are no nutch for one clever conluem. Picidmore It referring, in the last sentence, to the dramatic experiments an eye-witness testimony conducted by S. J. Davey 1181. Davey had been converted to a belief in spiritualistic phenomena by the slate-writing demonitra- tions of the medium Henry Slade. Subsequently, Davey Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 ~VYAAAN: FAINAlliVCHOLOOCAL OSWCH 829 12713- e W66r&VU: ~9For Re'PeJ+S4e'hbM8/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 that Slade hAd employed trickery to DIFFICULTIES IN TESTING ALIMID PSYCHICS 2ccidently discovered I produci- some of the phenomena. Davey practiced until he foll he could accomplish all of Slade's feats by trickery and misdirection. He then conducted his well-rehearsed seance for several groups of sitters, including many who had wit- nessed and testified to the reality of spiritualistic pheno'm- ena. Immediately after each seance, Davey had the sitters write out in detail all that they could remember having happened during his seance, The findings were striking And very disturbing to bolieveri. Nano of the sitters had lus- pected Oavey of using trickery, Sitters consistently ornitted crucial details, added others, changed the order of events, and otherwise supplied reports which would make it im- possible for any reader to account for what was described by nOfMAI means, Podmore has much more to say about this experiment. His reference to "untrained" observers Is not meant to question Crookes' scientific competence, "But his previous training did not necessarily render him better qualified to deal with problems differing widely from those presented in the laboratory. To put It bluntly, if Home was a conjurer, Mr. Crookes was probably in no better position for detect- Ing the sleight-of-hand than any other man his equal in intelligence and native acuteness of sense. Possibly even In a worse pofiltion; for it may be argued that his previous training would pmWre the way for Home's efforts to con- centrate attention on the mechanical apparatus, and thus divert it from the seemingly irrelevant movements by which it Tnay be conjectured 6e conjurer's end was attained." FinAlly, Podmore points out wayi in which th* report is incomplete, He then speculates about.one pcolble way Home might have tricked Crookei. He describes a scenario in which Hama could have employed a thread which he attached to the apparatus, probably the hook of the scale. Some further points could be mentioned such as the fact that Crooke's unpublished notes suggest that the expert. ment was much more informal and involved many more distrWions than the published version indicates 1151. Crookes held many seances not only with Home but with almost every major spiritualistic medium who wit in En- gland during the years 1869 through 1875. He reported having observed a variety of phenomena which. he argued could not have been produced by normal means: move- ment of heavy bodies with contact but without mechAnical exertion; raps And other sounds; the alteration of weights of bodies; movements of heavy substances at a distance, from the medium; the rising of tables and chairs off the ground, without contact of any person: the levitation of human beings; the appearance of hands, either self-luminous or visible by ordinary light; direct writing: and phantom forms and faces [18). His documentation for such phenomena, however, falls far short of what he has supplied us for the movements o(the balance. As was the case with Hate and Wallace, Crookes was bitterly attacked for his views. The eminent physiologist, William Carpenter, lead the opposition. Carpenter openly questioned Crookes' competence as a scientist, wrongi y stated that Crookes' election to the Royal Society had been questionable, and made several other unwarranted Insults 1161, 1171, Like Wallace, Crookes tried to get his scientific colleagues and critics to witness his experiments with Homo and other FKychics, But none of ihern accepted his invita- tions. P. 09 Crookes were ihr first of many vmi- Harp, Wallace, and nont ~cientlsts who have investigawd and endorsed psy- chic%. Their work inspired many later scientists to also take time away from their regular scientific activities to investi- gate the 04(anormal claims of mediums or self-pro(essed psychics Yet, I suspect that many paraptychol- ogists will ob)ect to using the work of these psychic invesli- Sators as pan of a general evaluation and critique of para- psychology, The objection would be based on two arguments. Today, most parapsychologists would not include the reports of Hare, Wallace, and Crookes in their case for the reality of psi (the current term to refer to extrasensory perception and psychakinesis), And, secondly, even the reports by more recent scientists on psychics do not form part of the primary database of parapsychology, Instead, today's parapsychologists want to base their argument on evidence emerging from laboratory experiments with un- selected subjects and which use standardized tasks. However, I believe there Are good reasons for focussing on these early investigators: 1) At the time they were reported, these investigations were considered to be the strongest evidence for the paranorma), From 1850 to 1866 Hare's research constituted practically the entire "scientific" case upon which propo- nents could base their claims. From 1870 until the founding of the Society of Psychical Research in 1882, it was the work of Crookes and Wallace that proponents put forth as the best scientific justification for their paranormal claims. 2) The p5ychical research of these three eminent scien- tists served as the model for all later investigations of psychics by scientists. Although sometimes the latest tech- noiogical developments are brought into the Investigations, no change in approach or Improvemenis in methodology 19T such Invostigation6 has occurred during the 130 years since Hare first reported his findings [231. In terms of adequacy of documentation, for example, it is difficult to find any improvement over Crookes' reports on his experi- ments with Home In the subsequent Accounts by such psychic investigators as Richet, Barrett, Lodge, Lombroso, Zoellner, Eisenbud, Tarl, Puthoff, Hatted. and the many others. 3) The work of this early trio sa"d as an Important Impetus for the subsequent founding of the Society for Psychical Research in 1882. In his presidential Address to the first general meeting of The Sodoty for Psychical Research on July 17,1882, Henry Sidgwick went out of his way to acknowledge the Importance and evidenlial value of the work of these pioneer researchers [301: I say that important evWenca has bean accumulated; and here I should like to answer a criticitm that I have privately heard which tend% to plac& the work of our Society In a rather invidious aspiact. It Is supposed that we throw &sld& en bliu- the rosults of previous inquiries as untrustworthy. and atrapte to ourselVes A superior knowledge of ocloritilic method of intrimically irvatef trviRvAwthirwit- that we hope to he bolicwd, whatever com,lusions we may cow to. by iho scientific world, though previous inquirers hovo bo-en uniformly distrusted. Certainly I am conicious of making no assumption of this kind. I do not progurne to suppim, that I , auld produce evidence beitor in quality than mut h that his lim-n laid htfore thr wurld by wviters of indubitable scien- lific repute--nu-n like Mr. Cr(xPkvA. W. WAllace, and IN, law Prniv--sor dt- Morgan, But if is doar that from what I N(~-, Of I HI It kt. VOL. 74, NO. 6. JUM I Lt- 830APproved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO38003bbR3(0'(0110'311-4 12-i3-IR94 9 P.10 0v Ppro WFor Re7Pe3a+S4e8iMM8/1 0: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 have d0imid a& the Aim Of the ScKlety, howevef 90041 k01114' (if 11% vvidviit I- may he In rikolity. we reqvirv a g--11 tIr i1 rnow (if it I ilit not &,pvtv, -it i% no nom tiniv to di'litill, . with ativ 111(hi'Idual who holds thal rvoultiable 1101.14111'. w1m lumv 14mkod cart,fuliV into the vvidvnct~ that hj4. Items so far obwitied, ought to be convinced by that evidt,fice; but the eclucawd world, includino many who have given much time and thought to this subject. are not yet convinced,and thorofore we want more evidence. Sidgwick makes It clear that he and the other founders of the Society for Psychical Research consider the findings of Wallace and Crookes as scientifically sound. Sidgwick has no doubt that Wallace's and Crookes' reports should con- vince reasonable members of the scientific community. But he pragmatically makes the distinction between what should and what will convince the critics. "What I mean by suf- ficient Mdence is evidence that will convince the scientific world, and for that we obviously require a good deal more than we have so far obtained" 1301, In other words, Sidgwick does not aspire to improve the quality of the preceding scientific Investigators. Rather he wants to acquire more of the same quality. 4) The investigations of these original psychical research- ers bring out many of the same issues of evidence, testimony, and proof that still characterize current con- troversies in parapsychology, Unfortunately, not much in the way of further clarification or resolution of these issues' his occurred since their efforts first stimulated the debate. I have already mentioned some of these issues in my discus- sions of the individual cases. Many of the issues involve the problem of competency. To what extent, for example, does competency in one branch of inquiry transfer, If at all, to a different branch? Can a scientist, no matter how competent and well-inten- tioned, Initiate an inquiry Into a previously unstructured incl unstanclarclized area and single-handedly produce re- sults which bear the same scientific status as the resulit he has produced In his original area of expertise? Elsewhare, I have given by reasons for answering this question in the ne84tive 123]. One Important issue is perhaps worth biringing up at this point, The scientists who have defended the,trustworthi- ness of their psychical research have typically insisted that the observations and evldence, of their reports of psychic happenings do not.differ in quality from that which char- acterizes their more orthodox investigations. Yet, at the same time, these same investigators acknowl- edge an impodant difference between their inquiries into physics and biology and their investigations of psychics. Hire, Wallace, and Crookes, as, well is the later psychical researchers Insisted that the psychics being tested must be treated with proper respect and concem for their feelings. it the investigator is overly skeptical or otherwise betrays distrust of the alleged psychic this could adversely affect the paranormal performance, Thus these scientists try to convey the Impression that they conduct their itests using every precaution against fraud and deception, but at the same time making sure not to take any step or include any condition that meets with the disapproval of the alleged psychic. Skeptics such as myself, who have both experience in conducting experiments with humans and have been trained in conjuring, believe this is an impossible (ask. The twin Soils of preventing trickery on the part of the alleged psychic and of ensuring that this same person will be sat- lsfivd with all the exppfimental Arrangements are mutuA 111][ %4 who 11.1w 1-1111od 11) 1ho paranormal powers W their subjocts contidently insist Ilivy have simultaneously achlevocl both goals, A (:oritemporary version of this theme hit been eloclupritly put forth by a group of scientists, including two of England's outstanding physicists, in de- scribing their experiments on the psychokinetic power,, of Uri Geller [31]: We have eome lo realize that In cer(Ain ways the traditional Ideal of the compipleiv impemnal approach of the natural sciences to experimentation will not be adequate in this domain, Rather, there it a personal aspect that has to be lakon into Account in a way that is somewhat similar to that needed In the disciplinei of psychology and medicine, This does not mean, of coume, that is not possible to eitablish facts an which we can count securely. Rather, It meant that we have to be son0five and observant, to discover what is a right approach, which will properly allow for the subjective element and yet pernAit us to draw reliabi# inferences. One of the first things that roveak itself as one obiaryes Is that psychokinatic phenomena cannot In gerwal bat produced unless all who participate are In A relaxed state. A feeling of tension, tear, or hostilltv on the part of any of thote present generally communicates 4itsell to the whole group. The em- tire process goes most easily when all those present actively want things to work well. In Addition, matters 6rern to be greatly facilitated when the experimental arrangement is aesthetically or imaginatively appealing to the person Wth apparent psychokinatic powers. We have found also that It Is generally difik-WI to producc .1 predetermined set of phenomena. Although this may some- times be dome, what happens is often wirprising and unex- pectvd. We have observed that the itterrVA to concentrate strongly In order to obtain a desired result (gg., the bending of a piece of metal) tends to interfere with the relaxed sUla of mind needed to produce such phenomens_ . Indeed, we have sometimes found it useful at this uap to talk of, or think about, something not closely related to what Is hap- penint. so As to decrease the tendency to excess" coniclous concentration on the intended aim of the experiment... . in the study of psychokinetic phenomena, such conditions are much more Important thin in the natural sciences, because the person who produces,these pMnor"na is not an instrument or a machine, Any afteMM to treat him as soch will almost certainly load to failure. Rather, he mI.At be considered to be one of the group, actively cooperating in the experiment, and not a "subject" whow behavior is to be observed "from the outside" in &a cold and impersonal mamer as pcist;lwe... . Irv such research an attitude of mutual trust mW confidence Is needed; we should not treat the pemm with psycho- kinetic powers at an "object" to be obseined with suspl- cion. Instead, as indicated earlier, we have to look on him as one who is working with w. Consider how d0ficult it would be to do a physical #xperimaint if each person were coA- stantly watching his colleagues to ba, sure that they did not trick him. How, then. are we to avoid " possibility of being tricksid? it should be posilbol* to "gn expedmarmal arrangements that are beyond any resumable possibility of trickery, and that magicians will generally acknowledge to be so. in the first stages of our work we did, in fact, present Mr, Coffer with several such ayrangernenis, but thesst Proved to be atitheticaliv unappealing to him. From out early failures, we learned that Mr. Geller worked best when presented with rnaAv pottible objects, all logetheir on a metal iurface; at least one of these objects might appeal to him sufficiently to stimulate his energies... . Neverthele-sa, " realixot that conditions sawh as we havr described In this paper &r& just thato in which a conjuring trick may rtasily be carried out. We uh&fstand Also that we are not conjuring experts, so if there should be an intrintion to decoivo, we mav h# as rpadily fmiled at Any Mson. Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HVAAAN; PAAA"VCH0k0C1r_Ak RMARCH a31 12713-1994 09:31 703+482+1444 Approved For Releatid 2000/08/10: CIA-RE)P96-00789ROCt3800330001-4 Moreovor, them has been a great deal of public criticism, In whi(h the poWbility at tuch trirk~ has been strongly sug- Ril-t0d. for this rf-Ison It hai often been prooo4ed that a Nkilled maillcian should br. pr(nent to ht,lp to ~vp that there will bo no possibility of deception, it it in thp nature of the Case, how*wf, that no such assurance can actually be given, for a skilled magician is able to exploit each now'situa- tion A% it arises in a different and generally unpredictable way._ . In principle, we would welcome help of this kind in decreasing the possibility of deception. it has been.our observation, however, that magicians ire often hostilit to the whole purpose of this sort of investigation, so they tend to bring about An atmosphere of tension in which little or nothing can be dome. Indeed, ewn if same ma&lans who were found who were not disposed In this way, It does not follow that their testimony will convince those who are hostile, since the latter con always suppose that now tricks were involved, b"nd the capacity of those particular mA. gielAns to "o through them. Because of all of this, It wins unlikely that significant progress towards clezeing up this particular question could be made by actually having ma- giciAns present At the sessions, though we have found it useful to hm their Wp in a consultative capacity... , We recognize that there Is A genuine difficulty in obtaining an adequate Answer to criticisms concerning the possibility of tricks, and that a certain healthy skepticism or doubt an the part of the rifaider may be appropriate at this point_ . Howev*r, we believe that our approach can adequ&Wy meet this situation. P.11 subsequent cases. Both critics and defenders still impliii!, subscribe to the same Valst Dichotomy. And both III, critics and the defenders, in different ways, do not onlorge. as rational, objective, scientific or otherwisp admirable in their exchanges. Worse, no lessons from thr past seem to have either been learned or carried over to the current controversies. If the critical exchanges had been more con. structive and rational at the time of Hare, Wallace, and Crookes, today we might be closer to understanding what was really going on to make such eminent scientists pu- forth such seemingly outrageous claims. Hare, Wallace, and Crookes had no success In inducin, their critics to come and examine the evidence for them. selves. it is possible that if Huxley and Carpenter had accepted Wallace's invitation to attend at least six seances, no phenomena would have taken place, On the other hand, it would be useful to have the accounts of such skepti"I observers before us it, say, miss Nichol did pro- duce the flowers in thei( presence. And it certainly would have helped if Carpenter and Stokes had accepted Crookes' invitation to watch hit experiments with Home and the balance. THE CitfEAY S(STERS These investigators ciose this discussion of the difficulties of carrying out such research with an optimistic prognosis, "We feel that if similar sessions continue to be held, instances of this kind might accumulate, and there will be no room for reasonable doubt that some now proc*ss is involved here, which cannot be accounted for, or ex- plained, in terms of the laws of physics at present known. indeed, we already feel that we have very nearly reached thi's *nt," These hopeful words were written In 1975. Neither they nor other scientists have yet managed to present scientific evidence that Uri Geller of his many imitators can bond metal paranormally, Although at least one major physicist continues his investigations of PAW normal metal banding [201 a decade of research on Uri Geller by scientlas who adhered to the advice of treating the metal-bender as a respected colleague and catering to his aesthetic sensibilities has only succeeded to demon- strate that Caller can bend metal under conditions which allow him to do it by cheating [21). Hare, Wallace, and Crookes, as well as subsequent psy- chic researchers, insisted they had guarded against the possibility of trickety while, at the same time, acknowilediii Ing the necessity to treat their subjects In the special way described by Hasted of al. Unfortunately, as Hatted et al. concede, this sWial treatment increases the difficulties of preventing deception. But, like their predecessors In psychi- cal research, they express confidence that their scientific skills can overcome the difficulty. In fact, the suggested procedure gives the alleged psychic veto power over any arrangen~ent that impedes trickery and also supplies a ready excuse for not producing phenomena when the dangm of detection suddenly seem too high. The conditions which the scientlits report as ideal for the production of ptychical phenomena are just those that are also ideal for the produc- tion of the same phenomena by trickery. 5) As already discussed, Have, Wallace, And Crookes were bitterly attacked by their skeptical scientific colleagues. And thP same %arts, of attAcks and defenses have characterized For its first 30 years, psychical research consisted of individual ancl uncoordinated investigations by scholars or scientists such as Hare, Wallace, and Crooket, During this period some feeble and unsuccessful attempts were made to form research wletlies and coordinate the research 1321. The first sveceisful attempt to Institutionalize psychical research wits the founding of the Society for Psychical Research in London in 1682. Four of the principal leaders a( this society-the philosopher Henry Sidgwick, the physicist William Barrett, the literary scholar Edmund Gurney, " the classicist Frederic Myers-had been encouraged, in addition to their own Inveolgattions of telepathy and "'mediums, by the research of such scientists as Wallace and Crookes. The founders of the Society clearly believed that they possessed solid scientific evidence for the reality of thought-transference. At the first general meeting of the Society in London on July 17, 1W2, Henry Sidgwick ended his presidential address with the follovA ng words [301; We must drive the obfector Info tho position of being forced either to admit the phenomena as Ininplicablo, At least by him, or to accuse the Investigators &Ithef of lying or cheating or a blindness or forgetfulness; Incompatible with any Intel- lactual conellilan except absoluto idiocy. I am glad to my hat this result, in my opialon, h" been utlifactoeily at- Itained in the Invitittigation of thought-reading. Prolessor Sairrett will now bti be & repo" which I hope vAil be only the first of AIlongiowrerienst similar reports which may have reached the same point of condusiveniiiss. Befowe looking at the experimental results whose "con- clusiveness" Sid8wick believes Is beyond reasonable doubt, I would like to call the reader's attention to the use of the False Dichotomy in Sidgwick's strategy. The goal it to report evidence that is so compelling that the critic either has to admit that psychic phenomena have been deman- stratad or that the investigator is deliberately lying, afflicted with a pathological condition, or incredibly incompetent. Sidgwick does not allow for the possibility that an invest!- gator could be competent, honest, sine, and intelligent, and still wrongly report what he believei to be "concluiiw" 812 11111C)i 14UIN(,% Of IHt Ittt, V04. 74. NO. 6, IUNI IVA* Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 12-13-1994 09:32 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 evidence for the paranormal. Unfortunately, as seen in lho t jirc- of I late. Walli(e, and Crookos and as typifiv, Nu(- covding the ra.%rs, the critics, in re"riding to paranormal claims, have Implicitly accepted the False Dichotomy. When confronted with paranormal claims by otherwise com- petent Investigators, many critics have taken the ball and have tried to discredit the offending hivestigator by quez- tioning his competence, insinuating fraud, or suggesting pathology. The "conclusive" evidence with which Sidgwick wanted to confront the objector came from a series of exMiments on through-transference conducted by his colleagues Wil- liam Barrett, Edmund Gurney, and Frederic Myers [33). The investigators introduced this series is follows 1331, In the correspondence we hm received there were two cases which seemed, upon inquiry, to be free from any prima facle, objections, and apparently indicative of true thought-reading. One of these cases is given In the Appen- dix ... but as we cannot (ram personal observation testily to the conditions under which the trials were made, we simply leave 11 aside. The other case was that of a family in Derbyshire, with whom we have had the opportunity of frequent and prolonged trials.- Our informant was mr, Creery, a clergyman of unblemished character, and whose integrity indeed has, it to happons, been exceptionally tested, He has a family of five girls, ransing now between the ages of ton and sevent&n, all' thoroughly healthy, as free as possible Item morbid or hyslearleal symptoms, and in manner perfectly simple and childlike, The father stated that any one of these children (except the youngest), AS Well As a young smani-glil who had lived with the family for two yeitti, was frequently able to designate correctly, without contact or sign, a card or other object fixed on in the child's absence. Durinit the year 1~hich has elapsed since we first heard of this family, seven visits, mostly of several days' duration, have been paid to the ,own where they live, by ourselves and several scientific friends, And on the" occasions daily experimanti have been made. The preceding quotation was taken from the "First Re- port on Though C-Roading" which was read at the first meeting of the Society~ Several mote experiments were conducted with the Creery simers and the results included In the second and third reports [341,135). Notice the empha- sis placed upon Reverend Creery's "unblemished charactee, and integrity. Within the Victorian society of Sidgwick and his colleagues this emphasis on character had a special significance. According to Nicol, many flaws in the Investi- gative reports of the Society were due to "a double stan- dard of evidence." 7he Society's double standard of evidence arose In the following way, The Society's leaders were members, of the middle and upper middle itratai of society. When faced with the problem of estimating the value of evidence, they di- vided the world into two classes: (a) Members of their own class (tacl4s and Centlernen in the Victorian sense) whom th" tended to treat trustingly; (b) Members of the lower clasi*4. whom for brevity we may call the Peasants., them they treated with wspicion (X~ The experimonti with the Creery sisters, were all variants of the popular Victorian pastime known at the "willing Same" [37). The. game Admits of many variations, but is usually played somewhat as follows. One of the party, generally a lady, loaves the room, and the rest determine on iometh,ing which she is able to do an her return-&§ to take a flower from some specified vase, or to strike some gpecilied note P.12 on thr, piano. She is fhmi wojiloti. 111.1 ont, tit more of ihe Willm%, Watt, thell ligh1h 1141 ki'l olouldvr%. Smile- tinil's 11ollillig 11J11114,11'. %oniolime., .fit- %frayh vaguely ibout: wrnvlinw%,- she moveN to tho tight liml of the roomand doer the thing, or something like the thing, which shn hasi twen willed to do. Nothing could at finit bight look ips% like a promising starting-point for a new branch of scientific In- quiey. Barrett, Gurney, and Myers go to great lengths to assure their readers that they are aware of the many non- paranormal ways In which Information from the senders can be communicated to the percipient. Subtle uncon- scious pushes by the "willer," for example, can guide the percipient to the correct place, And theft is always the possibility of secret codes being employed 1331,137). Never- thelest, they relate incidents from their own experience with the Same which they believe cannot be handled by such obvious explanations, in their typical experimental procedure, one child would be selected to leave the room. When the was out of the room, the remaining participants would Wect a playing card or mite down a number or name. "On re-entering she stood-6ometimes turned by us with her fact to the wall, oftener with her eyes directed towards the ground, and usually close to us and remote from her family-for a period of silence varying from a few second% to a minute, till she called out to us some number, card, or whatever It might be" t331. Before leaving the room, the child was always informed of the general category, such as playing cards, from which the target item was to be chosen. The authors obviouily felt that their knowledge of the various ways that inadvertent and deliberate signaling of the percipient could occur somehow made them immune from such errors. As an added precaution, however, they conducted several trials either in which members of the family were absent or In which only the experfmanters knew the chosen object (unfortunately they do not dis- tInguith among trials on which only the experimenters were informed of the target but the family was present and trials on which only the experimenters were present). The investigators claim that keeping the family uninformed did not appreciably lower the proportion of above-chance tot- rect guelises. The results were quite striking. Looking only at the re- tullt'of those trials on which members of the Committee alone know the card or numbeir selected, the investigators summarize their findings as follows [351: 260 Experiments made with plisyInt cards, the first responm gave 1 quits right In 9 trials; whereas the responsm, It pum chance, would be I quits right In 52 trials. 79 Experfmards made with numbers of two filuirec the first re"nfiss give 1 quite tight In 9 trials, whereas the responses, If pure chime, would be 1 quite right In 90 trials. The experimenters also summarize the results of the much larger number of trialt in which the family members were not excluded. Two points are worth noting about the results reported above. gy ordinary statistical 1criterla the odds against such an outcome being due Just to chance are enormous. But the calculation of such odds a"umes, that in the absence of telepathy, we know the expected value and distribution of hits. The way experimenters can ensure the appropriate conditions for the application of the statistical tests is to include careful procedures for randomizing the Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HYMAN! PARAMYCHOLOOCAL RESEARCH 1133 12-13-1994 09:33 703+482+1444 . Approved For Reldbse 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 P-13 targets on each trial such that each target has an equal chance of being selected and that the selected object on a dent of the selection on the. next, But Sivon.frial is indepen rilaiiiiihite in the three reports do we find any mention of ft playing card or number was chosen on each trial. We do not know it the deck was shuffled even once, let alone between trials. The number selection is even more disturbing because It, as stems to be the case, & committee member simply thought of any two digit number that came to mind, we know that some numbers are much more likely than others. And thle time few numbers that ate favored by the sander are likely to be those that come to the mind of the percipient, These most probable numbers, known as "mental habits" in the older literature, are called "popula tion stereotypes" by Marks and Kammann [251. The second peculiarity, which was noted by Coover, is that the proportion of successful hits in these experiments seems to be independent of the chance probability 138). Thus the hit rate is I out 9 trials regardless of whether cards or numbers are being guessed. To Coover this suggest the use of a code rather than the imperfect transmission of psychic signals. As already indicated, the founders of the Witty for Psychical Research Wieved that, with the experimentAl results on the Creesy sisters, they had finally succeeded in scientifically establishing telepathy at a valid phenomenon. As just one example of the importance attached to these experiments, <3urney't statement in the Soclety'i first major monograph, Phanitaims of ihe Living (391 csn be cited, I hav* dwolt at ww4 I*nllh on our sari*4 of trials with the merribitirs, of the Creitry family, as It is to those trials that we owe ovr ~ conviction of the pouibility of genuine thought-transfitrence between penons In a normal state. Despite this confidence In the conclusiveness of the Creery experiments, critics quickly pointed out perceived flaws [381, (401, (411. it was charged that the authors gro6sly underestimated the extent to which sophisticated coding could transpire between the Sids in the experimental situa- tion. The critics also suggested that the experimenters were naive in assuming that they could prevent inadvertent cue- ing just by being aware of the possibility. Conceiming the trials In which only the investigators knew the chosen object, the critics complained about Inad- equate documentation. The experimenters never state how the card or objecit was chosen; whether the memben; of the family were present during the selection (even though they were presumably kept ignorant of the choice); whose deck of playing cards was used, and so forth, As can be seen, even on this brief account, we encounter a number of the Issues that characerized earlier psychical research. The investigators assume that to be forewarned Is to be forearmad. For example, they devote six paget of their first report to A discussion of the various types of orren, which if not excluded, could invalidate their research 133). The purpose is to assure the reader that because they are keenly aware of the possibilities of such errors they could not have occurred. As previously mentioned, one way the investigators tried to preclude giving the girl any involun- tary muscular cue was simply for the investigator to be cori%clouily aware of such a possiNlity and consciously prevxint himself from displaying such cuts, Not only is such A precaution useless, (421, but it was unnecessary tince one could more directly prevent unwitting bodily cues by sim- ply screening those who know the target from the percipi- ent. This tendency to substitute plausible (to the investiga- tot) reasons for discounting a potsible source of orror for actual experime'rital controls to guard against the error characterize% psychical research from its Inception to the present. I A sQco.nd theme is that prior experience in investigating paranormal claims automatically qualifies one as an expert who can be trusted not to make mistakes or be susceptible to trickery In future titu&tionc This theme is closely related to the F '&1%e Dichotomy issue. The report on the Creery sisters also illustrates another recurring theme in psychical retearch-the Aatchwofk Quilt Fallacy. As Ciere points, Out, the "patchwork quilt fallacy $0 gets its name because, "The hypothesis, initial conditions, and auxiliary assumptions are pieced together in such a way that they logically Imply the known facts" f43]. Telepathy or p%i always seems to be just that mysterious phenomenon that produced all the peculiar patterns that we happened to observe in our data, On some days the Creery sisters per- formed no better than chance. This variability among days became, in the minds of the Investigators, a property of the phenomenon [351: it may be noted that the power of these