Approved For Releas6WO00/08/10 CIA-RDP 02Wdb~OU144-8
 9/15 ~-/ 'I~tz)vf /.S*
       7fe -SL"F~Le
 Ken, 9f.
 As ~er your request, here is the draft of my paranormal criteria thoughts.
 I have Xeroxed your copy so that your comments are contained in this
 copy. I would like to comment on some of your thoughts.
 First of all your argument about the false hypothes&s criterion being
 untrue: you are right because I stated my proposition very poorly.
 The idea I had to get across which I did not was that in "normal
 science" (as opposed to "paranormal science") when there are competing
 hypotheses, there can be performed a critical experiment which will
 distinguish between the validity of the two assettions. Once
 performed ( indeed once even verbalized ) a major hurdle is crossed
 which will distinguish between the competing assertions. To use your
 exIample, the concepts of gravity put forth by Einstein and Dicke are
 not both right ( although they both may be wrong) but some day
 one will be placed in higher credence than the other based on accumulated
 observations and on experiments designed to distinguish between
 salient features of the hypotheses. I did overstate the simplicity
 of discerning between competing hypotheses. However, you will XXM
 agree that the phlogiston hypothesis has been disprooved and it was
 disprooved by demonstrating that the assumption of its validity led
 to erroneous conclusions based on objectively collected data.
 Regarding another point, I do not believe that the iinability
 of a "normal scientist" to explain experimental observation in all detail
 should provide positive proof of paranormal phenomena any more than
 you. are willing to allow that the inability of"paranormal practitioners"
 to produce identically reporducible resutls under all circumstances
 and upon demand is proof positive that paranormal phenomena are a sham.
 Essentially, I feel that the proof of a "negative" is so difficult
 that neither side of this controversy should be put in the position
 of having to prove a negative assettion in order to demonstrate the
 validity of their claims.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090014-8

   ved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090014-8
   _....,.~~ViedFo`rRel~ease 2001
   -2-
   In my argument concerning the reproduceability of gravity, I did not
   mean to imply that paranormal phenomena should indeed reach this level
   of reliability before any utility could be perceived. MOM However,
   it must be agreed that some high level of replication will have to
   be demonstrated before there will be acceptance of the information by
   customers for intelligence. The question in my mind is something like:
   What background evidence would I want if I had to brief the President
   that: the Soviets had violated SALT and were planning a pre-emptive
   strike if my information came from some astral projection kind of
   experience? (Granted this is a loaded situation! But we must consider
   the level of incredulity of customers for intelligence and the risks
   associated with misleading INM information vis a vis the obvious
   positive benefits of paranotmal XMNEUM capabioity)
                                           SG1 I
   Regarding the statement of an Operational Criterion as per
   argument, one must ask what level of credibility resides in the DD for
   Operations and the DCI vis a vis remote viewing. This is because it
   is,those two humans who will approve or not approve operational plans/
   entries/manuvers proposed by the of the Agency. I SG11
   think you will agree that the non-stable nature of the occupants of
   these seats along with the vagaries of human nature make this type
   of~defininton very difficult and maybe even impossible. Just in the
   six years I've been here, there have been 4 DDO's and 4 DCI's. The
   thought of finding commonalitieg in such definition for these eight
   gentlemen is mind-boigling.
   I.am ordering for the Library a copy of a book called Fads and Fallacies
   in the Name of Science. When it comes in I will.let you know so you
   can get it for your perusal. From its title, you know it is negative
   in orientation but it does produce some thought provoking responses in
   the reader vis a vis far out science.
   4jdf
   Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090014-8