Message-ID: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: About Randi (LONG) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 811 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:42:40 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp46.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:42:40 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35063 A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. All I did was copy and paste so the formatting might be a bit.. well.. horrible. Hope ya can read it. I should point out that the only response Wally gave (it was addressed to him) was asking the newsgroup sci.skeptics to help him refute it. That is to say he couldn't do it by himself. To the best of my knowledge no other skeptics had a rebuttal either. --------Begin Repost-------- Psychic Breakthroughs Today The Failure of Scepticism .... Now let's turn to another sceptic and critic of parapsychology. This is a sceptic who is familiar with the field. A Magician's Crusade Against the Paranormal One of parapsychology's more recent attackers is James ('the Amazing') Randi, a magician-turned-debunker from Rumson, New Jersey. As a former escape artist and mentalist, Randi has been waging a holy war against psychics and parapsychologists for several years. Randi's most complete challenge to the field comes by way of his recent book Flim-Flam! It was originally published in 1980 and was subtitled 'the truth about unicorns, parapsychology and ocher delusions'. Despite this cynical subtitle, very little in the book is concerned with conventional parapsychology at all. Most of it is devoted to such disreputable topics as 'fairy' photographs, the ancient astronaut controversy, biorhythms, and other 'scientific' borderlands. So just what areas of parapsychology does Mr Randi cover in his book? Most of the coverage is devoted to what most scientifically-trained psi researchers snidely call 'pop' parapsychology or 'drug store' parapsychology. This is the world of television psychics, psychic surgery, Kirlian photography, do-it-yourself ESP development courses, and so on. These are areas towards which most orthodox parapsychologists cast a scornful as well as sceptical eye Randi never tells his readers this, of course. But now and again he does talk about and criticize more legitimate parapsychology, and it is here where he is at his glorious worst. Time and time again he flagrantly misrepresents what parapsychologists have said about psychic phenomena. If this weren't bad enough, he goes on to woefully misquote and misdescribe their research. This fact can no better be illustrated than by examining what Randi has to say about two well-known bodies of research: 1. The research of Dr Charles Tart of the University of California at Davis, who has been testing to see if certain people can be trained to learn ESP. 2. The highly publicized research of Russell Targ and Dr Harold Puthoff formerly of the Menlo Park, California-based Stanford Research Institute. Their investigations included a series of PK tests with Ingo Swann; some ESP experiments with Uri Geller; and considerable research into the byways of 'remote viewing'. By examining what Randi says about this research, one sees him for what he really is - either a hopelessly confused critic who just doesn't seem capable of understanding the sophisticated way parapsychological research is designed and conducted, or a shrewd antagonist for whom debunking has become a holy war in which deliberate distortion and misrepresentation become a valid means towards a greater end. Mr Randi's brief attack on Dr Tart's research on ESP learning is a good case in point. If you will recall, Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of California at Davis in the early 1970s with the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to determine if a subject's ESP scores would improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes and failures. The experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an experimental room with a console in front of him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in a circle. A light was located next to each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a similar console, where he was provided with a television monitor so that he could see the subject. The experimenter randomly chose a series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated randomly by a device hooked to the set up. He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the subject then made his choice. After this choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of the correct target by illuminating the proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best subjects scored phenomenally above chance, with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. Randi feels confident he can explain Dr Tart's results, for he writes that: . . . Sherman Stein, a mathematician at the University of California at Los Angeles where the tests were done, in examining the raw data on which the book was based, came upon an anomaly. It seems that though Tart had checked out his random-number generator and found it gave a good distribution of digits, it did not repeat digits as it should. In 5000 digits produced by the machine, there should have been close to 500 'twins'. If, for example, a three comes up, there is exactly one chance in ten that another three will be produced next. There were only 193 twins - 39 per cent of the number expected. Since a subject in such tests had a tendency not to repeat a digit just used, this bias of the machine fits in nicely with the results observed. It is remarkable how many errors and distortions crop up in just this one paragraph alone. It was, in fact, Dr Tart himself who first noticed the lack of double digits. Being a good and conscientious experimenter, this led him to seek the advice of Dr Stein (who teaches at the University of California at Davis and not at UCLA). But is it true, to quote Randi, that 'the bias of the machine fits in neatly with the results observed'? Not on your life! The scoring of some of Tart's subjects was so astonishingly high that the generator's slight bias does not appreciably alter the overall significance of the tests. This is true even if we adjusted the statistics to take this flaw into account. Anyone who takes the time to read Dr Tart's Learning to Use ESP can determine this for himself by recomputing the statistics. Despite this fact, Randi deliberately implies that Tart's work was not significant when it is re-evaluated. This misrepresentation is all the more serious since Randi surely realizes that his argument is totally ridiculous. When Dr Tart's book was first published, it was critically reviewed in the New York Review of Books by Martin Gardner, one of parapsychology's most caustic critics and a long-time friend of Randi's. Gardner had learned of the bias in Tart's work from Dr Stein, so he brought up the issue in his review with seeming relish. But after a lengthy series of exchanges with Dr Tart, even Gardner had to back down on this point! Since Gardner and Randi are fellow members of CSICOP the magician must have been aware when he wrote his book that his lame 'statistical bias' theory had been settled long ago. Of course, Randi's criticisms of Dr Tart are really rather peripheral to Flim-Flam! The main crux of the book is to make a frontal attack on Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff, and the entire SRI research programme in parapsychology. This would include their remote viewing experiments, as well as their work with such 'star' psychics as Ingo Swann and Uri Geller, the famous Israeli telepath and psychic 'metal-bender' Being that I was able to personally visit SRI to investigate Randi's claims and charges, I can only describe his chapter on their work as a shameless bit of prevarication. Space limitations will not permit me to expose all of Randi's errors