childeen, colloc- tively or separately, gradually diminished during these months, so that at the end of 1862 they could not do, under the easiest conditions, what th#v could do under the mou stringont in 1881. This gradual dedine of power teemed quite independent of the tests appdod, and re"mbled the disap"arance of a transitory pathological condition, being the very opposite of what might havit, been owpacted trom a g(owinj proficiency In code-communicatlon, The fact that alleged psychics inevitably seem to lose their powers under conflowd investigation has bQcome known as the "decline effect," which can occur in a variety of -pAtterns and guises. Gurney and his colleaguej propose the decline as additional support for the genuineness of the telepathy because it is not what might be ftptcted If the girls were becoming more proficient, in using a code. The cynic, of course, views this decline in the Just the opposite way. Presumably the investigators are also becoming more ..proficient in knowing what to look for,especially In the face of continuing criticism, and, as a mult, they have made it more difficult few the girls to get away with their tricks. As it turns out the Investigators later caught the girls cheating. The girls, at least on this occasion, had used a simple code. This brin#6 up an additional them* In p6yr-hi- cal research which we might, for short, label the Problem of the Dirty Test Tube. Cianey revealed the deception' In a brief note which appeared In the firoceedlrW of the Soclwy for Psychical Romanic* in 1808 144). Hill thinks It is very significant that Gwriley's, fellow investigators did not sign this revelation 141). in the note, Gurney reminds his readen "that the earliest experiments in Thought-transferemce described in the Society's Praceedingi wore made With some sisters of the name of Creery. The important experiments were, of course, those in which the lagency'was confined to one or more of the investigating Committee_ . out though stress was never laid on any trials where a chance of collusion was afforded by one or mcwt of the sisters sharing In the WA of Ili( 11FV. vcx. 74. wi. fi, JuNi I'" 834 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO380'Oot3'(3tO[lO)iOl-4 12-13-1994 09:34 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 'agenry.' n(wer1hpless somp rpsults rnniaint-d undor such corldill(ins "vo, induclod in tho ris(mds, it iN iwti,sstiry, Ilivrofore, loslaw that ion a series of oxpi-rimenis with cards, r(,c(,ntly made at Cambridge, two of the sisters, acting as 'agent' and 'percipient,' were detected in the use of a code of signals; and a third has confessed to a certain amount of signalling in the earlier series to which reference has been made" [441. Gurney then describes both the visual and auditory codes used by the girls, He continues as follows [441: The use of the visual code was very gratuitous on the part of the sisters. since it had been explained to them that we did not attach any scientific value to the experiments In which they acted as agent and percipient in tight of each other, the po%sibility of success under these conditions having been abundantly proved. The object of our experiff"Is at Cam- bridge, on this occasion was, if possible, to strengthen the evidt.nce for Thought-transfertrice (1) when no members of the. family were aware of the Ihino to be guessed, and (2) when the slst*r acting as agent was In a different room from the one acting as percipient, The experiments In which the codes were used were intended merely as Amusement and encouragement with a view to increase the chance of success in f he more difficult ones-which were &II complete failures. The account which was given as to the earlier experiments, conducted under similar conditions, is that signals were very rarely used; And not on specially successful occasions, but on occasions of failure, when it was feared that vishort would b# disappointed, But of course the recant detection must throw discredit on the results of all previous trials in which one or more of the sisters shared in the agency. How far the proved willingness to deceive can be held to affect the experiments on which we relied, where collision was oxcluded, most of course depend on the degree of strin- gency of the precautions taken against trickery of other sons -as to which every reader will form his own opinion. This manner of treating the discovery of cheating 11- lustrates a number of Interwoven themes. The finding of a "dirty test tube" ordinarily implies that A the results of the experiment are brought into que4tion. Gurney argues that only those results clearly attached to the "dirty test tube" should be discarded, Since the girls could not have used their code, in his judgment, in those trials in which only investigators knew the chosen object, those trials still retain their evidential value. Related to this is what the eady psychical researchers called the problem of "mixed rnedivrnship." Psychics and mediums are under constant pressure to produce results, yet they have little direct con- trol over their fickle powers. Therefore, in order not to disappoint their followers cv from fear of losing the atten- tion that goes with rnecHumship, they learn to supplement their real powers with tricks to simulate the phenomena. Still another variant of this exploits the apparent fact that many mediums and psychics are apparently in a trance or altered state when performing. In such a state they are highly suggestible and behave in ways expected of them. if skeptics are among the onlookers, they will sometimes cheat because this is whatt Is expected of them. The onus for the consequent cheating is by this means placed upon the skeptic rather than the cheater, The dirty test tube problem has been with psychical research from its beginning and, as we will see, Is still very much a part of the contemporary scene. The medium Eusapia Palladino's long career was noteworthy for the number of times the was caught cheating. She readily acknowledged that she would cheat if the Investigators P.14 Raw, hnr the opportunitv. 1305pile this record of cheating, immy psvthi(al tvwaitiior4, including iomp of today',,- loaders in Iho field, have no doubt that oo many Milm occasioni ihe displayed true paranormal powers 1`19. On the contemporary scene, parapsychologists are willing to admit that the controversial metal-bender Uri Geller often cheats, but that, on occasion, he exhibits real paranormal powers [45]. And parapsychologists blamed me, rathor than Geller, for the fact that Geiler cheated in my presence because, as they put it, I did not impose sufficiently strin- gent conditions to prevent him from cheating 1221. Despite this attempt to save some of the evidence from the Creery experimenti, the leaders of the Society for Psy- chical Research quietly removed the experiment from their evidential database. But Sir William Illarreit refused to go along with this demoting of the experiment. According to Gauld, this incident iparked dissension between Barrett and the other founclea 132). Barrett had been the first to experiment with these girls, and they were his special protatilies... . Barrett would never agree that the later and crude cheiting Invalidated all the eadler reiults: he considered that his 1676 experiments, together with his experiments with the Creerys had estib- lished his claim to be the discoverer of khought-trant- ference, and he remained bitter towards the Sidgwicks for the rest of his life, Not only did Barrett continue to defend the evidential value of the Creery expeiriments, but so did later para- psychologists. In his classic monograph of 1934 on Extrir Sermory Perception, 1. B. Rhine included this experiment as among the most evidential of the early research. "On the whole the early experiments In E.S.P. were admirably con- ducted- as one would expect from the array of highly impressive names connected with them. The experiments with the Creery sisters, for instance, were conducted by Prafessots William Barrett, H" Sidg"ck and Balfour Stewart, by Mrs. Henry Sid8wick, Frederic Myors, Edmund Gurney and Frank Podmore... . In all this work the results were sufficiently striking to leave no doubt as to the exclu- sion of the hypothesis of chance" [461 Despite these attempts to salvage something from the Creery experiments, I believe It Is fair to say that today the experiments are not part of the cast that parapsychologists would make in support of psi. Indeed, my perusal of several contemporary books and histories of parapsychology in- dicates that the experiments are rarely, if ever, mentioned. The same fate befell the vvy next major experiment on telepathy conducted by the same investigators. In their "Second Report on Thought-Translerence," Gurney and his colleagues describe the first of their experimental findings In which two young men, Smith and Blackburn, were &p- patently able to communiCilte telepathically under condl- tiont that prevented normal communication. It anythin& the Investigators placed even more reliance upon these later experiments than in than with the Creery sisters. As was the case with the Creary sisters, Smith and Black- burn soon lost their powers, Smith was then hired by the SCd8ty 10 a$616t in the conduct of several successful tele- pathic experiments. In 1W8, Blackburn, thinking that Smith was dead, publicly confessed as to how he and Smith hid tricked the investigators during the experiments. Smith, who was very much Aive and still employed by the Society, denied the charges. In the ensuing debate, the Society's Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HY AAAN; 0A1APWCh0L0CiCAL RESEARCH 935 12-13A~$%Vo eWf& Rele7MaLJ'1tft61814,0 Cl,4,-RDP96-00789R00380 0330001-4 leaders defended 5mith. Cocid accounts of this amazing incident can be found in (381 and (411, Today, the Smith- Blackburn experiments are no longer considnied part of (he parapsychological case for psi. 8. RHIN9 The founding of the Wlety for Psychical Research in 1882 was an attempt to organize and professionalize psych!- cal research. Other wleties, such as the American Society for Psychical Research quickly followed. journals and pro- ceedings were published and international congresses were held, Despite these steps towards Institutionalization, pty- chical research continued for the next 50 years to be an uncoordinated actMty of amateurs. No agreed upon pro- gram or central body of concepts characterized the field, During this period, psychic researchers disagreed among themselves on issues involving subject matter, method- ology, and theory. On one side were those, perhaps the majority, who supported the spiritist hypothesis that psy- chic phenomena reflected the activity of departed spirits or superintelligent beings. Opposed to these were psychic researchers like Nobel Laureate. Charles Richat who defended the position.that the phenomena could be ex- plained in terms of a "psychic force" without assvming survival or spirits (471, Another division was between those who fell that psychil- cal research should confine Itself to mental phenomena such as tole-pathy, premmitions, and clairvoyance, Op- posed to these vvw* those who felt that the physical phenomena svch as levitation, materialization, poltergeist events, and psychokinesis should be the focus of Inquiry. The majority of psychical researchers believed in telepathy but were dubious about clairvoyance. out a strong minority, lead by ItIchat, believed that dairvoyince not only existed but was the basic phenomenon underlying telepathy. Possibly the most divisive issue of all was the question of what wn of a research program was appropriate for psych!- cal investigation. A small, but vocal minority wanted psychl- cal research to become a rigorous experimental science. A larger smup felt that the natural-historical method was more appropriate because so many of the important phe- nomona, wafe spooroneous And not observable in the laboratory. Opposed to both these groups were members of the societies who felt that the quantification and rigor of the natural sciences were irrelevant to the study of psychl- cal phenomena. The ftvnt that is cmdIted with providing psychical re- search vAth a common focus and a coherent research program was the publication in 1934 of 1. A. Rhine's mon- graph Extra-Seasory Perception (461. MAuskopf and McV&vgh [471 provide an excellent suNey of the period from 191S to 1940, which they treat as the period when psychical research made the transition from A pro-paradig- matic to a paradigmatic research program. Rhine pulled togethe the various strands already existing in psychical research and coordinated them Into a coherent program, He also coined the terms "parapsychology" to refer to the new experimental science which descended from psychical research and "extra-sensory perception" to refer to the basic phenomenon which was to be studied- in agreement with Richet, and In disagreement with the British pArapsychologists, Rhine viewed clairvoyance as on the sirnt, footing with telepathy. Later, precognition was also au P. Is put under the rubric of extra-svniory pqrception (ESP), ESP became defined as "Knowledge of or response to an exter- nal event or influence not apprehended through knnwn sensory channelt" (481. This included telepathy, clair- voyance, precognition, and retrocognition. The psychic: phenomena not involving reception of information were Included under the term "psychoklnesh" (PK) which is defined as "The influence of mind on external objects or processes without the mediation of known physical en- ergit4 or forces" (48). Today both ESP and PV- are included under the more general term "ps!" which is "A general term,to identify a person's oxtrAtensorimoter communica- tion with the environment" [481. Rhine's 1934 mongraph deal(. only with clair.AOYAACO and telepathy. In 1934 he also began research programs on precognition and psychokinesis. Apparently, he was re- luctant to publicize these latter programs too soon for fear of making parapsychology too controversial and unaccept- Able to mainstream science 1481. He waited until 1938 be- fore he published anything on precognition and until 1943 for the first reports on his PK results, The major Innovation introduced by Rhine was the use of the five target designs: circle, cross, wavy lines, square, and star, These patterns were printed an cards and the standard ESP deck consisted of 5 cards of each symbol for & total of 25 cards. Rhine Also introduced standard procedures for using these target materials. The two most common were the i1asic Technique and the Down Through Technique. in the Basic Technique (B.T), the dock is shuffled and placed face down, the percipient guesses the value of the top card; this is then removed and laid aside and the percipient guesses the value of the second card, the second card is then removed and laid on top at the first and the percipient now guesses the third card; etc. This procedur* it con- tinued until All 25 cards have been used. At the end of such a "run,' a check it made to we how many guesses were hits, it the procedure was supposed to test telepathy then an agent would look at each card at the time th4 percipient was trying to guess Its symbol, if clairvoyaime was being tested, no one would look at each. card as It was placed Wde. The Down Through Technique (D.T.) tested clairvoyance by having the percipient guess the symbol& from top to bottom before any of them were removed for checkino against the call. The D.T. technique Is considered to be superior methodologically In that It better protects against inadvertent sensory cues from the backs of the cards. Extra-Sensory Perception attracted the attention of both thi psychical researchers and the skeptics for two reasons. Rhino's database consisted of 91174 separate trials or guesses over a thfoo-year period using a number of nonpro- fessional Individuals as perciplents. More important was the unpreoedented level of success which he reponed. Of the 83724 guesses recorded using the five-symbol ESP docks, 24364 were "hits," This was 7219 more hits than the 17145 that would be exp*cted just by chance, The odds against this being just an accident are calculated as being practi- cally infinite. His subjects averaged 7.1 hits per run of 25 at against the chance expectation of 5. Although this is only 2 extra hits pet 25, such consistency over this huge number of trials and different subjects had no'precedent in the prior history of psych;cal research. Rhine's best subject, Hubert Pearce averaged 8 hits per run over A total of 17 2S0 guesses. As Rhine notes 1461., PROC I I (SIN&,h Of I fit 1111, V01, 74, NO. 6, RIM IW Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 12-13-1994 09:36 703+482+1444 P.16 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Mosi pooph, ari, more impivssed by renowned began j~ j direct re.