🚀 go-pugleaf

[]

Bruce G. Barnett  (barnett@ge-crd.arpa, barnett@steinmetz.uucp;
...!{chinet,rochester}!steinmetz!barnett) writes:
 
>	As far as I know, positive results in PSI experiments are
>inversely proportional to the amount of controls placed on the
>experiment. In blunt terms, scientists are not qualified to specify
>the controls needed. And the easiest people to delude are the
>scientists who want to show a positive results.

(I do plan on addressing some of his other points -- but one thing at a
time). 
 
This is undoubtedly true, but reflects more on your sources of information
than on the status of parapsychological research. This is something
commonly said by a certain class of critics, and picked up by others, such
as yourself, who rely on them for information.  The supposed justifications
for the statement is based on a massive selective reading of the evidence
and other distortions. 

I have twice started a detailed rebuttal and both times it became too long.
There is just too much misinformation behind the statement. It is like
trying to make a sensible response to creationist statements like "No new
species has ever been observed to have evolved". 

Fortunately, for the first time in about forty years, a broadly based
textbook of the field of parapsychology has been published.  It surveys the
whole field quite thoroughly and hardheadedly, discussing the strengths
*and weaknesses* of the evidence for psi, the experimental methods, what is
known and what needs to be learned.  Although I don't agree at all times
with the authors' choices of emphasis and opinions, I highly recommend the
book.  Whether or not your opinion about the existence of psi is changed
you will come away from reading this book with a *very* different (and more
realistic) view of the field of parapsychology. 

The book is:

	_Foundations of Parapsychology: Exploring the Boundaries of
	    Human Capability_  by Hoyt L. Edge, Robert L. Morris,
	    John Palmer, and Joseph H. Rush.  Published by Routledge &
	    Kegan Paul; Boston, London and Henley.  1986.
	    ISBN 0-7102-0226-1 and (pbk.) 0-7102-0805-7.

You should be able to order it through most general bookstores. I believe
that the cost of the paperback is $22.50. 

To cover the significant points briefly (refer to the above book for
details and justifications): 

    1) The field of parapsychology grew out of the field of psychical
       research when it was realized (by Rhine) that the investigation of
       spontaneous case material and the claims of self-proclaimed psychics
       would never provide reliable enough scientific evidence for the
       existence of paranormal phenomena.  Such investigations are perhaps
       useful for providing suggestive evidence *about* the nature of psi,
       if it exists, but provide little or no evidence for its existence.

    2) Parapsychologists routinely investigate many people claiming
       exceptional psychic abilities.  The great majority of them are unable
       or unwilling to work under sufficiently controlled circumstances,
       or are found to be fraudulent.  A few survive rigorous enough testing
       to warrant publication in one of the parapsychological journals.  As
       said above, few parapsychologists take such publication as adding
       significantly to the evidence *for* psi.  It is published so that the
       apparent characteristics and limitations of that subjects performance
       can be used as suggestions towards understanding how "strong" psi
       might operate if it exists, and to give other parapsychologists (and
       those few critics who actually pay any attention to the field) an
       opportunity to evaluate and criticize the testing procedures.  When
       evidence later emerges (as has occurred in a handful of cases) that
       subject fraud occurred, this has no effect on the evidence for the
       existence of psi.  It only means that the characteristics of the
       psychics "performance" cannot be taken as reflecting the
       characteristics of "real psi", if it exists.

    3) Nevertheless, a number of psychics (D.D. Home, Eileen Garrett, and
       Keith Harary come to mind off the top of my head) have submitted
       to extensive and varied scientific tests with a wide varieties of
       tight controls, and have never been shown to be "cheating".  They
       have not always succeeded, but their failures have not been shown
       to be particularly correlated with the degree or nature of the
       controls imposed.  This does not, naturally enough, prove that they
       were not fraudulent, but it does contradict Bruce's assertion.

    4) The evidence for the existence of one or more consistent anomalies,
       referred to as psi, rests on literally thousands of successful, well
       done experiments with more-or-less "general" subject populations.
       The controls for these experiments, for the most part, meet or
       exceed the quality of control found in a similar selection of
       experiments from any other field of experimental science.  Despite
       years of trying, the critics have consistently failed to provide
       any meaningful evidence that more than a tiny fraction of the total
       observed effect in these experiments is due to poor experimental
       controls, or that varying degrees of control have much effect on
       the results of those experiments which meet the publication criteria
       of the field.


		Topher Cooper

USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper
INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com

Disclaimer:  This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.