and misrepresentations. So the following pages will cover only a few of his more important criticisms. To begin with, Randi particularly flays a series of magnetometer 'demonstrations' which Dr Puthoff conducted with Ingo Swann at Stanford University in 1972. Since these experiments were not discussed earlier in this volume, the following represents a brief summary of what occurred. The idea behind these tests was to see if Swann could influence a magnetometer, buried under a physics building around which a decaying magnetic field was set. Since the magnetometer was protected by a super- conducting shield, the output of the decaying field should have been impervious to any random influences. These brief experiments were described by Targ and Puthoff in their book Mind-Reach, in which they report that Swann was asked to interfere with the magnetometer by 'remote viewing' it. When Swann began to describe the device, the output of the decay pattern suddenly doubled! (This was easy to determine since a chart recorder was constantly monitoring the decay pattern.) This curious phenomenon was witnessed not only by Dr Puthoff, but also by Dr Arthur Hebard, a young Stanford physicist. The perturbation lasted for thirty seconds and Dr Hebard was surprised by this effect, since the strange output seemed to be physically inexplicable. So he suggested that Swann stop the output of the device completely. Swann tried and succeeded within seconds! He produced this same result later during the test by merely thinking about the machine, and the results did not seem due to some quirk in the magnetometer. The magnetometer chart was examined for two hours after Swann left the building, but no odd perturbations were noted during this control period. Mr Randi completely disputes this sequence of events. He reports that Dr Hebard was not happy with Swann's demonstration. The physicist was particularly annoyed that neither Russell Targ nor Dr Puthoff bothered to ask whether or not a normal explanation - such as equipment malfunction - could account for the effects. Randi then goes on to challenge other aspects of the demonstration. Based on his personal conversations with Dr Hebard, Randi next claims that a total of fifteen minutes went by between the time Swann began focusing his attention on the magnetometer when the perturbation really took place. It was only then, claims Randi, that Swann asked the experimenters, 'Is that what I'm supposed to do?' The magician further claims that Swann was never asked to stop the output of the magnetometer. The chart suddenly produced a levelling out, and then Swann opportunely asserted that he had produced the effect. When I spoke to Dr Puthoff about these charges, the SRI physicist grew extremely annoyed. He disputed Randi's information and explained in no uncertain terms that not more than sixty seconds went by between Swann's 'remote viewing' procedure and the occurrence of the magnetometer's first perturbation. He also maintained that Dr Hebard - unimpressed by the effect - had off-handedly suggested that it would be more impressive if Swann could cause the magnetometer's output to cease. There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology. It become quite clear during our phone conversation that Dr Hebard's memory of Swann's performance differed somewhat from Puthoff's. He disagreed with the physicist primarily about the length of time that passed from when Swann first attempted to remote view the magnetometer and when the subsequent perturbations took place. He recalled that several minutes passed by, as Randi asserts, and not merely several seconds, Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me. So while Randi has indeed shown that there are several unanswered questions about Swann's Stanford demonstration, he has certainly not provided the definitive scenario of what happened that day. His portrayal of Dr Hebard as a strong critic of both Targ and Puthoff and parapsychology also seems questionable, while his summary of his conversations with the physicist is rather inaccurate as well. (I might add that several weeks after I spoke to Dr Hebard, Dr Puthoff showed me the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's.) Randi doesn't end his attack on SRI with his comments on Ingo Swann, though. His real focus is the research that SRI conducted with Uri Geller, which was designed to study his purported telepathic and clairvoyant powers. This research was first published in Nature in October 1974. Since Nature is a prestigious British science publication, the SRI report caused a stir in scientific circles. Their report claimed that Geller, while sequestered in a sealed isolation booth, successfully and repeatedly reproduced drawings sent to him telepathically. The SRI researchers also explained that Geller was able to 'call' the uppermost face of a single die shaken in a closed box. Naturally, our beloved debunker plays down the importance of the Nature paper and states that 'as early as 1972, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, its authors, had submitted it to US publications as a project of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). All had rejected it.' Now this is blatantly untrue, since Targ and Puthoff had made no prior submission. Their goal was always to submit their report to Nature. Randi also snidely comments that the Nature paper was published with an editorial explaining that the report was being issued 'so that scientists could see the kind of. material that was being turned out in the field of parapsychology, and typified it as 'weak' and 'flawed.' Randi here engages in a series of half-truths, since he seems to be implying that the paper was published in order to embarrass parapsychology. The truth of the matter was that the editors of Nature found many flaws in the report with which to take issue. But they clearly stated in their editorial that they had decided on publication despite some of their reservations. They simply felt that they had an obligation to bring this type of research to the attention of their readers since the experiments had been conducted by legitimate scientists. The editorial was perfectly respectful and contained none of the innuendos implied by Randi. So let's look at the way Randi thinks Geller pulled the wool over Targ and Puthoff's eyes during the most critical series of experiments they ran together. The focal point of the SRI's Nature report concerned a series of experiments designed to explore or expose Geller's purported telepathic powers. For this carefully conducted series of tests, the psychic was placed in an isolation booth at SRI, while the experimenters remained in an adjoining room and selected the targets from a dictionary. (They opened the dictionary randomly and then sketched the first drawable word listed on the page) This drawing was then hung up for everyone - researchers and on-lookers alike - to see. Geller's job was to reproduce these drawings from his position inside the sealed chamber by telepathy. While there still remains some unanswered questions concerning the times Geller 'passed' on a drawing (i.e., refused to draw it), some of his successes were simply astounding. There is simply no way coincidence can explain some of them. For example, for one trial Geller drew a bunch of twenty-three grapes. The target was not only a similar drawing, but the grapes in that picture were even placed in the same configuration. Either this result was due to telepathy or somehow Geller managed to see the target before reproducing it. Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations. This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three-and-a- quarter inches and extends thorough a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments. Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the Geller work, since the important point is not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but whether Randi can be considered a responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be obvious by now. This fact, however, doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and Puthoff, even to the point of questioning their scientific honesty. It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle' Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim- Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did. l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) So just where did Randi come up with this nonsense about the SRI's Geller film? Randi does not specifically state that he personally spoke to Pressman, although he vaguely implies it. It seems instead that he procured this piece of misinformation from another SRI source, who was perhaps honesty mistaken about the film. Randi then repeated the error, never checked out his source, and used the error to make wild accusations against the SRI experimenters. The truly hilarious thing about this mess is that no film showing Geller making eight hits in a row was ever shot! Pressman only filmed one experiment, in which Geller is seen 'passing' - although guessing correctly - on the test. So Randi wasn't even able to describe the SRI film correctly, and he certainly never saw it. So much for Randi's attacks on Geller and those who have studied him. Finally we and Randi came to Targ and Puthoff's original 'remote viewing' research, which they pioneered at SRI, (as discussed earlier) during some informal tests conducted with Ingo Swann. These tests were refined when the physicists began conducting similar experiments with the late Pat Price, another gifted psychic and a former Burbank, California police commissioner. For these initial experiments, the subject was kept at SRI while an outbound experimenter drove to a location somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area. The subject was simply asked to visualize the outbound experimenter's location and describe it. After each session was completed, the subject was taken to the target site and a comparison was informally made between the location and the subject's description. During these early trials, each subject usually co-operated in a series of such sessions. The transcripts for all the sessions were then given to an independent (blind) judge, who then visited the sites or examined photographs of them. He then tried to match the sites with the descriptions. The overall success of these sets of remote viewing experiments was therefore based not only on the quality of the subject's responses, but by way of statistical tests calculated from the judge's correct matchings. The only criticism that Randi can come up with is to complain that the SRI judging procedures were extremely faulty. This criticism is not an original one, for Randi bases his information on some 'findings' made by two New Zealand psychologists - the late Richard Kammann and David Marks - who visited SRI when the remote viewing research was first beginning to come to scientific attention. (They report on their visit in their own book The Psychology of the Psychic.) Drs. Marks and Kammann discovered that the SRI researchers often forgot to edit out little 'clues' in the transcripts, clues that could have helped the independent judge to determine which target went to which description. For instance, in one test the subject was told that he already had 'three successes' behind him. The judge was thus clued to the fact that this transcript corresponded to the fourth session and target site But this wasn't all that the psychologists claimed. For according to Randi, they also 'discovered [that] the judges had been given the locations in chronological order, and they knew it. The barest trace of experimental care would have demanded that this list be "scrambled" But it was not.' Randi then goes on to explain how the two psychologists then re-edited the transcripts for one particularly successful series of SRI tests in order to correct this fatal flaw. They then proceeded to have the entire series rejudged, but their judge couldn't make the correct matches at all. 'The Targ and Puthoff miracle is out of the window,' declares Randi. These criticisms may seem devastating but they really aren't. To begin with, there certainly were flaws in the early remote viewing work, and the issue of the faulty editing was crucial. But parapsychologists working at other laboratories were quick to point out these problems to their SRI colleagues, who immediately corrected the flaws. But the story of the SRI remote viewing work doesn't end here, by any means. Dr Charles Tart eventually came to take a special interest in these early 'flawed' experiments, and he re-edited the same remote viewing reports the New Zealand psychologists had worked with. He deleted the possible cues and then sent them to be rejudged. This time the results were still statistically significant. Nor is it true that the transcripts and/or the sites for the critical series were given to the judge in chronological order. Some time after the publication of The Psychology of the Psychic, I personally spoke to the psychologist in charge of judging this series. He told me that everything was properly randomized when he received the materials from SRI. Of course, our sceptic totally ignores the fact that the remote viewing effect has been replicated both at SRI and at several other laboratories, using even more stringent controls than went into the original experiments. Successful remote viewing experiments have been reported from Mundelein College in Evanston, Illinois; from the Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories in California; and recently from the Institute for Parapsychology in Durham, North Carolina. So the validity of the remote viewing effect no longer rests on Targ and Puthoff's experiments alone, but on a large body of experimental findings . . . findings that even Randi, with all his magical knowledge, can't make disappear. Some Concluding Notes So there rests the sceptic's case. Not every sceptic is this irresponsible, but the cases we've been evaluating tend to be embarrassingly typical. The simple fact remains that parapsychology's detractors have a terrible time explaining away the field's findings. If psi doesn't exist, this fact would be self-evident by now. So it is more than revealing that the field's debunkers so often fall to manufacturing flaws in our experiments - or even, as with the CSICOP/Gauquelin fiasco, cover up their own positive findings. Where does this leave parapsychology? The field certainly seems to be in healthy shape. There is probably more fruitful research going on within parapsychology today than during any other time in its short history. It is also currency turning in even more exciting directions, and these directions promise to help convert even more scientists. We briefly examined this trend in chapters two and three, where the use of ESP for predicting the results of horse-races and financial investments was discussed. When parapsychology first became a primarily experimental science, nobody thought that psi would ever be harnessed for any practical purpose. No one really thought that there existed a practical side to the sixth sense. Editorializing back in 1945, in fact, Dr J.B. Rhine eschewed searching for any real uses for extrasensory perception or psychokinesis. 