~IioiNv a silecticulair sprit's of to Rhine'% mono, %M4 I lilt, th-111 klylowm bVt I ll"lUIA1iVv%cof 4%. livArie's, graph. .4tiring JS straight hits under clairvoyintAfter five years of heroic research, tonditiom, In my Soal wal; sure that he im,senve, and Zirkle's 26.stvaight hitt in purp tnlopmhy with my aW~tant, Miss Ownbey, are the beit had succeeded only in demonstrating the instances of these. laws of chance. A other subjects have approached these. colleague; however, persuaded him to Linzrnayef scored 21 check for a ctmain in 25 clairvoyance, In my pretence: trend In his data. And this resulted M66 Ownbey herself, In a new series of unwitnessed, scor4d 23, puts clairvoyance.. MIrA Turner's score of 11) In distance P.T. [pure experiments that for almost 25 years telepathy] work stands out were hailed as the because of the 250 miles between her most convincing and fraud-proof demonstration and the agent, Mitt of ESP ever Bailey scored 19 in P,T, in the %arr* achieved. Because the experiment and roorl, with th agent, 24 results seemed so : ri*t af 25 impressive, some critics, in a way reminfiscent did Also Cooper. The odds against SellInILof C&W-nter's one s 1 straight hits by more chance would attacks upon Wallace and Crookes and be V within the spirit of which is nearly 300 quadrillion6-lust one score of ' 251 A small part of our 90000 trials. Sidgwick s false Dichotomy, openly accused Soal of fraud on -no other basis than that his results were too good. Other Rhine's work provided the model for critics attacked him on grounds that most parapsycho- were irrelevant. As it logical work from 1934 to around 1970.turns out the critics were right, but Using cArd-guesting for the wrong reasons! with the five ESP symbols, an astonishingAt soon As Soal heard about Rhine's successful variety of ques- American tions-about ESP were investigated [481,research, he began in ambitious program Because of its huge to replicate database, its Claim% to tt&titt!C&l Rhine's findings in England. Soil started And experimental sophisti- late in 1934 and cation, and its unprecedented rate continued his experiments for five yeam of success Rhine's re. At the end he had search gained the attention of scientific and popular audi- Accumulated 128350 guesset for 160 perciplents. This Is ences 147]. At first scientists were almost 30 percent. more Suessei than at a lost about how to Rhine had ac- react. Many tcientists, as a result cumulated for his 1934 monograph. 56a1 of reading Rhine's work, wag sure that he were encouraged to try to replicate had removed all the flaws and vi"knetits the resulit. A few got that had encouraging results, but most failed. characterized Rhine's work. Unfortunately, Soal found that The first attacks by the critics were aimed at Rhine's this enormous effort yielded "little evidence of a direct statistical procedures, As It turned kind that the persons tetted, whether out, some of Rhine's considered as individ- statittical procedures were technicallyuals or in the mass, poa&ssed " faculty Incorrect, but, for the for either most part, his results could not be clairvoyance or telepathy" (quoted in explained away at due to 149D. inappropriate statistical procedures. Soal reported these results to a stunfried The altict turned out parapsychologi- to be wide off the mark In many of their accusations. On the cal world in 1940. At the same tirne another British pars- whole, however, the statistical debateptycholgist, Whately Carington, reported led to constructive the results of developments and Improved clarificationtelepathy experiments which seemed to about the proper thaw a "displace- use of statistical procedures in such ment effect." Instead of achieving hks experiments [44 on the target, his Having essentially lost the statisticalsuble6s seemed to achieve above chance battle, the critics nutchet when then turned to Rhines experimental their guesses were matched with either controls. Hoirgf, he was the immediately much more vulnerable. And, Ironically,preceding or the next target in the series. it was the British Carlington asked p6ychical research community that had Scial to check his data to we whether anticipated the be, too, might find critics and which provided the sharpestsuch a displacement effect [491' critiques of Rhine's methods (47). The British parapsychologistsSoal was reluctant to do so. He told were astonished CAAdney that he both by Rhine's apparent ease In findingthought Carington's request was prepotwout suermsfull percipl- and he wasn't ents as well as his claims that clairvoyancegoing to waste his time going through worked at well hk huge batch of as telepathy. With only a few exceptions,records. But Carinoton persisted and they had found Soal finally agreed. only evidence for telepathy. And theirSool found, among the records of his experience had con- 160 percipients, two vinced them that telepathic powers who teemed to show Carington's displacerrilent were very rare. While effect. At- they welcomed Rhine's contribution, they were quick to though this finding was published, proslunubly Soal real- po4nt out many of its defects, especially;zed that such a post hoe firdng had Rhine's Inadequate to be replicated [49). description of hit procedures and the Fortunately, one' of his two porcipi"s, seeming casualness 111"ll Shackleton, of his experiments. was available for testing during thm years 1941 through During the 1930s, noverthelest, Rhine's1943. With the collaboration of K. M. work as reported CAdney, 40 sittings in Extra-SensM Perception, was hailed which yielded a total of 11376 guesises by parapsycholo- wore obtained with gists as the best scientific case fix Shackletan during this difficult period ESP ever put before the when England was at world. Today, as I understand It, mostwar. As had been the case with ithe original parapsychologists, testing, although they acknowledge its seminal Shackleton's guesses were at chance level Influence on the when compared development of the field, dismiss muchvAth the actual target, but when compairied of Rhine's earlier with the symbol work as nonevidential because of its coming up immediately after the target lom controls, poorly (precognitive hit- made target materials, and Inadequate ting), Shackleton's guesses yielded 28W documentation. wicceimet As com- pared with the 2308 expected by chance. The odds against this being a chance occurrence were calcuilated S to be more SOAL G . than 103' to 1 1501. . Rhine's strongest critic among the in 194S Soil was able to begin experimenting Bfitith parapsycholo- on the gists was the mathematician S. C Soal.second percipient who had displayed tho'clisplacement Just pdor to the appearance of Rhine's monograph, Soal Pffect in the original data, Mrs, Gloria had conducted a Stewart. He was able huge teries of card-guessing experimentsto accumulate a total of 37 100 guesses with only chance diming 130 separate results, Bu ppr A&hAM 6 r`t9k-R D0W-~bi6i~b8Kdd")Y0tY1 b4r own previous mhe mdrPV481e bWff pcrfo(- 0V%9,A.e1W 12-13-1994 09:37 703+482+1444 P.17 Abproved For Release 2dbO/08/10 : CIA-FkDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Including skeptics, mance, her hitting this time was on the actual target rather than on the immediately preceding or following trial, She managed to achieve 9410 hits which were 19W more hits than would be expected by chance, The odds against such a result were calculated as 1010 to 1 (501. Soal's stated objective was to make these experiments completely error-hee and fraudproof, The basic Iwocedure, which was varied slightly on occasion, was as follows. The. pvrci plant - Basil Shacklelon or ~Gloria Stewart-sit in one room monitored by one of the experimenten (EP), In an adjoining room, the sander or agent sat at table opposite the second experimenter (EA). The door between the rooms was slightly open so that the percipient could hear EA's call as to when to maks his or her guess, The percipient, of course, could see neither the agent or EA, A screen, with a small aperture separated the agent and EA. For each block of 50 trials EA had before him a list of randomized numbers which determined the target for each trial. Each number could range from 1 to 5. It the target number for the first trial was, say, 3, EA would hold tip a card with the number 3 on It so that It could be seen by the agent through the aperture, The agent had lying before him in a row, five cards. Each card had a different drawing of an animal oA it: elephant, giraffe, )!on, pelican, and zebra. Before each block of trials, the agent shuffled the order of the plaure cards. if EA held up a card with 3 on it, the agent would turn up the third card and concentrate upon the animal depicted on It. The percipient would then try to guess which animal was being "sent" and write his guess for that trial in the corre- tponding place on the response sheet. After eveiry block of 50 trials, the agent reshuffled the target cards so that, for that block, only the Agent knew which animal corye- sponded with which number. In addition to this rather elaborate arrangement, Indelpart- dent observers wars, Invited to attend many of the sittings. Several profetiort and a member of parliament were among the observers. On some blacks of trials, unknown to the percipient, the agent did not look at the symbols, This was a test for clairvoyance. Other variations were Introduced from time to time. The experiments with Gloria Stewart, while following thit same pattern, were admittedly not a carefully controlled, Special precautions were also Intro- duced to ensure that thq prepaead target sequencet could not be known to agent or percipient In advance. And careful safeguards wet* introduced during the recording of the results and the matching of the targets against the gue"es. Duplicates of all records were made and Posted Immediately after each session to a well-known academic. Never before had so many safeguards been introduced into an ESP experiment, With so many individuals Involved, ,and with prominent observers freely observing, any form of either unwitting cueing cw deliberate trickery would seem to be just about Impossible. If fraud of any sort wets to be susp9ctod, it would wminlly require, under the stated conditlom, the active collusion of several prominent in- divid"s. beyorvd these safeguards, Seal randomized his targets, Instituted sophisticated checks for randomness, and used the most appropriate statistical proceduret. Despite those eiaboirate precautions, the Iwo subjects managed to consistently score above chance over a number of years. Soal's findings were hailed as definitive by the para- psychological community and were to good that the rest of Ma the the scientific community, ignore them. Here was one of Rhine's sevorost man who had spent many years meticulously "Fldwting enormous card-gueislng experiments with only chance ,.. suits, a man who wit by profession a mathematician, and an experimenter who had seemingly taken every known precaution to guard against every loophole and possibility of error, who suddenly demonstrated highly succesqful to pathic and precognitive results over sustained p(-rjnd% (If time with two petciplents. Whately Carington, the parapsychologlst who co.-, Soal to re-examine his seemingly unsuccessful resvIti, (as quoted in E511): Mr. Soal is a most rornstrkabl# man, for whose work I have the highest possible admiration. Possessed of a more than loblan patience, and a consclentioutness, thoroughnes-i which I can only describ# As almost pathological, he was ked in various branches of the subject for many years with. nothing but a succession of null resvilt to show for it... Hoping to repeat Rhine's experiments In England, he revad 160 persons, collecting 128350 Zanar card JU61464 bingiri handed, and using the moit elaborate precautions agalt)t.: evety possible source of error,,. if I had to choose on, single investigation on which to pin my whole faith In ific. reality of paranotmal phenomena, or with which to cow vInc* a hardened skeptic (if ibli be not & contradiction in terms), I should unhesitatingly choose this series of exped- ments, which it the most cast-iron place of work I know, as well its haying yielded the most remarkable results, Similar sentiments were expressed by virtually every parapsychologlit who commented on this work. As just one illustration, R. A. McConnell [521 phrased it as follows; As a report to scientists this it the most imponant book on parapsychology since the 1940 publication of imtra-Sensory Perception After Sixry Years. if scientists will read it care- fully, the 'ESP contravmy will be ended, G. R. PWICE'S CRITIQUE - 1. Ironically, some critical scientists did read It carefully, buL contrary to McConnell's prognosis, the controversy did not end. indeed, one of the first major reviews in a scien- tific journal ralstcl the controviersy to new heights, A[- though the Shackleton experiments had originally been -mportes:l by Soal and Coldney In the Procetdings o( rho Society tat Psychical Remainch in 1943, the scientific world did not become aware of those expariments until they were reported along with the later experiments with Gloria Stewaft in the 1954 book Modem Experiments in Tolepithy by Soa( and Bateman (501. What fueled the controversy was an unprecedented re- view article, nine p4ges in length, appearing In Science, the prestigious journal of the Amstrican Association for the Advancament of Science. On August 26, 1955 George R. Price's article on "Science and the Supernatural" was the only feature article for that issue. Price, who as far as I can tell had never before written an pArapsychology, was de- scribed as being a research associate in the Oepartmeni of Medicine at the University of Minnesota. Price began his controversial article by staling that, "Be- lievers in psychic phenomena-such as tel"uthy, clair- voyance, precognition, and psychoki nesis -appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition" (331, Price writm that such a victory has seemed close in the past, but always. critics have managed to find flaws. But Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO38005360",-%4'I 111# 'fit "" I NO (-. KIN( 1966 12-13-1994 09:38 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Price sees the time at which he is writing as unique bocause 110(tiCAlly no scloillifit llalwts had attic kvd parapsychology during the preceding 15 yvars 153). 'rhe viourv I% the result of an imprewtve amount of citrpful exporimontation and intelligent argornentation, The best cd thp card-guesiing *kporiments of Rhine. and Soil show enor- mous odds against chance occurrence, while the possibility of sensory clues is often eliminated by placing catds and percipient in separate buildings far apart, Dozens of expert- rn*ntert have obtained podtive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been aWovod by leading statisticians. work I suspect that most scientists who have studied the of Rhine (especially as It Is presented in Extra-Sons" Pet- ception A Itot Sixty Years.... and Soal (described in Modern fxperiments In Telepathy),--- have found it necessary to accept their findings... , Against all this evidence, almost the Only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is Ignorance, Ignorance concerning the work itself and con- cerning Its implications, The typical scientist contents him- self *with retaining in his memory some criticism that at most applies to a irritill fraction of the published studies. M thate, findings (which challenge out very concepts of space and time) are-if valld-of enormous importance, both philosophically and practicilly, so they ought not to be Ignored, Pri-e then elaborates upon a suggested scheme, using redundancy coding, which would make ESP useful, even if it It a very weak and erratic form of communication. He then presents his version of Hume's argument agaitut mira<;Ies. He quotes Tom Palne's more succinct version of the same argument, it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?" To justify using Hume's argument as his only grounds for accusing the parapsychologims of cheatingo Price first tries to show that If ESP were real it would violate a number of fundamental principles underlying all the sciences. Some of these principles are that the cause must pirkede the effect, signals are attenuated by distance, signals are blocked by appropriate shielding, and to forth. ESP, according to Price, if it exists, violates all these principles. Then Price puts forth reasons why he considers ESP to be a principle of magic rather than merely a previously undlicovered now law of mature, "The essential characteristic of magic is that phe- nomenA occur that can most easily be expl&ined In terms of action by Invisible Intelligent beingi.., The essence of science Is mechanism." These lengthy considerations back up Price's solution to coping with the challenge of parapsychological claims 153): My opinion concerning the findings of the parapsychologists is that many of them are dependent on clerical and statis- tical errors and unintentional us& of sensory clvtits, and that all extracharica results w so explicable are d"rident on deliberate fraud or mildly Abnormal mental conditions. Actually, nothing is novel or startling about Price's opin- ion. The same opinion, stated in just about the same words, probably is held by all skeptics. Price has carried his opin- ion beyond skepticism, however. The thrtAt of his article Is that the best research in paraptychology as exemplified In the work of Rhine and So&I cannot be ditmissed on the basis of "clerical and itaflitical error and unintentional use of sensory clues." Therefore, he concludes that the results of this otherwise exemplary research must be due to fraud. He does "t feel that he requires any evidence of fraud. Hume's argument against miracles gives him sufficient P.18 license. Price's pwition, (if cnur~(,, no I(inger belongs to 4ki-I)i id"In. hut ral lit r t, t d4 tg111.111%1V1. I lv~ I lo-JI ion 4.1,villifigly is thAt no rosearch. no mitim htiw woll (foriv, c 111 (4111% i114 4. him of ESP. But Price does not want to go to quite that extrorne. He says that he still cin be convinced provided that the paraptychologists. can supply him with just one successful outcome from a truly fraudproof experiment. "What ig needed Is