za june iv/o
   A -RDP96-00787RV200090015-7
   15proved For Release 24PO/08/1 0CIA
                                     AS.trategy For The Evaluation of
                               Paranoymal Phenomena
   There seems to be a small but constant momentum within
   the Agency for investigation of paranormal phenomena including
   such things as Extra Sensory Perception, Astral Projection
   and Radionics. Since this momentum appears to have been
   continuous in the past, it seems reasonable to assume that
   it will continue in the future-. Since claims of paranormal
   phenomena immediately generate opposing camps of believers and
   non-believers, any instigation of research int-o these areas
   immediately engenders debates, me--tings,.discussions, and
   memoranda. All of these activities consume man-pourer resources
   and any investigation will usually involve the commitment of
   -fiscal resources. For this reason, this paper is'presented
   to propose some guidelines for a strategy to allow for the
   appraisal of the appropriateness of resource dedication to
   whatever paranoymal phenomena may be proposed in the future.
   One of the driving forces for any proposed program in
   paranormal phenomena is always the car-rot held out by pro-
   ponents that the oossession of such powers would have great
   utility to the intelligence community. If we.assume that
   such powers are indeed Teal and can be harnessed for use by
   the Agency or the Intelligence Community, clearly there can
   be no argument with purported utility. Therefore, debate on
   Approved For Release 20 OUR:' CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090015-7

   toot I
   rproved For R lease0 08/10 ?hIA-RDP96-00787RQ -7
   p 0200090015
   uch#Ap
   p p rN?
   s issue is Iona rTa t e true focus f3r the debate
   should be on the validity of the claims made by proponents
   of the paranormal phenomena.
   Another item which should be disposed quickly without
   major debate is that of the ability of the Agency to use
   .something that it does not understand. Once again the argu-
   ments are really very simple. Obviously we can use something
   that we do not understand. Cave men used fire to cook food
   and warm caves for many years before the thermodynamics and
   chemical kinetics of combustion were suspected, known, or
   understood. Even today man uses gravity for many purposes,
   although there is still significant debate in the scientific
   community as to what causes gravitational attraction. Howeve r,
   when a phenomenon is not understood, it must be a reliab'l.e
   phenomenon to be trusted. The credibility of gravity is
   very, very high even though the theoretical underpinnings for
   gravitational attraction are not solid. The reason for this
   status is that human history has a great preponderence of
   observations in favor of objects falling toward the Earth and
   not away from the Earth. Paranormal phenomena which are not
   understood (or which cannot be explained) must achieve a
   similar level of reliability to attain the same level of
   credibility as a phenomenon such as gravity.
   .Given that there will be a proposal for the Agency to
   investigate some form of paranormal research in the future,
   the following is presented as a suggested strategy for deciding
   Approved For Release 2000/08A0 : ClA#*U-00787R000200090015-7

   eprpvetd,~Qr aRtellease 00/08/1Q: CIA-R()P96-00787R%JRO,0090015-7
   Jus 3. 0 n fQ?
   on c r pursuing such research. s sug-
   gestion is put forward with the hope-that it will stimulate
   discussion and dialogue among management and technical personnel
   to arrive at a strategy that can be implemented at a future
   time.
   First, one must consider the evidence presented by a
   proponent of paranormal research. The body of evidence itself
   should be a consideration for the jus tification of research
   into the area. The volume of evidence, the number of observers
   of similar evidence, and the commonality of observation should
   all be qualitatively evaluated by impartial observers to
   arrive at some construct of opinion regarding the paranormal
   phenomenon.
   Some critical aspects of the body of*evidence should
   include the presence of witnesses to the claimed observations
   which are being presented as evidence. Probably the most
   compelling type of evidence would be first hand evidence pre-
   sented.by the proponent of such research. Additionally, one
   should consider the level of training and experience of the
   observer. This is not meant to imply"in any way that someone
   not trained as a scientist is incapable of making an observa-
   tion which is of major importance. However, the observation
   of phenomena by trained and experienced observers should be
   considered much more heavily.than by the naive observer.
   Another critical aspect of the data presented as evidence
   for a paranoirmal phenomenon must be the reproducibility
   Approved For Release 2000/08/10 MA-P96-00787ROO0200090015-7
   3