'No practical use can be made of them with our present state of knowledge,' he wrote 'They are not reliable enough.' Rhine didn't even think that the practical applications issue was very important to the parapsychology of his day, for he went on to write that ' . . practical application has never been the objective of the investigations. This is not because practical application is regarded as of no importance, but because the true goals of research are so incomparably greater in importance that practical application seems downright trivial in contrast.' The 'true' goal of parapsychology, believed the Duke researcher, was to disclose mankind's place in the universe. Since Dr Rhine entered the field to resolve his personal religious conflicts, this was a reasonable view for him to take. And if we examine the research projects conducted by parapsychologists fifty years ago, Rhine's position seems even more logical. The field had been previously preoccupied with the survival enigma and was only beginning to turn to the scientific laboratory. Rhine's pioneering research at Duke University in the 1930s certainly proved the existence of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis. But his research strategies - which were basically card-calling ESP experiments and dice-rolling explorations of PK - were extremely limited. While they demonstrated that some people possess a sixth sense, the faculty seemed to be weak and capricious. The Duke researchers came to feel that the days of the great psychics were over. These younger parapsychologists, who had been trained specifically in the lab, even began to wonder whether truly great psychics ever really existed - or whether their feats were the result of fraud clever enough to dupe their predecessors. These researchers began to see ESP and PK as incredibly elusive powers, powers that surface only rarely. In fact, they didn't even become interested in ESP and its role in day-to-day life until the 1940s. What is so ironic is that primitive cultures, these wellsprings of the sixth sense, have never considered psychic power in this ludicrously limited way. To these peoples, ESP and PK were (and are) powerful forces that should be put to work to help their community. This point was recently made by Dr Jule Eisenbud, a psychoanalyst from Denver, Colorado who has been studying parapsychology for years. Speaking before a conference of anthropologists in 1978, he pointed to several differences between the Western and the 'primitive' belief- systems concerning psychic phenomena. To the world of the primitive ' . . behaviours based upon the power of thought to accomplish things are reality oriented. They simply make use of processes considered to be inherent in the social order and the universe.' It was this world view that gave rise to the Shamanic tradition. The shaman is supposed to employ his powers for the good of his people. It would be a pretty pathetic shaman who constancy excused himself for failing to conjure a rainstorm, couldn't find someone's lost ring, or failed to heal a member of his community. We are hardly so demanding when we work with our own psychics! Luckily, though, we are seeing a real change of attitude within today's parapsychological community. Practical applications for the sixth sense is becoming the topic of the 1980s. This promising area of study has been christened with its own name Psionics is a term originally coined by Dr Jeffrey Mishlove, who was one of the first parapsychologists to urge his colleagues to explore the world of 'applied psi' research. He employs this term to separate it from formal experimental/laboratory research. ###### Message-ID: <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 4 Mar 2000 20:56:11 -0800 X-Trace: 4 Mar 2000 20:56:11 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 40 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cleanfeed.inet.tele.dQ!netscum.int!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34958 In alt.out-of-body article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> John Garrison wrote: : A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. All I did was : copy and paste so the formatting might be a bit.. well.. horrible. Hope : ya can read it. It's horrible. : I should point out that the only response Wally gave (it was addressed : to him) was asking the newsgroup sci.skeptics to help him refute it. : That is to say he couldn't do it by himself. To the best of my knowledge : no other skeptics had a rebuttal either. : --------Begin Repost-------- Message ID? (Not article number, the Message ID from the original usenet format. TIA. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 MORE SPORTS RESULTS: The Beverly Hills Freudians tied the Chicago Rogerians 0-0 last Saturday night. The match started with a long period of silence while the Freudians waited for the Rogerians to free associate and the Rogerians waited for the Freudians to say something they could paraphrase. The stalemate was broken when the Freudians' best player took the offensive and interpreted the Rogerians' silence as reflecting their anal-retentive personalities. At this the Rogerians' star player said "I hear you saying you think we're full of ka-ka." This started a fight and the match was called by officials. ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:19:24 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 805 Message-ID: <89srdh$dq4$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952234299 14148 63.27.213.52 (5 Mar 2000 05:31:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nexus.news.chello.be!news.tvd.be!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34999 Well doc, you wanted message IDs, so here they are: John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com>... >In alt.out-of-body article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> John Garrison wrote: >: A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. All I did was >: copy and paste so the formatting might be a bit.. well.. horrible. Hope >: ya can read it. > >It's horrible. > >: I should point out that the only response Wally gave (it was addressed >: to him) was asking the newsgroup sci.skeptics to help him refute it. >: That is to say he couldn't do it by himself. To the best of my knowledge >: no other skeptics had a rebuttal either. > > >: --------Begin Repost-------- > >Message ID? (Not article number, the Message ID from the original usenet >format. > >TIA. > > > >-- >John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. >Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > > MORE SPORTS RESULTS: >The Beverly Hills Freudians tied the Chicago Rogerians 0-0 last >Saturday night. The match started with a long period of silence while >the Freudians waited for the Rogerians to free associate and the >Rogerians waited for the Freudians to say something they could >paraphrase. The stalemate was broken when the Freudians' best player >took the offensive and interpreted the Rogerians' silence as reflecting >their anal-retentive personalities. At this the Rogerians' star player >said "I hear you saying you think we're full of ka-ka." This started a >fight and the match was called by officials. > begin 666 Rebuttal of Radni on TARG et al..nws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ewsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:25:19 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 592 Message-ID: <89sroo$e26$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <89srdh$dq4$1@news.laserlink.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952234704 14406 63.27.213.52 (5 Mar 2000 05:38:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!howland.erols.net!news-out.nntp.airnews.net.MISMATCH!cabal10.airnews.net!news.airnews.net!cabal14.airnews.net!news.airnews.net!egsner!