one completely convincing oxperiment-juit one ex"riment that does not have to be accepted %imply on the basis of faith in human honesty. We should requira evidence of such mature that it would convince us even if we knew that the chief experimenter was a stage conjurer or a,confidence man," But does not the Soal experiment with Shackleton and Stewart meet this criteflon? No, says Price, because he can imagine scenarios in which cheating could have taken place. Price then presents a number of possible ways that he feels cheating could have occurred in the Soal experl- ments [53). I do not claim that I know how Soal chealted it he did chest, but It I were myself to a"empt to duplicate hit fellU1116, this is how I would proceed. First of all, I would seek a few collaborators, preferably people with good memories. The more collaborators I had. the easier It would be to perform the experiments, but the greater would be the risk of clis- closure. Weighing these two considerations together, I'd want four confederates to imitate the "ckleton experi- ments. For imitating the Stewart series, I'd probably want three or four-althoulh it is impossible to be certain, be- cause the Stewart sittings have not been reported in much detail. In recruiting, I would appeal not to desire for fame or material gain but to (he noblest motives, arguing that much good to humanity could result from a small doception designed to strengthen rellillous belief. After providing a sampling of scenarios in which cheating could t(Ave occurredo all involving the coUtusion of three or more inveitigators, participants and onlookers, Price sup- plies some designs of what he would consider to be, a satisfactory test. The key to all his designs Involvies a com- mittee. "Let us somitewhat arbitraifly think of a committee of 12 and design tests such that the presence of a single hon"t man on the 'jury' will enswe validity of the test, even if the other 11 members should cooperate In fraud either to prove or disprove occurrence of psi phenomena." Perhaps If some enterprising group of scientists col- laborated aind conducted an ESP experimont vMh positive r4suits according to one of Price's appmv*d designs, the outcome might very well convince him, Out I do not think It would, nor should it, convince the maWity of skeptical scientists. Without going into all Its other faults, a single experiment-no matter how elaborate or allegedly fratudproof-Is simply a unique event. Scientific evidence is based on cumulaitive and replicablo events Across laborato- ries and investigators. The rubbish heap of scientific history contains many examplet of seemingly air-tight experiments whose results have been discardsid because later scientists could not replicate the results. The experimitnts, on mito- genetic radiation would be just one example. No one has found fault with the original experlmerft. But since later experimenters could not ripplicate the retultz, the original experiments have been cast aside. Can anyone doubt that this would not also happen to a successful, but nonrep- licable, ESP outcome from one of Price's "satisfactory tests?" Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HYMAN: PARA PSVCi40t OCICAL NIUARCH 939 iZ-i3-i994 09:39 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Price tells us, "that I myself b6eved in ESP about 15 years ago, after reading Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years, but I changed my mind when I became acquainted with the argument presented by David Hume in his chapter 'Of miracles' In An Enquiry Concerning Human Under- standing." So Hume iupplies him with his escape hatch. But all this seems unnecessarily dramatic. 'Price has fallen into A p4rticularly stark version of the False Dichotomy. He has been forced into the very position that Henry Sidgwick wanted for the critics. The best ESP evidence is so good that either the critic must admit the reality of psi or accuse the proponents of lying and fraud. in failing into this trap, one that critics from the days of Hare and Crookes right up to the present keep failing into, Price has needlessly attributed to thi Rhine and Scial results a level of evidential value which they cannot carry. At the time time, Price has im- plied that he Is sufficiently expert in parapsychological research that he can Infallibly judge when a given outcome unquestionably supports the conclusions of the experi- menters. In fact, I doubt that even the parapsychologists are ready to give such power to ai single experiment, even one so seemingly well-conducted as Soal's. Price writes as If, when confronted With experimental evidence for psi, such as can be obtained by reading Extra- Senso,ry Perception After Sixty Years or Modern Experiments in Telepathy, he mutt Immediately a) find ways to reject the findings on the basis of possi.ble sensory leakage, statit- tical artifacts, or loose experimental controls; or b) accept the outcome as proof of psi; or c) accuse the investigators of fraud if he can Imagine some scenario, no matter howw complex and unlikely, under which fraud could have oc- curred. Price just does not.understand either parapsycho- logical rmarch or scientific research in general if he truly believes these are the only alternatives open to him, Unfor- tunately, Price Is behaving like many of the other out- spoken crities of psychical research. To Price's credit, he has at least tried to make his basis for action explicit. Both Rhine and Soal, In their responses to Price's critique, eagerly accepted Price's implicit endorsement of their ex- perimental procedures. Soal commented that, "it is very tignificant'and somewhat comforting to learn that Price admit% that 'Most of Scial's work' cannot be accounted for by any combination of statistical artifact and senso(y leakage" [541 Sciat also examined in detail Price's various proposed schemes for faking the experiments (541; Price goai to great length in devising variations on this theme, but thary all d"nd on the Agent being In collusion with the chief Experimenter of with the Percipient, Now four of the Agents with whom Mrs. Stewart was highly successful were lecturers of high academic standing at Queen Mary College In the University of London. Two were sertior lecturers and the other two were mathematicians who had done distinguished creative work. A fifth Agent who was brilliantly "iccesiful over a long period was A senior civil servant, in fact - in assistant difector of mathematical ex- aminations In the CIO Service. Now is it plausible to %up- poss, that 1, as chief Experimenter, could persuade any of these man to enter into a stupid And pointless collusion to fake the experiments over a period of years? What had any of them to gain from such deplorable conduct? 111 had gone 1u any of them and suggested (ii Pricc recommends) that in A good cause a little deception would do no harm, I know quite plainly that the result would have been a first-clAtA sc.andal in university circles. Rhine found even more solace in Price's attack. !'Strange though it may seem, the publication of the George Price P.19 paper ... is, on the whole, a good event for parapsychology" J551, For one thing, it was a way of getting a lot of Instruc- tion on parapsychology before the scientific community. Rhine also felt Price's vivid portrayal of the potential Impor- tance of ESP was valuable. He welcomed Price's effective rebuttal against the standard criticisms against ESP. And Rhine especially liked the fact that Price focussed on the point that psi was Incompatible with the materialism of science [551: (Price], even more than any other critical reviewer, gives Indication of having felt the force of the evidence for ESP, When he turns than-albeit a bit too emotionally-and says that, according to the current concept of nature, ESP It Impossible and therefore the parapsychologists Must All be fakers, he at least draws the i6vA whore it can be squarely met. The answer of the. pArapsycholooist is: "Yes, either the present mechanistic theory of man is wrong-that is, lunda- mentally Incomplete-or, of course, the parapsychologists are all utterly mistaken." Orv of these opponents Is wrong; lake it, now, from the pages of Sciencol This recognition of the issue gives point to the findings of parapsychology in a way none can easily miss. Notice that Rhine and Price agree on some aspects of1hIs controversy. Both Rhine and Nice believe that if,theclalms of parapsychology are correct the foundations of science are seriously threatened, Rhine welcomes such a destruc* flon of what he calls materiallim. Price seems willing to take the most drastic measures to avoid this overthrow of what he calls the basic limiting principles. (Not all para- psychologists agree with Rhine that the acceptance of psi need be inconsistent with scientific materialism,) One issue Involves what It means for contemporary science to accept the reality of psi. This concerns matters that are currently controversial among philosophers of. science...And to, it It probably not fruitful to attempt to'cleal with them -here. Rhine ano Price also agree that the standard. arguments against parapsychological evidence do, not hold up. Accord ~ 1. Ing to reasonable scientific criteria, the evidence for psi is more than adequate. And so It Is at this point that both Rhine and Price want to have the showdown. Price, as a defender of the materiAlittic faith, putt all his.money on the hope that the parapsychologists have faked the data. He has no evidence to back this claim, But It he can invent possible scenarios wherebye trickery might hive been com- mltted in a given experiment, then he believes he can, under license from David Hume, assume that fraud must have taken place. He it not completely dogmatic about this. If the parapsychologist can come up with positive results in at least one experiment conducted under what PHce con- siders to be fraudproof conditions, then Price has corn- mitted himself to accept the consequences. Many issues are raised by Price's dramatic confrontational posturing, At this point, I will just mention one. Price goes beyond conventional scientific practice when he empowers a given experiment with the ability to prove the existence of psi. Once we realize that no experiment by Itself clefi- nitely establishes or disproves a scientific claim, then Price's extreme remedies to save his image of science become unnecessary. No matter how well-designed and seemingly flawless a given experiment, there is always the possibility that future considerations will reveal previously unforicen loopholes and weaknesses, indeed, a careful analysis of the Soal experiment wlif reveal a variety of weaknesses. For example, in spite of the number of observers and expwimonters, Soal always had control over the prepared target sequences or over the W Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO389MAQI Z#THIE ME, VOL.'74, NO. 6. JUNE 19B6 12-13-1994 09:40 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 basic recording, And both ShAckleton and Stowart only procILICild succvsrftfl rpiult% when Soal wai IrImsmit. 0o ono octa,don, without informing Soll, his co-inve0gator Mr,~, Goldney conducted a sitting with Shackletoo. The outcome was unsuccessful, The American parapfiychologist J. C Pratt (an a series of experiments with Mrs. Stewart without Soil's presence. No evidence for psi was found, And whireas all Rhine's results showed no difference between telepathic and clairvoyance trials, both Shackleton and Mrs. Stewart produced successful results only on telepathic trials. Fur- thermore, in spite of the'much vaunted meAsures to guard against sensory leakage, the actual experimental setup, when carefully considered, offered a variety of possibilities for Just such unwitting communication. None of the. foregoing considerations, in themselves, account for Soai's findings. But they make superflous, I would argue, the hasty assumption that the findings can only be explained either by psi or some elaborate form of dishonest collusion. THE DiscitEDITING Of SCIAL As It turns out, if 5oal did cheat-and it now seems almost certain that he did, he almost certainly did so In ways not envisaged by either Price or Hansel. The sconikricts generated by these two critics involved collusion among several of the principals. Soal apparently managed the fraud entirely an his own, or, at most, with the collusion of one other person. Furthermore, he probably used a variety of different ways to accomplish his goals. if it had not been for a series of seemingly fortuitous events, Soal's experiment might still occupy the honored place in the parapsychologists' exhibits of evidence for psi [561-(60]. The discrediting of Scial's data occurred through a number of revelations during the period from 1955 through 1978, Up until 1978 the Accumulation of evidence sug- gested that something was highly suspicious about the records in the Shakleton experimenti. The case was strong enough to discredit Soalg' result* in the judgment of some leading parapsychologists, but many others still defey%ded Soal's findings. The final blow to the credibility of Soal's results came In 1978 when Betty markwick published her article "'rho Soa(-Coldney experiments with Basil Shackleton: New evi- dence of data manipulation" [601. As with the previous revelations of peculiarities In the data, Markwick's stunning (Indings arose out of a series of fortultious incidents. The story is much too complicated to relate here, Essen- tially, Markwick had begun a rather elaborate, project to clear Soal of the accumulating charges that he had tampered with the data. Her plan involved searching the records with the aid of a computer to find subtle patterns which, If they existed, would account for the anomalies found by the critics and would vindicate 5oal. Markwick did not find such patterns. Instead, she discovered previously unnoticed patterns that could be accounted for if one assumed that Soal had used a sophitticated plan for inserting "hits" into the records while he was apparently summarizing and checking the results, Reluctantly, she was forced to con- clude that only the hypothesis of deliberate tampering with the data could explain her findings 1601. Proter,taflom to the off(-.ct that sual, a rmlwcteri sciantist, would not havo 4 heatod in hi,. own nxpvrimvni~-And ilot anyway Ihr risornu~ experimental ronditioni, in the -ril-s rime-ludc,cl fratiol-wern to rnp to (arry Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : 1:;IA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 MAN; FAIfA)-SVcH0I,0rICAL ACSIANCH P.20 little wi-ight in the farr, of thr evidviu-n. we can rarefy lathom kmv i toliwist,achieve opeir md rwrhaps Soil W.1% IN LIOW1 It $~ IL0114' 141 MgLll' 111,11 the orison cell Is escapi-litool whoo t1w inniaw hak Ovarly Know. Markwick, obviously dismayed at having discovered that Soal almost certainly faked his data, suggests two possible explanations for why he might have done so. One of her hypotheses made usp of the well-known fact that Scial sometimes did automatic writing in a dissociated state. Maekwick suggested the possibility that Scial may have had a split personality and that the cheating was done by his other self. Markwick's second hypothesis involved data massage and has more universal psychological plausibility (although it Is not necessarily inconsistent with her first hypothesis). She assumes that Soal's enormous accumulation of negative ESP findings were obtained legitimately. She also assumes that his past hoc finding of consistent displacement effects in the data of EU611 Shackleton and Gloria Stewart was also legitimate (601. Having embarked upon the Shackleton series, one may Imagin# the scoring rate begins to fide (as ESP scores are wont to do after the initial flush of success). Soal, seeing the chance slipping away of gaining sciontific recognition for Parapsychology, & cause in which he passionately believes, succumbs to the temptation of "rectifying" a "temporary" deficiency, Markwick's second scenario is consistent with known patterns in which scientists have tampered with their data (61), (62). The components appear to be: 1) the investigator believes, on the basis of previous experience, that the phenomenon under investigation is "real", 2) for some unknown reason his current research falls to reveal the phenomenon; 3) If he reports negative results his readers might wrongly believe that the phenomenon does not exist: 4) as a result, the "truth" and assumed positive conw quences of the phenomenon might be lost to humanity. Given these ingredients, it takes a very small step for the #Investigator to convince himself that he Is helping both the truth and a good cause along by doctoring his clata. William James, with reference to his experiences In psy chiral research, suggested that cheating in order to con vince others of the "reality" you know to be the case might be defensible. James discussed this matter in his last assay on: hical research. He referred to the policy of English PSYC Investigators to consider a modium who has been caught cheating as one who always cheats, He inclicatted that he thought this had generally been a wise policy (2], But, however wise as a policy the S.P.A.1 maxim may have been, as a test of truth I believe it to be almost irrelevant, In most things human the accusation of dallbeeate fraud and falwhoad Is grossly superficiml. min's character Is too to- phisticaily mixed for the alternative of "honest or dishonest" to be a sharp one, Scientific men themselves will cheat-at public lectures-rather than lot exp4riments obey their well-known tendency towards failure. James gave two examples of such cheating. And then revealed the following about his own behavior (2): To compare small men with great, I have myself cheated shamelessly, in lho early day% of tho Sanders Theater at Harvard, I once had charge of a heart on the physiology of which Professor Newell Martin was giving a popular lecturm. This hisart, which belonged 10 1 Wftle, supported in indf-K- straw whit h throw a moving0adow, greafly enlarged, upnn the Ncrenn, whili, tho lioari pulsalod. Whon rrAain nerves. were stimulated, th'. Iocluff!