          OPM/10: CIA-RDP96-0078
  Approved For Release 2
     0000200090015-7
  of,that data. Reproducibility must be considered in light of
  the individuals who can reproduce it, the conditions under
  which any or all individuals can reproduce it and the nature
  of controls which can be imposed upon a situation where re-
  production of the phenomenon is demanded. Evidence which
  requires thai-the audience take on faith the data or mani-
  festations of the data, should be dismissed out-of-hand as
  evidence for paranormal phenomena.
  The body of evidence presented to support a proposal
  for this type of research shouild be as free as possible from
  argument by analogy. If, indeed, there is to be presented
  a theoretical underpinning for these types of phenomena, then
  that theoretical underpinning should be able to stand on its
  own. It is not appropriate to argue, for,instance, that a
  paranormal form of energy travels faster than the speed of
  light and cannot be measured just because one can make the
  statement that a thought may travel faster than the speed of
  light and no one has been able to measure the speed of a
  thought. Argument by analogy is really only appropriate in
  a positive sense but not in a negative sense.
  It seems appropriate that the burden of proof for having
  the Agency involve itself in research into paranormal phenomena
  should be on the proponents of such research. Without getting
  into legalistic definitions this burden of proof should not
  be proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" and indeed it may not
  even require'a preponderance of evidence. However, the burden
                              -Approved For Release 2000/0/10 : 6196-00787ROO0200090015-7
  Joni

     Approved For Re1ea_ke2AMUJ1'0: CIA!IRDP96-007874NO0200090*015-7
must fall on the pToponents to convince management and technical
personnel in the Agency that, indeed, such research is appro-
priate and there is some plausible justification for entering
into the expenditure of public monies toward this end.
It is the personal opinion of the author that the more
exotic the claims made for any paranoymal discipline that the
more definitive should be the proofs and evidences presented
to support the proposition for research into that area.
fAdditionally, it is mandatory to r~qi~~ire_that a technical,
ability.to exp,lain all phenomena associated with the body of
evidence shall.not be taken as pyoof_positive that there is
~~-_/.validity to the -phenomena. It does not seem reasonable to
a 1
   i low that the positive presenc of-a--Airanormal phenomena be
~
r o v i d e-d-- the bsenca of a firmly founded technical
     'V7 by ]~~a n a -
t1on for every detail.
Assuming that we have reached a situ~-,tion where some
!V4 level of investigation into paranormal phenomena is considered
appropriate itis intended to now set forth some guidelines
for validation of the claims, concepts, theoretical under-
pinnings for such phenomena. One criteria which should be
applied is the concept of deniability.. Pne of the ioundations
of the scientific method is that if one asserts a false
hypothesis, then a false result will emerge from an experiment
to test the hypothesis. This criterion of deniability should
be applicable to experimental designs which attempt to explain
t
the paranormal.
0 OWP96-00787ROO0200090bi 5-7
A~OoveVppR 8/1
,Wt

        -RDP96-007WO00200090015-7
  Approved For Release 2DOO/08/10 : CIA
  I . 1W
  Mother criterion for validation of*a paranormal
  phenomenon should be the property of replication for that
  phenomenon. It is reasonable to assert that if such a phenomenon
  is real, then more than one independent observer/practioner
  can obtain the same results under the same conditions. This
  criterion has served the scientific community very well for
  several centuries; and, indeed, does not appear to be so
  unreasonable as to have it dismissed from consideration of
  paranormal research.
  A third criteria for such validation investigations
  should be the verifiability of the experimental data. By
  verifiability it is meant that the proponents and opponents
  of the phenomenon in question should be able to agree on the
  criteria which will substantiate or deny t~e existence of.the
  phenomenon.. Such a criterion will tend to remove validation
  experimentation from a situation whereby a negative or positive
  result can be refuted by the various parties to the debate.
  Finally, any validation experimentation must be set up
  in such a way.as to avoid the situation in which the opponents
  to a paranormal PheRomenon are -required to prove that it does
  not exist. The difficulty in proving a negative assertion,
  is so severe that such experimentation and argument can go on
  forever. Since it was stated that the burden of proof should
  be on the proponent to initiate paranormal research, this
  concept must. be carried forward to any validation experiments
  to assure that any experiments are designed to prove the
                        6
  Approved For Release 2000/08/10 P96-00787ROO0200-090015-7

ARAFT
Approved For ReNese 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00)40RO00200090015-7
existence of a phenomenon by positive observable details.
     As a short example to illustrate the thinking that went
into much of the above recommendations, the author doubts
seriously that many scientists would argue with the fact that
there may exist a sense in the human body which has'not yet
been discovere'd. They may, however, stop short of agreement
if they were then asked to believe that this extra sense is
one that cannot be measured, and therefore, it is for that
reason that it has escaped detection (and will of course always
escape detection). Skepticism about things like Extra Sensory
Perception or abnormal sensitivities of individuals to various
.stimuli do not arise from a preconceived notion that it is
impossible for such phenomena to exist; rather, it is skepticism
which arises from an explanation which demands that an in-
vestigator believe in the existence of such data because there
is no other explanation immediately available.
It is hoped that this short statement concerning para-
normal research will stimulate sufficient discussion and
dialogue to permit a reasonable and programmed response to a
future assertion for Agency involvement in paranormal research.
The author makes no claim thqt the suggestions in this paper
for guidelines or approaches to this problem are all inclusive.
If, however, they serve to generate such all inclusive and
appropriate guidelines then this paper wil 1 de deemed success-
ful in the mind of the author.
    Approved For Release 2000708/10 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090015-7
I