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34987 Jerry Adams wrote in message <89srdh$dq4$1@news.laserlink.net>... >Well doc, you wanted message IDs, so here they are: Just in case the attachment is unretreievable for some reason it is cut and pasted below in it's entirety: >John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com>... >> >>Message ID? (Not article number, the Message ID from the original usenet >>format. >> >>TIA. >> >> >> >>-- >>John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com In article , "Wally Anglesea" wrote: > > phobos wrote in message > news:387e1995.967049994@news.texas.net... > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:10:16 +1100, "Wally Anglesea" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >phobos wrote in message > > >news:387c7ea0.927375587@news.texas.net... > > >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:10:07 -0500, Garrison Hilliard > > > >wrote: > > Sorry to live down to your expectations, but here comes my "lame excuse". > We > > have valid reservations about such offers. We doubt the intellectual > honesty and > > integrity of the people who are usually holding the hoops. Can we be > assured > > that if we nailed it you wouldn't distort the results or even deny it > outright? > > Of course not... because what we *are* confident of is that you're not > exactly > > an impartial observer in this subject. So where's the incentive for us to > try? > > If this all results in a lack of enthusiasm for this kind of proof > gathering on > > our part, you can hardly fail to understand why. > > Thanks for proving me right. lame excuses. If you don't trust me, contact > Randi. You could get a million dollars. Wally, I have some questions for you. Why should anyone trust Randi? Have you read the article below? Seems Randi can't be trusted, right? Oystein Hokstad http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s084533 Oystein.Hokstad@NOSPAMsensewave.com --------- Psychic Breakthroughs Today The Failure of Scepticism .... Now let's turn to another sceptic and critic of parapsychology. This is a sceptic who is familiar with the field. A Magician's Crusade Against the Paranormal One of parapsychology's more recent attackers is James ('the Amazing') Randi, a magician-turned-debunker from Rumson, New Jersey. As a former escape artist and mentalist, Randi has been waging a holy war against psychics and parapsychologists for several years. Randi's most complete challenge to the field comes by way of his recent book Flim-Flam! It was originally published in 1980 and was subtitled 'the truth about unicorns, parapsychology and ocher delusions'. Despite this cynical subtitle, very little in the book is concerned with conventional parapsychology at all. Most of it is devoted to such disreputable topics as 'fairy' photographs, the ancient astronaut controversy, biorhythms, and other 'scientific' borderlands. So just what areas of parapsychology does Mr Randi cover in his book? Most of the coverage is devoted to what most scientifically-trained psi researchers snidely call 'pop' parapsychology or 'drug store' parapsychology. This is the world of television psychics, psychic surgery, Kirlian photography, do-it-yourself ESP development courses, and so on. These are areas towards which most orthodox parapsychologists cast a scornful as well as sceptical eye Randi never tells his readers this, of course. But now and again he does talk about and criticize more legitimate parapsychology, and it is here where he is at his glorious worst. Time and time again he flagrantly misrepresents what parapsychologists have said about psychic phenomena. If this weren't bad enough, he goes on to woefully misquote and misdescribe their research. This fact can no better be illustrated than by examining what Randi has to say about two well-known bodies of research: 1. The research of Dr Charles Tart of the University of California at Davis, who has been testing to see if certain people can be trained to learn ESP. 2. The highly publicized research of Russell Targ and Dr Harold Puthoff formerly of the Menlo Park, California-based Stanford Research Institute. Their investigations included a series of PK tests with Ingo Swann; some ESP experiments with Uri Geller; and considerable research into the byways of 'remote viewing'. By examining what Randi says about this research, one sees him for what he really is - either a hopelessly confused critic who just doesn't seem capable of understanding the sophisticated way parapsychological research is designed and conducted, or a shrewd antagonist for whom debunking has become a holy war in which deliberate distortion and misrepresentation become a valid means towards a greater end. Mr Randi's brief attack on Dr Tart's research on ESP learning is a good case in point. If you will recall, Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of California at Davis in the early 1970s with the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to determine if a subject's ESP scores would improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes and failures. The experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an experimental room with a console in front of him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in a circle. A light was located next to each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a similar console, where he was provided with a television monitor so that he could see the subject. The experimenter randomly chose a series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated randomly by a device hooked to the set up. He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the subject then made his choice. After this choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of the correct target by illuminating the proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best subjects scored phenomenally above chance, with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. Randi feels confident he can explain Dr Tart's results, for he writes that: . . . Sherman Stein, a mathematician at the University of California at Los Angeles where the tests were done, in examining the raw data on which the book was based, came upon an anomaly. It seems that though Tart had checked out his random-number generator and found it gave a good distribution of digits, it did not repeat digits as it should. In 5000 digits produced by the machine, there should have been close to 500 'twins'. If, for example, a three comes up, there is exactly one chance in ten that another three will be produced next. There were only 193 twins - 39 per cent of the number expected. Since a subject in such tests had a tendency not to repeat a digit just used, this bias of the machine fits in nicely with the results observed. It is remarkable how many errors and distortions crop up in just this one paragraph alone. It was, in fact, Dr Tart himself who first noticed the lack of double digits. Being a good and conscientious experimenter, this led him to seek the advice of Dr Stein (who teaches at the University of California at Davis and not at UCLA). But is it true, to quote Randi, that 'the bias of the machine fits in neatly with the results observed'? Not on your life! The scoring of some of Tart's subjects was so astonishingly high that the generator's slight bias does not appreciably alter the overall significance of the tests. This is true even if we adjusted the statistics to take this flaw into account. Anyone who takes the time to read Dr Tart's Learning to Use ESP can determine this for himself by recomputing the statistics. Despite this fact, Randi deliberately implies that Tart's work was not significant when it is re-evaluated. This misrepresentation is all the more serious since Randi surely realizes that his argument is totally ridiculous. When Dr Tart's book was first published, it was critically reviewed in the New York Review of Books by Martin Gardner, one of parapsychology's most caustic critics and a long-time friend of Randi's. Gardner had learned of the bias in Tart's work from Dr Stein, so he brought up the issue in his review with seeming relish. But after a lengthy series of exchanges with Dr Tart, even Gardner had to back down on this point! Since Gardner and Randi are fellow members of CSICOP the magician must have been aware when he wrote his book that his lame 'statistical bias' theory had been settled long ago. Of course, Randi's criticisms of Dr Tart are really rather peripheral to Flim-Flam! The main crux of the book is to make a frontal attack on Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff, and the entire SRI