( %Aid, tho hotArt would vt if, 641 T i 4 Ili 12-13-1994 09:41 703+482+1444 P.21 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800 330001-4 certain ways which he described, But Because bols Are relatively meaningless the poor heart was too the sym and uni-tr%r- far Some and. although It stopped dvlyesting, when the nerve of the repetitive ' guessing over many trials is bming s tother. and, according a(lest was excitod, that was the finalto the end (it its life parapsychologists, contributes to holh Pukilding over the performance. I wAs a lack re(riled at the flisco. of motivation and emotional involvement which and found myself suddenly acting likf- one of those mililairy might be needed geniuses who on the field of battio. for the convert disaster into effective functioning of psi, As a result, ctory. There was no time for ditliberailon,one break so, with my vvith v the past I Is the increased use forefinger under a part of the straw of more that cast no shadow, I complex and meaningful targets such as reproduc. found myself impulsively and avtornaticallytions of imititing the paintings, travel slides, geographical locations, and rhythmical movements which my colleagueemotionally had prophesied laden the heart would undergo. I kept the photographs. experiment from failing; In addition, instead of the, And not only saved my collealivo (and forced-choice the iurtla) from procedure of the card-guessing, most exi., humiliation Mat but for my pretence "nters of mind would have allow free-responding on the part of their per been their lot, but I established In ents, Perciplents the audience the true Are encouragedi on a given trial, to it,. view of the subject. The lecturer wit stating thit; and the associate and describe, both in words and in drawirigs misconduct of one h&lf-dead specimen . of heart ought not to whatever destroy the impression of his words. comes "There Is no worse lie to mind. The use of free responses com- than a truth misunderstood," is a maxinipilicates which I have heard enormously the problems of scoring and statistic;1 analysis. ascribed to a former vene(Ated Presidentout parapsychologists of Harvard, Th a Wieve the added complica. heart's failure would have been misunderstood by the audl- tions are a small price to pay it the newer procedures encQ and given the lie to the lecturer,produce It was hard enough to better psychic functioning. make them understand the subject anyhow; so that even Along with now as I write in cool blood I Am temptedthe free-response to think that I designs, parapsychologists acted quite correctly. I was acting have renewed for the larger truth, at any their interest in the possibility that psycl-cr rate, however 40tornatically... To functioning this day the memory of may be enhanced in altered states such that critical emergency his made rne feel charitable towards dreaming, hypnosis, meditation, se nsory-dep rived stai. all mediums who make phenomena come in one way when and progressive they won't come easily In another. relaxation. on the principles oflhe The basic idea is that the-, $.P.R., my conduct on that one occisionaltered ought to discredit state& greatly reduce or block attention to external everything I ever do, everything, for sensory example, I may write in Information while, at the same time, increasin8 this article-a manifestly unjust conclusion.attention to internal mentation. Under such conditions it it I wonder if James would have approved hypothesized of the way that the 0 signal is easier for the percipient William Crookes covered up the cheatingto detect of the medium because It has less competition from sensory Mary Showers in behalf of "the larger Inputs truth?" Mary Showers [64). One survey of 87 experiments in which percipi- a young medium, conducted at least ents were one joint seance with in an altered state found that 56 percent reported Florence Cook in Crooke&, home, Apparentlysignificant Crookes had hitting of targets (651. several other sittings with Mary, DanielAnother 'Home presumably departure from the Rhine paradigm was stimt heard rumors that Crookes might be fated by having an affair with developments In electronic technology. Ps! exper. the young Mary Showers, Crookes wrote ments employing a letter to Horne Random Event Generators began In the explaining how the scandal had originated1970s. [631. Electronic equipment could be used to generate random targets as well &% automatically record the percipi- According to Crookes he had obtained -ent's a complete confet- responses and keep running tallies of the hits. Al- Von from Mary Showers In her own handwritingthough that her such equipment phenomena were wholly dependent upon has been trickery and the used to test ESP, the most ocassional us* of an accomplice. Crookeswidespread said, however, use has been in the study of psychokinesis, in that he had undertaken not to reveal sueh experiments the fact that Mary was an operator or "Psychie' attempts to bias fraudulent even to her own mother, the output because of "the very of a random event generator by mental means great injury which the cause of truth would suffer if so May, Humphrey, " and Hubbard found repow alone. In 19M Impudent A fraud were to he publicly , exposed. of 214 such experiments,- 1174 of which show statistlca, evidence for an anomalous perturbation-a factor of nearl,. THE POST-RHINE ERA seven times chance expectation" 1661, Rhine's card-guessing paradlim dominatedA third experimental major departure has been the so-called "Remote parapsychology from 1934 to at least Viewing" the 1960s. Since the paradigm t221, 1241, 1281, 167], (681. The claims 1960s card-guessing experiments have made for played a minor role. the ability of this procedure to consistently dem- Contemporary parapsychologists have onstrate deviated from Rhine's ESP with a variety of perdpient& are perhaps the ' ' strongest both the ever put di forth f by parapsychologists I [281. Rhi n d ne I s para i ways. n a var para ety o igm gm possible targets and the possible responses are severely restricted. The targets consist of five, deliberately neutral and simple, symWs. And, on each trial, the percipient Is restricted to calling out the name of one of these possible live symbols, From a strictly methodological viewpoint these restrictions have several advantages. most percipients have no strong preferences for any of the symbols, randomizing of targets is straightforward; scoring of hits and misses is unambiguous, and the siatlitical calculations are fairly standard. But these same features have been blamed by contem- porary investigators for the lack of Impressive findings sinck. th(, spoctacular woring reponed by Rhine in 1934 1461. Our laboratory experiments suggest to us that anyone who fMi comfortable with the idea of having parartormal ability Can have h... . in our experiments, we have never found anyone who could not learn to perceive ticenei, including buildings, roads, And people, even those at great distances and blocked from ordinary pisriception... . We have, as of this writing, carried out succotiful remote viewing owpari- ments with about twenty participants, Almost all of whom o us withoutany prior experience, and In some cases, came I with little interest in pivehic functioning. So for, we cannot idantity a single individual who has not succeeded in a remote vievvinS task to his own satisfaction. In a more rp(-Pnt aisessement of remote viewing, Targ and Harary assivi, "in laboratorie; acms; this ctikilitry, and 842 eftli'818INGI OF '110 1(11, VLA. 74, NO, h. AM left Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330 fill 12-13-1994 09:42 703+482+1444 - Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 Ili manv othpr nations as well, forty-iix exrwrimrnial svrie4 Iwvr invi-%ligawd (emote viewing. Twenty-three 411 liv-se invt-stigations have reported successful rosulls and pro- duced statistically significant data, where th(ev would he expected" [681, A fourth emphasis has been the study of personality correlates of the alleged psi ability (481, In 'addition to the experimental programs on altered states, random event generators, remote viewing, and per- ionality correlates contempmary parapsychologists have been actively doing research in other areas. The various chapters In the Handbook of Parapsychology provide a good idea of the range of topics 148). The research on reincarnation, survival after death, paranorma( photography, psychic metal bending, poltergeist phenomena, haunfings, and faith healing, while admittedly colorful, does not de- serve the serious attention of scientists-at least not in its current state. I suspect that most serious parapsychologists would also not want to rea their case on such research. Today the paraP5y1Ch0I03i$1fi who want the scientific establishment to take their work seriously do not offer for inspection the evidence that previous generations of psy- chic researchers believed was sufficient-the findings of Hare, Wallace, Crookes, Gurney, Rhine, or Soal. Nor do they offer up the reporu on reincaration, psychic healing, paranormal photography, spoon bending, psychic detec- tion, and the related phenomena which so readily appeals to the media and the public. instead, they ask us to look at the trends and patterns which they find In research pro- grams carried out in a variety of different parapiychological laboratories, Two aspects of this new type of claim are worth noting. One is the admission that a single investigation, no matter how seemingly rigorous and fraud-proof, 'cannot be accept- able as tclentific evidence. The idea of a single "critical experiment" is a myth. The second, and related, aspect Is that replicability it now accepted as the critical requirement for admission into the scientific marketplace. Both proponents and critics have previously assumed, either tacitly or explicitly, that the outcome of a single investigation could be critical. Sidgwick believed that the results of the investigation of the Creery sisters were of this nature. The evidence was so strong, he, argued, that the critics either had to now either accept the reality of telepa- thy or accuse the investigators of fraud 1301, Carpenter, rather than withhold judgment until independent Investiga- tors had either succeeded or failed in attempts to replicate Crookes' experiments with Home, acted as It he either had to agree to Crookes' claim or prove that Crooket had been duped, Both Price and Hansel insisted that it would be sufficient for Rhine and Soal to convince them of ESP If a parapsychology could perform successfully a single "fraud- proof" experiment, The myth of the single, crucial experiment has resulted In needless controversy and has contributed to the False 131- chotomy. Flow is just one who has argued convincingly that I singip, unreplicated event which allegedly attests to a miracie, is simply a historical oddity which cannot be pan of a scientific argument [31 Apparently not all parapsychologists are convinced that the achievement of a repeatable psi experiment it either necessary or desirable for the advancement of parapsychol- ogy. The lato J. G. Prat( argued that, "Psi is a spontaneous P.22 occurrence Ili nAturo. and wt, can lit) more predict precisely whisft it 1% goilig to mi Ell Ili (list (jroftilly planned and tigorovsb. kontrOll(ld VKI)Primvnt,. flian wv tmi in (,vvty4ii% lite psychk expedencvi... . Predictable repeatability il; unattainable because of the nature of the phenomena" 1691. Pratt argued that parapsychology should give up the quest for the replicable experiment-an Impossible goal Ili his opinion-and concentrate upon accumulating enough data on anomalous happenings to convince scientists and the public that psi is real. Other parapsychologists, how- ever, realize that scientists are not going to be convinced until some semblance of replicability has been achieved, The late Gardner Murphy, while noting that replicability was not neces5ary for scientific acceptability in some areas of science, argued that for supporting claims for such irra- tional phenomena as psi, replicability was necessary. And, speaking as one of the dominant figures in parapsychology in 1971, he made it clear that he felt that parapsychology had a long way to go before it achieved replicabia results 1701. Perhaps Honarton's position represents the contern- porary position of the major parapsychologists 171): Parapsychology will stand or fall on its ability to demon- strate toplicable and conceptually meargrigful findingi. Fu- ture critics who are Interettad in the resolution rather than the perpetuation of the. psi controversy are advised to focus their attention on systematic lines of research which are capable of producing such findings. PSI AND REPEATABILITY As tho preceding quotation indicates, Honorton believes that critics should focus on "systematic lines of r"earch" whIch apparently display replicable and/or "conceptually meaningful" findings. And, as we have seen, contemporary parapsychologists have offered us a number of such sys- tematic lines to demonstrate that they have, In fact, already achieved the goals of repeatability and conceptual mean- Ingfulness. The claims put forth in behalf of the altered state, random event generator, and remote viewing para- digms have already been cited. Similar claims have been made for work on correlates of psi such as attitudes and personality [72). What can we expect if a critic, in an effort to be open- minded and responsible, accepts the challenge of Honorton and his fellow parapsychologists to eumine the accu- mulated evidence from one or more of the "systematic lines" of inquiry? This challenge opens up a vadety of posisibilities. Which experiments should be Included In the evaluation? it is impractical to consider all the experiments In parapsychology because even in this relatively sparsley populated area the number is by now enormous. In just considering a subset of experiments in ft ESP area, Palmer, for example, covered approximately 700 experimental` re- ports [72). Including PK as well as ESP, I would estimate that, today, a determined critic, who wants to evaluato exhaustively all available experimental reports., might have to cope with upwards of 3000 expefiments. Given my recent experience in trying to do justice to just 42 exporl- ments on the Ganzfeld psi phenomenon 1731, 1 would estimate that it could take a re"nsible critic over five years of almost full-time effort to property evaluate this material, Another problem facing both tho proponent and critic is, Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HYhAAN: PARAPSYCHOLOCICAt KISIAACH $A3 12- '3_1 ov P.23 40AAWf or RePea+seWdd/118/1 0: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 once a suitable iample'af experiments has been selected, how to make an overall judgment about what patterns, trends, strength%, and weaknesses cha(acterize the sample. Up until recently, such a review of a body of literature has been an unstructured and highly subjective affair. Under- standably, two individuals surveying the same body of literature could, and did, often come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. As cognitive psychologists have emphasized, the cap4clty of humans to handle mentally a number of items it. severely limited, What constitutes an "item" varies greatly with the structure of the material and the Individual's previous familiarity and expertise in a given field of knowledge. Even within his field of speciality, a scientist would have great difficulty in trying to comprehend patterns in over a dozen or so reports without external aids and a systematic proce- dure. when the nonparapsychologist critic tries to make sense of a large body of parapsychological literature, he is at a great disadvantage. His critical capacities have not been trained to pick out relevant from irrelevant details in seek- ing Interrelationships. LAcking concrete experience with many of the experimental designs, he ls,at a decidededis- advantage in knowing what things could go wrong and which sorts of controls would be critical. And when the number of separate reports Is more than a dozen or so, he cannot be expected to. be able to grasp the total picture without help from systematic and quantitative surnmariza- tion procedures. Yet, so far as I can tell, only two critical evaluations of J$systematic lines" of parapsychological research have ever been carried out with any procedure approximating sys, tematic, explicit, and quantitative guidelines. Roth of these were carried out fairly recently. One was by Charles Akers, a former parapsychologist with both experience and pub- 11cations in the field (74). The other was by myself, acting as an external critic who accepted the parip5ychologists'chal- lenge to fairly evaluate a systematic line of research which they feel represents their strongest case for the repeatable experiment E731, J?SJ. AKERS' METHOOOLOGICAL CRITICISMS Of PARAPSYCHOLOCY Akers' methodological evaluation of contemporary para- psychological research represents a landmark in para- psychological criticism. Akers, who holds a Ph.D. degree in Social Psychology, has worked as a parapsychologist In Rhine's laboratory and knows the contemporary scene from the inside, After a careful selection procedure, Akers arrived at a sample of 54 ESP experiments. These experiments had all been cited in the Handbook of Parapsychology or other parapsychological literature as exemplars of the evidential database. The selection was restricted to studies in which significant results had been claimed for a sample of rela- lively unselected percipienft. He excluded unpublished re- ports, studies which were reported only as abstracts or convention reports. and studies which were exploratory or preliminary to a stronger replication. He also excluded experiments which produced scores in the wrong direction ("psi missing") [74). tho final ~;amplr of 54 expefimrnt~ i~ fairly 4-nmpletv, if It 61 not irw-lumve, it ii at least reprrwntative of fintfinKs in aliewd %tati- anti pemon4ty rp%rarck. Akers then screened all his 54 itudles sequentially througi, vach of his several criteria to tee how many could p&.