research programme in parapsychology. This would include their remote viewing experiments, as well as their work with such 'star' psychics as Ingo Swann and Uri Geller, the famous Israeli telepath and psychic 'metal-bender' Being that I was able to personally visit SRI to investigate Randi's claims and charges, I can only describe his chapter on their work as a shameless bit of prevarication. Space limitations will not permit me to expose all of Randi's errors and misrepresentations. So the following pages will cover only a few of his more important criticisms. To begin with, Randi particularly flays a series of magnetometer 'demonstrations' which Dr Puthoff conducted with Ingo Swann at Stanford University in 1972. Since these experiments were not discussed earlier in this volume, the following represents a brief summary of what occurred. The idea behind these tests was to see if Swann could influence a magnetometer, buried under a physics building around which a decaying magnetic field was set. Since the magnetometer was protected by a super- conducting shield, the output of the decaying field should have been impervious to any random influences. These brief experiments were described by Targ and Puthoff in their book Mind-Reach, in which they report that Swann was asked to interfere with the magnetometer by 'remote viewing' it. When Swann began to describe the device, the output of the decay pattern suddenly doubled! (This was easy to determine since a chart recorder was constantly monitoring the decay pattern.) This curious phenomenon was witnessed not only by Dr Puthoff, but also by Dr Arthur Hebard, a young Stanford physicist. The perturbation lasted for thirty seconds and Dr Hebard was surprised by this effect, since the strange output seemed to be physically inexplicable. So he suggested that Swann stop the output of the device completely. Swann tried and succeeded within seconds! He produced this same result later during the test by merely thinking about the machine, and the results did not seem due to some quirk in the magnetometer. The magnetometer chart was examined for two hours after Swann left the building, but no odd perturbations were noted during this control period. Mr Randi completely disputes this sequence of events. He reports that Dr Hebard was not happy with Swann's demonstration. The physicist was particularly annoyed that neither Russell Targ nor Dr Puthoff bothered to ask whether or not a normal explanation - such as equipment malfunction - could account for the effects. Randi then goes on to challenge other aspects of the demonstration. Based on his personal conversations with Dr Hebard, Randi next claims that a total of fifteen minutes went by between the time Swann began focusing his attention on the magnetometer when the perturbation really took place. It was only then, claims Randi, that Swann asked the experimenters, 'Is that what I'm supposed to do?' The magician further claims that Swann was never asked to stop the output of the magnetometer. The chart suddenly produced a levelling out, and then Swann opportunely asserted that he had produced the effect. When I spoke to Dr Puthoff about these charges, the SRI physicist grew extremely annoyed. He disputed Randi's information and explained in no uncertain terms that not more than sixty seconds went by between Swann's 'remote viewing' procedure and the occurrence of the magnetometer's first perturbation. He also maintained that Dr Hebard - unimpressed by the effect - had off-handedly suggested that it would be more impressive if Swann could cause the magnetometer's output to cease. There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology. It become quite clear during our phone conversation that Dr Hebard's memory of Swann's performance differed somewhat from Puthoff's. He disagreed with the physicist primarily about the length of time that passed from when Swann first attempted to remote view the magnetometer and when the subsequent perturbations took place. He recalled that several minutes passed by, as Randi asserts, and not merely several seconds, Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me. So while Randi has indeed shown that there are several unanswered questions about Swann's Stanford demonstration, he has certainly not provided the definitive scenario of what happened that day. His portrayal of Dr Hebard as a strong critic of both Targ and Puthoff and parapsychology also seems questionable, while his summary of his conversations with the physicist is rather inaccurate as well. (I might add that several weeks after I spoke to Dr Hebard, Dr Puthoff showed me the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's.) Randi doesn't end his attack on SRI with his comments on Ingo Swann, though. His real focus is the research that SRI conducted with Uri Geller, which was designed to study his purported telepathic and clairvoyant powers. This research was first published in Nature in October 1974. Since Nature is a prestigious British science publication, the SRI report caused a stir in scientific circles. Their report claimed that Geller, while sequestered in a sealed isolation booth, successfully and repeatedly reproduced drawings sent to him telepathically. The SRI researchers also explained that Geller was able to 'call' the uppermost face of a single die shaken in a closed box. Naturally, our beloved debunker plays down the importance of the Nature paper and states that 'as early as 1972, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, its authors, had submitted it to US publications as a project of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). All had rejected it.' Now this is blatantly untrue, since Targ and Puthoff had made no prior submission. Their goal was always to submit their report to Nature. Randi also snidely comments that the Nature paper was published with an editorial explaining that the report was being issued 'so that scientists could see the kind of. material that was being turned out in the field of parapsychology, and typified it as 'weak' and 'flawed.' Randi here engages in a series of half-truths, since he seems to be implying that the paper was published in order to embarrass parapsychology. The truth of the matter was that the editors of Nature found many flaws in the report with which to take issue. But they clearly stated in their editorial that they had decided on publication despite some of their reservations. They simply felt that they had an obligation to bring this type of research to the attention of their readers since the experiments had been conducted by legitimate scientists. The editorial was perfectly respectful and contained none of the innuendos implied by Randi. So let's look at the way Randi thinks Geller pulled the wool over Targ and Puthoff's eyes during the most critical series of experiments they ran together. The focal point of the SRI's Nature report concerned a series of experiments designed to explore or expose Geller's purported telepathic powers. For this carefully conducted series of tests, the psychic was placed in an isolation booth at SRI, while the experimenters remained in an adjoining room and selected the targets from a dictionary. (They opened the dictionary randomly and then sketched the first drawable word listed on the page) This drawing was then hung up for everyone - researchers and on-lookers alike - to see. Geller's job was to reproduce these drawings from his position inside the sealed chamber by telepathy. While there still remains some unanswered questions concerning the times Geller 'passed' on a drawing (i.e., refused to draw it), some of his successes were simply astounding. There is simply no way coincidence can explain some of them. For example, for one trial Geller drew a bunch of twenty-three grapes. The target was not only a similar drawing, but the grapes in that picture were even placed in the same configuration. Either this result was due to telepathy or somehow Geller managed to see the target before reproducing it. Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations. This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three-and-a- quarter inches and extends thorough a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments. Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the Geller work, since the important point is not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but whether Randi can be considered a responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be obvious by now. This fact, however, doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and Puthoff, even to the point of questioning their scientific honesty. It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle' Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim- Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did. l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) So just where did Randi come up with this nonsense about the SRI's Geller film? Randi does not specifically state that he personally spoke to Pressman, although he vaguely implies it. It seems instead that he procured this piece of misinformation from another SRI source, who was perhaps honesty mistaken about the film. Randi then repeated the error, never checked out his source, and used the error to make wild accusations against the SRI experimenters. The truly hilarious thing about this mess is that no film showing Geller making eight hits in a row was ever shot! Pressman only filmed one experiment, in which Geller is seen 'passing' - although guessing correctly - on the test. So Randi wasn't even able to describe the SRI film correctly, and he certainly never saw it. So much for Randi's attacks on Geller and those who have studied him. Finally we and Randi came to Targ and Puthoff's original 'remote viewing' research, which they pioneered at SRI, (as discussed earlier) during some informal tests conducted with Ingo Swann. These tests were refined when the physicists began conducting similar experiments with the late Pat Price, another gifted psychic and a former Burbank, California police commissioner. For these initial experiments, the subject was kept at SRI while an outbound experimenter drove to a location somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area. The subject was simply asked to visualize the outbound experimenter's location and describe it. After each session was completed, the subject was taken to the target site and a comparison was informally made between the location and the subject's description. During these early trials, each subject usually co-operated in a series of such sessions. The transcripts for all the sessions were then given to an independent (blind) judge, who then visited the sites or examined photographs of them. He then tried to match the sites with the descriptions. The overall success of these sets of remote viewing experiments was therefore based not only on the quality of the subject's responses, but by way of statistical tests calculated from the judge's correct matchings. The only criticism that Randi can come up with is to complain that the SRI judging procedures were extremely faulty. This criticism is not an original one, for Randi bases his information on some 'findings' made by two New Zealand psychologists - the late Richard Kammann and David Marks - who visited SRI when the remote viewing research was first beginning to come to scientific attention. (They report on their visit in their own book The Psychology of the Psychic.) Drs. Marks and Kammann discovered that the SRI researchers often forgot to edit out little 'clues' in the transcripts, clues that could have helped the independent judge to determine which target went to which description. For instance, in one test the subject was told that he already had 'three successes' behind him. The judge was thus clued to the fact that this transcript corresponded to the fourth session and target site But this wasn't all that the psychologists claimed. For according to Randi, they also 'discovered [that] the judges had been given the locations in chronological order, and they knew it. The barest trace of experimental care would have demanded that this list be "scrambled" But it was not.' Randi then goes on to explain how the two psychologists then re-edited the transcripts for one particularly successful series of SRI tests in order to correct this fatal flaw. They then proceeded to have the entire series rejudged, but their judge couldn't make the correct matches at all. 'The Targ and Puthoff miracle is out of the window,' declares Randi. These criticisms may seem devastating but they really aren't. To begin with, there certainly were flaws in the early remote viewing work, and the issue of the faulty editing was crucial. But parapsychologists working at other laboratories were quick to point out these problems to their SRI colleagues, who immediately corrected the flaws. But the story of the SRI remote viewing work doesn't end here, by any means. Dr Charles Tart eventually came to take a special interest in these early 'flawed' experiments, and he re-edited the same remote viewing reports the New Zealand psychologists had worked with. He deleted the possible cues and then sent them to be rejudged. This time the results were still statistically significant. Nor is it true that the transcripts and/or the sites for the critical series were given to the judge in chronological order. Some time after the publication of The Psychology of the Psychic, I personally spoke to the psychologist in charge of judging this series. He told me that everything was properly randomized when he received the materials from SRI. Of course, our sceptic totally ignores the fact that the remote viewing effect has been replicated both at SRI and at several other laboratories, using even more stringent controls than went into the original experiments. Successful remote viewing experiments have been reported from Mundelein College in Evanston, Illinois; from the Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories in California; and recently from the Institute for Parapsychology in Durham, North Carolina. So the validity of the remote viewing effect no longer rests on Targ and Puthoff's experiments alone, but on a large body of experimental findings . . . findings that even Randi, with all his magical knowledge, can't make disappear. Some Concluding Notes So there rests the sceptic's case. Not every sceptic is this irresponsible, but the cases we've been evaluating tend to be embarrassingly typical. The simple fact remains that parapsychology's detractors have a terrible time explaining away the field's findings. If psi doesn't exist, this fact would be self-evident by now. So it is more than revealing that the field's debunkers so often fall to manufacturing flaws in our experiments - or even, as with the CSICOP/Gauquelin fiasco, cover up their own positive findings. Where does this leave parapsychology? The field certainly seems to be in healthy shape. There is probably more fruitful research going on within parapsychology today than during any other time in its short history. It is also currency turning in even more exciting directions, and these directions promise to help convert even more scientists. We briefly examined this trend in chapters two and three, where the use of ESP for predicting the results of horse-races and financial investments was discussed. When parapsychology first became a primarily experimental science, nobody thought that psi would ever be harnessed for any practical purpose. No one really thought that there existed a practical side to the sixth sense. Editorializing back in 1945, in fact, Dr J.B. Rhine eschewed searching for any real uses for extrasensory perception or psychokinesis. 