~, through all of them. He first looked at how many of thF- studies used inadequate randomization of the tafgPIS. Al- though he found almost half of the studies used inferior methods to randomize targets he considered this to be a 'Orninor contaminant," In his opinion, such randomization failures as he observed would not be sufficient to account for the above chance results which each of those studip, obtained. , Next he looked at the possibility of sensory leakage. Fc example, in several of the Ganxteld experiments the agent handled the slide or picture which served as the target. Later the percipient was given that very same target along with some foils and asked to select which item had been the target. in such a situation either Inadvertent or de- liberate cueing it clearly a possibility. A parapsychologist should not be entitled to claim ESP as the explanation for a successful selection by the percipient under such cir- cumstances. Akers assigned a flaw to any experiment which had this or one of his other categories of possibilities for sensory leakage. As many as 22 of the 54 experiments were cited for having at least one flaw of the sensory leakage kind (some had more thin one kind). in a similar fashion, Akers checked for security problems, recording errors, optional stopping, data selection, inade- quate documentation, multiple testing, and some ad- ditional flaw& of a technical mature. on each criterion, Akers assigned a flaw only if, In his opinion, the defect was sufficient to account for the above chance hitting actually reported (741, Results from the 54-experiment survey have demonstrste-d that there are many altorrutive explanations for ESP phe- nomena; the choice Is not simply between psi and experi- mantar fraud.., . The numbers of experiments flawed on various grounds were at follows: eandornization failures (13), -sensory leakage (22), subject cheatinj (12), recordinS errors (10). classification or scoring offers (9), statistical effort (12), repGtting failures (10)_ , All told, 85 percent of the experi- mants wets considered flawed (46/S4). In other words, only 8 of the 54 experlments-all of which were selected to be best cases-were free of at least -one serious flaw on Akers' criteria. But Akers points out a number of reasons to be concerned about the adequacy of even these "flawless" studies f741. in conclusion, there were eight owperiments conducted with remnable care, but none of these could be considered as m#thodologlcally strono. When all 54 experiments are con- ildered, It can be stated that the research methods aro too w&&k to establish th* *xistence of a parinornul phenome- non, Akers' conclusion is especially damaging to the case for psi because he leaned over backwards to give the benefit of doubt to the experimenters. in some cases where the docu- mentation was incomplete, Akers assumed that the investi- gator had taken the proper precautions against itensory leakage. And Akers did not assign flaw% to exlx%riments if their randomization procedures were leis thin optimal (he considered this to be only a "minor coniaminant"). Experi- ments that were deficient on his other criteria such as optional stopping and others were not assigned flaws if. on Akers' judgment, the deficiency on that criterion was iniuf- ficient to have caused the total number of hits. in other words, Akers was not judging whether thr owperimmil had a44 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO380M~ddlYi;-'A~""""'~ Vot. 74. No. b, JuNi tam 12-13-1994 09:44 703+482+1444 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 P.24 met standards of scientific acceptability, but rather, he was assigning flaws it a given deficiency by ilself was suffirirnt to have accounted for the results. And, finally, Akers did not considpr the possibility that combinations of deficien- cles, each in thernielves being Insufficient, might have been more than enough to account for (he reported find- ingg. HYMAN'S CRITIQUE Of THE GANZFELD EXPERIMINTS Although Akers' and my critiquet were conducted iride- pendently, and although our samples and procedures dif- fered In many important ways, we came to euentially the same conclusion. In spite of claims for both stlentific con- firmation of psi and repeatibility within certain systematic lines of research, both Akers and I concluded that the best contemporary research in parapsychology does not survive serious and careful scientific icrutiny, Parapsychology is not yet ready to bring Its case before the general scientific public. My approach was to look for a research program In parapsychology that consisted of a series of experiments by a variety of investigators and that was considered by para- psychologists as especially promising. I quickly discovered a systematic body of research which Many of the leading parapsychologists considered to be the most promising one on the contemporary scene. This research program was based on the Canzfeld/psi paradigm. The word "Canzfeld" is Cerman for total field. it is used to describe a technique in the study of perception which createi a visual field with no I nhomogenel ties. The mollva- lion for creating such a visual field stems from certain theoretical predictions of Gestalt psychology. A recently developed and simple procedure for creating such a Ganzfe(d is to tape halves of ping pong balls over the eyes of subjects. A bright light It then directed to the covered eyes. The percipient experiences a visual field with no discontinuities, and describes the percept" effect as like being in a fog. The parapsychologists became interested in the Ganzfeld when it was reported that subjects who experience the Ganzfeld quickly enter into a pleasant, altered state. They adopted it as a quick and easy way to place perciplents Into a state that they felt would be conducive to the reception of psi signals. In a typical Ganzfeld/psl experiment, the percipient has the pin pong balls taped "t his "s and then is placed In it comfortable chair or reclines on a bed. In addition to -a bright light shining on the hahed ping pong balls, white noise or the sound of ocean surf Is fed into the perciplent's ears through earphones. After 15 min or so in this situation, the percipient Is presumed ready to receive the psi signal. An agent, In another room or building, is given a target which is ran- domiy selected from a small pool, say, of four pictures (the pool of pictures has been selected, in turn, by random means from & large collection of such pools), The agent concentrates or studies the target during a predetermined time interval. At the some time the percipient, isolated in a relatively sound-proofed chamber, freely describes all the associations and impresilons that occur to him during the tending interval, At the end of the session the halved ping pong balls are removpd. The pool of pictures for that trial, including the target, art, brouRht to the perciplonT. Tho percoent then indicate-q, by rankinR or rating, how t lose each of the Items in the pool are to thp impressions Ihal occurred to him or her during the Ganzfeld session. The most typical scodrig procedure classifies the outcome as a "hit" it the percipient correctly judges the actual target as closest to the Ganzfeld Impressions. In the typical experiment & pool of four target candidates is used an each trial. Over a number of trials, the percipi- ents would be expected to achieve hits on 25 percent of the trials just by chance, If the actual rate of hitting Is significantly above this chance level, then it is assumed, given that proper experimental controls have been em- ployed, that ESP has probably operated. Charles Honorton, the parapsycholoSist who first pub- lithed a Canzfeld/psi experiment 176) and who also has strongly defended the paradigm as "psi conducive," re- sponded to my request for cooperation by undertaking to supply me with copies of every relevant report between 1974-the date of the first published Ganzfeld/o qxperi- ment-and the end of 1OW-the year I made the roquett. In January 1982 1 received a package containing 600 pages of reports on the Ganileld/p6i experiment, The experiments in the database given to me for ex- amination were extracted from 34 separate reports written or published from 1974 through 1981. By Honcirton's count, these 34 reports described 42 separate experimerim Of these, he classified 23 as having achieved overall iignifl- cance on the primary measure of psi at the 0.05 level, This successful replication rate of 55 percent is consistent with earlier estimates of success for this paradigm which ranged from So to $8 percent 173). Approximately half of these experiments had been published in refereed Journals or monographs. The remainder had appeared only as abstracts or papers delivered at meetings of the Parapsychological Association. The studies had been authored by 47 different investigators, many of thorn prominent members of the Parp6ychological Association. The details of my analysis and'my conclusions have been published in the Jourrwif of Parapsychology [73). The time issue of that journal contains Honorton's detailed rebuttal to my critique 1771. Hem I will merely supply the barebones of my critique. 1) 1 first examined the claim that the proponion of tuc- cessful replications of the Ganzfeld/psi experiment was 55 percent. This estimate, It turned out, was based upon a number of questionable assumptions, Much ambiguity ex- Isis as to what the unit of analysis should be. In some cases, the individual experimental conditions within a single com- plicated experlm*nt were each counted as separate "experi- ments," in other cages, the pooled data over a number of separate experimental conditions were counted as a single unit. That this can make a difference Is shown by the fact that when I tried to apply a consistent criterion to the database for determining individual units, I came up with a success rate closer to 30 thin to 50 percent. Other consider- ations such as unknown experiments lead me to conclude that the actual succest rate, defining "success" according to Honorton's criterion, was probably around X percent. 2) But even a success rate of 30 percent is impre6sive if the actual rate of success to be expected by chance was the assumed 5 percent. I pointed to a Yarlimy of examplos in which multiple tissts were aWied to the same data in such Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HYMAN: PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL 4164ARC#f 845 12-13-1Q94 09:4 703+482+1444 P.25 APP a For Relibase 2000/08/16: CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 both a way as to Inflate the actual probability for success just by chance ovc..e the assumed rate. Taking into consideration a number of factors, I estimated that the actual chance level could easily be 25 percent or higher. 3) In addition to analyses that inadvertently inflated the significance levels, I noted a number of other departures from optimal experimental procedure that could have artifi. cially contributed to the outcomes, These flaws could be clustered Into three categories: Security, Statistical, and Pro- cedural. Security flaws included failure to preclude sensory cues as well a& loose monitoring of critical aspects In the experiment. Statistical flaws consisted of wrong use of statistical procedures. Procedural flaws consisted of inade- quate randomization of targets, incomplete documentation, and possible problems at feedback. What was both surpris- ing and dismayinS to me was that not a single experiment In the database was free from at least one of these defects. These defects were chosen to be those that I assume most parapsychologists would agree should not be part of a well-conducted expement. 4) 1 tried to make it clear that I was not assuming that these flaws were the cause of the observed results. Rather, I assumed that the presence of such defects could be taken as a symptom that the experiment had not been conducted with adequate care. indeed, it was clear that at least some of the experiments In the database had been Intended to serve only as pdot or preliminary experiments, Neverthe- less, I did look at the correlation between the three clusters and success of the experiment. Although the Security and the Statistical clustert did not correlate with outcome, the Procedural cluster did correlate with the probability of obtaining a iignificant outcome. Hononon strongly dis- agrees with this conclusion [771. As a result of my detailed examination of the claims for the Ganzfeld/psl findings, I concluded my long report as follows (73): in conclusion, the current data barm has too many prablarris to be seriously put before outsiders as evidence for psi, The types of problems exhibited by this data base, however, suggest Interesting challenges for the parapsychological community. I would hope that both parspsycholosists and critics would wish to have parsptychological experiments conducted according to highest it"ards possible. If one goal is to convince the rest of tht scientific community that the parapsychologims can produce data of the highiiii qual- ity, then It wouid b~* a t*rrible mmake to employ tho turriint Ganzfeld/poi data base for this purpose. Perhaps the Para- psychological As"ation can lead the way by s4ttIng down guidelines as to what should constitute an adequate con- firmatory exptriment. And, them, when a sufficiont number of itudies have accumulated which meet these guidellnei, they can be presented to the rest of the scientific commun- ity as an skimple of what parapsychology, &I its best, can achieve, if studies carried out according to thm guidelines alio continue to yield roolls suggestive of psi, then the outside scientific community should be obliged to take notice. Honorton, not surprisingly, disagrees with my conclu- sions ". After my critique was completed, Honorton car- ried out a revised and different analysis of the database. He claims his new analysis eliminates my criticisms about in- ft&t*d significance leveifi. Honorton also developed his own --.iX evaluating the methodological quality of each ."s alcv:i"ng to his ratings, there Is no correlation 4011(plerifftAll And its OutConre. The problem that of us face when judging the quality of the individual experiments is that we are doing this after the fact. Although we agree on several of our ratings, we tend to disagree in ways which suggest our presumed biases. Honortan tend% to find more defects in the unsuccessful experiments than I do. Qn the other hand, I tend to find more defects in the successful experiments than Honorton does, in the absence of double-blind rat- ings, this aspect of our disagreement represents a stalemate. However, whether one uses Honorton's or my ratings, the number of departures from accepted methodological procedure it unacceptably'hi8h for this database. Although Honorton and I disagree on whether the observed flaws weaken the case for psi, we do not disagree that they exist. So far as I can tell, no parapsychologist has provided an explanation of why almost all of the experiments In this database have at least one of these flaws. CONCLUSIONS With the exception of the contemporary parapsychclogi- cal literature, the evidence for psi reviewed in this paper comes from investigations which today's parapsychologists would not put before us as part of their strongest case for psi. Many of these parapsychologists might believe I was being unfair in dwelling upon these castoffs from the past. But it Is just this fact that the cases I have examined are now castoffs which brings up Important questions about how to approach the contemporary evidence. Each of the cases from the past which I have discussed were, in their own time, considered to be by the para- psychologists of that day examples of scientifically sound evidence for psi. it is only subsequent generations, for the most part, who have set the preceding exemplars aside. in some cases the reasons for the abandonment of what was o!);e a foundation stone in the case for psi are clear, Subsequent investigators or critics found previously unre- cognized defects in the studies or strong su5p4cions of fraud had been generated. other experimental paradigms have disappeared from the clatabase for less obvious rea- sons. Some previously mxressful paradigms have disappeared because they no longer teem to yield significant results. others such as the sheep-goalt design seem to have simply gone out of fashion. One major parapsychologist once told me that it seems to be the ultimate fate of every succeisful paradigm to eventually lose its ability to yield significant results. He believed this was related to the fact that psi depends both upon the novelty of the design and the motivations of the experimenter. At first a now paradigm generates excitement and optimism, out after It has been around fcw a while, the initial excitement and enthusiasm abates and the experimenter no longer communicates the original emotions that accompanied the paradigm when it was still relatively new. But, whatever the reason, each generation'i best case f(w psi is cast aside by subsequent generations of parapsycholo- gists and are replaced with newer, more up-to-date best cases, Not only does the evidence for psi lack replicabilily, but, unlike the Pvidence from other 5ciences, it is non- cumulative. it I~ as if each new generation wipes the slatv clean and begin; all over again, Consequently, tho vviden- 4r1% Of VOk. 74, W% 1, ILIN4 I VW- 1-4 12-13-i9R4 09:46 703+482+1444 P.26 pproved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001,4 tial database for psi is always shifting. Earlier caqrs are dropped and rk-placed with newer and seemingly morv promi-,ing fin(-. of rewarch, (One (if the rvadws of this paper argue,. that it is only partially true that parapsycho- lugical research is noncumulative. Although hii argument might have some validity, I do not think it changes the point I am making here.] The late J. G, Pratt, In challenging his parapsychological colleagues' hopes for a repeatable experiment, wrote [69j: One could almost pick a date At random since 1882 and find in the literature that someone 4omewheto had raepritly obtained results described in terms implying that others should bo. able to confirm the findings. Among thost, per- sws or groups reflecting such enthusiasm are the S,P.R. Committee on Though t-TrAnsfere nce; Richard HoSson (In his investigation of Mrs. Piper); Fellding, Saggally, and Carrington (in their Pilladino investigations); J. 8. Rhine (work repdrtL*d in Fkrrt-,C*mory Petception); Whalely C~rlngton (in his work on paranormal cognition of drawings); Gertrude Schmeidler (in her sheep-gomt work); Van avssbach, And Anderson and White (in their research on teacher-pupil attitudes); the Malmon4des dr*Am $Wdidl; thd Stepanek investigators; the Invesilgaiors of Kulagina'i directly-observable PIC effects; research using the ganzfeld technique: and the SRI investilatorl ("remote viewing"). One after Another, however, the specific ways of working used in these initially successful psi projects have fallen out of favor and faded from the research scene-except for the latt,.st investigations which, one, may reasonably suppose, have not yet had enough time to falter and fade away as others befor* thorn have done. When Pratt wrote those words in 1978, the "latest investi- gations" included the Ganzfeld/psi experiments, the Re- mote viewing investigations, and the PIK research using Random Event Generators. These %could have been among the contemporary investigations which, given Pratt's petil- mistic extra pol ati ons, "one may reasonably suppose, have not yet had enough time to falter and fade away as others before them have done." Today, signs do seem to indicate that these seemingly "successful" lines of research may be much weaker than had been previously advertised (24], (741, [75). However, as always, new and more promising lines of work seem to be ready to take their place. Honorton and his colleagues at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories In Princeton, NJ, seem to be developing a number of very promising lines of research 1761, They have been developing a completely automated Yorsion of the Canzfeld experi- ment which eliminate% many of the problems raised by my critique, They have also been perfecting a "transportable" experiment-one that can be carried out by any Investi- gator who has access to an Apple personal computer. The experiment, also completely Automated, is a variation of the Random Event Generator paradigm but with a variety of built-in safeguards which apparently eliminate Almost all the options for multiple testing. Nearby, but completely Independent of the work going on at the Psychophysical Laboratories, is the research on anomalous phenomena being carried out by Robert Jahn and his associates In the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University [1), [791,1801. for more than five years Jahn and his associates have been perfecting the instrumentation and experimental designs for conducting sophisticated variations of both the remote viewing para- digrn and the PK work with random event generators. Although they have collected )jrgs, dalabasps for each of thest, paradignis, moo (if Ihv wilik has been ri-poried only in (vt fink al ri,porIN I hi, repoded fitidiiigs (lit wom iniprv.,- sivv,-but they htvi, vvt to be described in sufficient detail for a full-scale evaluation. And, givr~n both the scair. of the effort and the iophittication of the methodology and in- strumentation, it will be.many years before adequate repli- cations In Independent laboratories will be possible. As promising as this most recent work by Honorton and Jahn might seem to be, none of it has reached a stage where it is ready for a full-scale critical evaluation. Already, the sharp-eyed critic can detect both inconsistencies with previous findings in the same lines of research and depar- tures from ideal practice. As the history of parapsychology ieachet us, we will have to wait for several more years before we can adequately judge if somehow these West efforts can Avoid the fate that all their promising predecei- sors have suffered, Perhaps, however, history does not have to repeat itself In all its depressing aspects. And I can see some encourag- Ing signs of breaks with previous patterns in the way proponents carry out and defend their findings and th* way critics respond. Since its inception as an institutionalized undertaking, psychIcal research his suffered from the lack of relevant, informed, and constructive criticism. This particular de- ficiency seems to be changing. For one thing, the younger generation of parapsychologists have produced some inter- nal critics who are both knowledgeable and effective. In addition to Akers, there are others such as Susan Black- more, Adrian Parker, Gerd HISvelmann, and J. li. Kennedy who have recognized the current deficiencies of parapsychological research and have a strong commiltment to rals!ng the standards, Although It Is still difficult to find external critics who are both informed and constructive, one can see some Indications that this situation may also improve, Another positive sign is the attempt to replace subjective, impressionistic evaluations of 'the parapsychological liter- ature with more systematic, explicit assessments, Both Hortorton (77) and 1175) have uted "meta- 'analysis" In our dIspute over the adequacy of the Ganzfeld/psl database. "Meta-analysis" Is a term coined to describe the approach to. reviewing a body of research which makes the various phases as explicit and quantitative as feasible (81L [821. Tho approach to research integration rofermid to as I'moits- analysis" is nothInS more than the attitucW of data analysis applied to quantitative summaries of individual oup*rImenits. 8y recording the properties of studies and their findings In quantitative terms, tho meta-analyfis of research invites one whet would integrate murowous and diverse findings to apply the full power of statistical methods to the task. Thus 11 Is not A technique: rather it isda perspective that uses many techniqu*t of meawrerrwrit an statistical analysis. (From (811.) Meta-analysis is by no means a panacea. Much svblectiv- ity remains on such matters as which studies to include and exclude from tho sample, how to %core the "effect size" or degree of success of a study, what variables to include, how to assign studies values on the variables, and what should be the sampling unit. in addition, Many $6601LIS PrObiEMS have to be resolved about how to cope with the fact that individual studios are not independent and the analyses are Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 HVMAN; PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL RISAARCH a47 A 12-13-1~94 09:4 7R3+48J+i444 P.27 ApproveWFor R 000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 conducted "post hoc." Y01, it has many journals h explicit guidelines advantages over the have and minir, !I to establis previously unstructured and subirctive itandards. assessments. The. Then th,-y have to make sur.- that membeik o( reviewtr Is forced to make many more of their his or her stan- profession becomo~ fully awarn (if these staridard~ atvj dards and procedures explicit, The rmullingrecognize debate can be the necessity for living up to thrm. more focussed and the specific areas of disagreement can be pinpointed MCife aCCUfatilly. in addition, the use of quamitAtive summaries often brings out RiFtRENCES patterns and rela- tionships that would ordinarily escape the unaided re- viewer's cognitive limits. (11 R. G. Jahn, "The persistent paradox of psychic. phenompl,,, Along with an increase in more informed an engineering and construc- pe(spective," Proc. IEEE, vol. 70, pp. 136- 1 Feb. 1982. five. criticism there are signs that the 121 G. Murphy parapsychological and R. 0. Rallou, William ),amdNs on PAycliii community Is responsive and willing to Research. change both its New York, Viking Press, 1%9. procedures and claims in line with some 131 A, Flew, of the criticisms, "Parapsychology revisited: laws, miracles and mprm# Although we still disagree strongly on ability," many of the issues, In Philosophy And Parapsychology, ), Ludwig, Ed. Honorton has made many changes in his Buffalo, claims and proce- 141 NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 263-269. R. Hyman, "Pathological science: towards a proper diagnosis dures in a sincere effort to take some and remedy," of my criticisms into Zeteric Scholar, no. 6, pp, 31-39. July 19130, account [731,177]. At its 1984 annual (5) R. L. Moore, meetings in Dallas, TX, In Search of White Crows, Spiritualism, Par.- the Parapsychological Association established psychology a committee and American Wfure. New York: Oxford Univ. which will attempt to establish guidelines Press, 1977, for the perfor- 161 F. Podrnote, Mediums of the 19th Centur~% Now Hyde Park mance of acceptable experiments In various NY-. University lines of para- Books, 1%3 (two volumes), psychological research. Along with some (7) M. Faraday, major para- "Experimental investigation of tab(e-moving,' psychologists such as Honorton, the committee rho Athenaeum, Includes pp, 801403, July 2,1853, both Internal critics such as Akers and 191 R, Hare, external ones such as 6petimenral Investigation of the Spirit Monifesta 6ons, Demonitratingond myself Existence o(Spiefts and their Corn- . munion with My survey of psychical research from the Mortals: time of Hare Doctrine of the Spirit World Respect- ing Heaven, Nefl. Morality, and God. Also, (he Influonco of and Crookes to the present has suggested Scripture that, although on tho Morals of Christians, New York: Partricige & the specific evidence put forth to support Brittan, the existence of 1855. psi changes over time, many of the key (9] L. Shepard, issues and con- Ed., Encyclopedia of occultism and Parapsychol- ogy. Detroit, troversies have remained unchanged. The [101MI: Cale parap,,ychologists Remarch Co..,1978. 1, Allmov, Ajimov's Alagraphical Encyclopedia of Science still employ similar strategems to seemingly and Technology, enable them to New York: equinox, 1976, stick to their claims in the face of various(illW. George, incelsigtencies. iriologitt Philosopher., A Study of the life and And the critics, Sharing many assumptions Writings with the propo- of Alfred Russel WAll&ce. New York: AbelarJ- nents, still behave In rather emotional Schuman, and irrational ways. (1211464. M. 1. Kottler. "Alfred Russel WAIIACe. th9 origin of min, and Indeed, the level of the debate during spiritualism," the preceding 130 Isis, vol, 6S. pp. 145-192,1974, years has been in embarrassment for anyone(131F. M. Turner, who would Betwoeen Science and Religion: The Reaction to like to believe that scholars and scientists Scientific adhere to stan- Natural4i" IA Late Victorian Enghand. New Havon, - CT: Yale clards of rationality and fair play, Univ. Press, 1974. 1141A. It. Wallace, I suspect it is because the quality of My Life: the criticism his A Record of Events and Opiniosis. Now York: been so poor and its content so ob%iouily[151Dodd, Mead. irrelevant that & Co., 1906. R. G. medhurst, Ed., Crookesond the Spirit World. A Coller- parapsychologists have managed to live rion of Writings so long with the by or Concerning the Work of Sir William illusion that the quality of their evidence Crookes, was So much 0M., F.R,S., in the field of Psyeh;cal Research. New York: better than it really was, Both Akers .[161%plinger, and I were surprised to 1972, E. E. F. D'Albe, rho Litt of Sir William Crookes. New York: find how defective, in terms of the most D. Appleton elementary start- and Co.. 1924. clardt, the best of. the contemporary 11711. PalfremAn, parapsychological re. "William Crookes: spiritualism and science," fiearch really was. I know that some parapsychologists Ethics Sci. have mod., vol. 3, pp. 211-227. 07b. been surprised to realize how far the 118)S, 1. Davey, current status of psi "The Possibilities of mat-obte-tvation and lapse of memory frorn research departs from the professed standards a practical of their field. point of view: Experimental invotti- gation," Proc. Soc. Psychical Res., val. 4, pp. 405-495,,1887. And I would not be surprised that most of the rest of the 1-191E. ). Dingwall, Vofy Poculiar i People; f Portrait h Studim in l thil l do Park i nd th i Unc h Now H b th l Ab l sence o e n t e c anny, o norma ca A commun , e a Quew, systemat y ty, parapsyc og and critical surveys, had assumed that NY- Unlyrnsity their database was of 6ook%,l%2- a much higher quality than it, In fact, [201Hasted, The is. momi-fienders. London, England: Routledle Kegan Paul All this sugjests, as I have already Indicated.(2-11Ltd., 1961. that the R. Hyman, (Review of The Collor Papers], Th# Zeteric [ Ill#, parapsychological evidence, despite a Skeptical history of more than Inquirerl, vol.1, pp. 73-110, Fall/Wlnter 1147b, '130 years of Inquiry, 6 not ready to 1221- "Psychics be placed before the and scienilsm 'Mind-Roach' And ra-moti, %cientific community for judgment. The viewing," parapsychologists' The Humanist, vol. 37, pp, 16-20, mayllune'1477, " firm order of business should be to got ('131in .54-ionvo their own house in trid iho -, 115rientimi and psychles, Piranormal, G, 0. Abell and a. SinSer, Eds, New York: ordibr. They no longer Can Safely assume !k-ribnor'c that tht- typical 1481, pp, I 19-141, parapiychologist has the competcnce to 12 _, "OutrAcing correctIv use sta- 41 the rvidonco: the muddled 'Mind Race%" fistical tools, design appropriate investigations. The Skeliticd carry out Inquirer, vol. 11, pp. 125-145. IA84- 1%5. thoso investigations correctly. or to Ij5I17). Marks write them up properly, anil R. Kammann, The PsveholoRv of Hut PcWhic. Buffalo, ln(lood, the evidence stiggesis the upposite.lNilNY: Pcomethrouf Both the Bcx%4s, 1%0- I PAIrornan, "Betwiwil k(epticitm jilti t1l1(JUIitV: A SILOY Of ParapkyubologicAl Association and IN- Viktoliml parapsyc hological "ill-1111fir Altitutim 14) nl(x~nrl %ilifilualil;m", in Oil twR Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA W(14 11111N(.~ 01 D41 1111 ~.tM '4, N0 I- 111NI lt*q. -RDP96-00789ROO3800"330001-4 12-1- 3 A*& fLqd Ifor ReldathWHIMI 0 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO3800330001-4 1~41 1301 1311 132) [33) 1341 1351 [361 137) (361 (3131 140) (4-11 [421 143) 1441 145) .[461 (471 [481 149) (501 (S il 15?.) JL3) (5,11 JV~,] Itu. mjrgoll., (it s(ione.r. rho ~soroi ("miktruetim) ot Wvwd,rf-d R %,V.11lis, Ili stafforri,hitv. Higlalid 0111% 111 K1,1111. 110", fill .,('1 '141. ( I'm 1.1ti I d )Ili, (10,11111 1~1114.i,t 111 11,11001 1 -,1, ON' AW)III)II11.1) POWIT'. Ot Uri GI-1101'. IkKtilfl, MA 111)11914 Itill mifilill, 10%. R larg atid 11 1, Pulhof(, Mind Rr~jvh: Scivilfi%rs 1(hi,( at flsv( Ili, Abifillk , New York: Delavoriv, 1977. 1. (. f. 78(lilim. Trirtse-endenti) Phy.:Iies, New York: Arno Press, 117(1 (Reprint of IBM edition pub1h;hrd by Colby & Rich, Bmtonl. H. Sidgwick, [Presidential AcIcitesil, Prou, _&x'. Aiyehical voll. -1, pp, 7-U, '1862-1583. 1. B, Hailed, D. Bohm, E. W, Bailin, and 9, O"Itogall, "Experi- ments on psychokinefic phenomena," in The Geller 114poni. C. Panati, Ed. Bomon, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 076, pp. 183-146. A. Gauld, The Founders of Psych;cil Resevrelf, New York-. Schocken, 10k8. W. F. a.attelt, 1. Gurney, and F, W. H. Myers, "First repori 6#1 thought-roading," Proc. Soc. Psychicil Res., vol.1, pp. 13-34, E. Gurney. F. W. H. Myers, and W. F, Barrett, "Second report on thought-Iransterence." Proc. Scie. Psychical Res., v01. .1, pp, 70-89,1881-1863. E. Curney, F, W. H, Myers, F. Podmore, and W. F, Barrett, "Third report an thought -transference," Prac. Soc. Pyychieal 9'ex,, yal. 1, pp.,161-181, 1682-1813,31. F. Nicol, ',The (ounders of the S, P. It.," Proc, Soc. Psychical Res., Vol. 55, pp. 341-367,1972. W. F. Barrett. E. Gurney, and F. W. H. Myers, "Thought-fead- Ing," The Nineteenth Cenfury, vol. '11, pp. 890-900, June I B82, 1. F. Coovef, Experiments in Ps)