'No practical use can be made of them with our present state of knowledge,' he wrote 'They are not reliable enough.' Rhine didn't even think that the practical applications issue was very important to the parapsychology of his day, for he went on to write that ' . . practical application has never been the objective of the investigations. This is not because practical application is regarded as of no importance, but because the true goals of research are so incomparably greater in importance that practical application seems downright trivial in contrast.' The 'true' goal of parapsychology, believed the Duke researcher, was to disclose mankind's place in the universe. Since Dr Rhine entered the field to resolve his personal religious conflicts, this was a reasonable view for him to take. And if we examine the research projects conducted by parapsychologists fifty years ago, Rhine's position seems even more logical. The field had been previously preoccupied with the survival enigma and was only beginning to turn to the scientific laboratory. Rhine's pioneering research at Duke University in the 1930s certainly proved the existence of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis. But his research strategies - which were basically card-calling ESP experiments and dice-rolling explorations of PK - were extremely limited. While they demonstrated that some people possess a sixth sense, the faculty seemed to be weak and capricious. The Duke researchers came to feel that the days of the great psychics were over. These younger parapsychologists, who had been trained specifically in the lab, even began to wonder whether truly great psychics ever really existed - or whether their feats were the result of fraud clever enough to dupe their predecessors. These researchers began to see ESP and PK as incredibly elusive powers, powers that surface only rarely. In fact, they didn't even become interested in ESP and its role in day-to-day life until the 1940s. What is so ironic is that primitive cultures, these wellsprings of the sixth sense, have never considered psychic power in this ludicrously limited way. To these peoples, ESP and PK were (and are) powerful forces that should be put to work to help their community. This point was recently made by Dr Jule Eisenbud, a psychoanalyst from Denver, Colorado who has been studying parapsychology for years. Speaking before a conference of anthropologists in 1978, he pointed to several differences between the Western and the 'primitive' belief- systems concerning psychic phenomena. To the world of the primitive ' . . behaviours based upon the power of thought to accomplish things are reality oriented. They simply make use of processes considered to be inherent in the social order and the universe.' It was this world view that gave rise to the Shamanic tradition. The shaman is supposed to employ his powers for the good of his people. It would be a pretty pathetic shaman who constancy excused himself for failing to conjure a rainstorm, couldn't find someone's lost ring, or failed to heal a member of his community. We are hardly so demanding when we work with our own psychics! Luckily, though, we are seeing a real change of attitude within today's parapsychological community. Practical applications for the sixth sense is becoming the topic of the 1980s. This promising area of study has been christened with its own name Psionics is a term originally coined by Dr Jeffrey Mishlove, who was one of the first parapsychologists to urge his colleagues to explore the world of 'applied psi' research. He employs this term to separate it from formal experimental/laboratory research. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### Message-ID: <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 4 Mar 2000 21:27:41 -0800 X-Trace: 4 Mar 2000 21:27:41 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 28 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.online.be!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cleanfeed.inet.tele.dQ!netscum.int!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34951 Never mind. I got the piece. Questions: Who wrote it? It is plural. When was it written? Where was it originally written? -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor. - William C. Easttom II, skeptic@icon.net ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:45:08 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 34 Message-ID: <89ssud$ern$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952235790 15223 63.27.213.52 (5 Mar 2000 05:56:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.usit.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35007 I'm not sure on the answers to that one, still it should be easy to check out. I'll look through it again for missed information. John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com>... > >Never mind. I got the piece. > >Questions: > >Who wrote it? It is plural. > >When was it written? > >Where was it originally written? > >-- >John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. >Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > >God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be >tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be >akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose >to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man >says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his >imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him "loving" and >build churches in his honor. > - William C. Easttom II, skeptic@icon.net > > ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:48:59 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 26 Message-ID: <89st5o$euu$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952236025 15326 63.27.213.52 (5 Mar 2000 06:00:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newscore.gigabell.net!news-fra.pop.de!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35006 Apparently it was originally on a website I've lifted the link from the text and pasted it below. The websites owner or maintainer could be contacted for more information. If you choose to do so let me know what you find out. Oystein Hokstad http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s084533 Oystein.Hokstad@NOSPAMsensewave.com John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com>... > >Questions: > >Who wrote it? It is plural. > >When was it written? > >Where was it originally written? > >-- >John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:18:11 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 35 Message-ID: <89sut8$gdj$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89st5o$euu$1@news.laserlink.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952237803 16819 63.27.213.52 (5 Mar 2000 06:30:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.tli.de!news.ndh.net!news-fra.pop.de!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35001 Well, apparently that link wasn't very useful. The link leads only to a front end of someone's website and the only link there is his photo album. Oh, well. The only thing to do is ask the original poster to this group. Jerry Adams wrote in message <89st5o$euu$1@news.laserlink.net>... >Apparently it was originally on a website I've lifted the link from the text >and pasted it below. The websites owner or maintainer could be contacted for >more information. If you choose to do so let me know what you find out. > >Oystein Hokstad >http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s084533 >Oystein.Hokstad@NOSPAMsensewave.com > >John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com>... >> > > >>Questions: >> >>Who wrote it? It is plural. >> >>When was it written? >> >>Where was it originally written? >> >>-- >>John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >>Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > > > ###### From: "Cathy Credulous" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Lines: 23 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: <7mnw4.502$LJ4.270442@news.abs.net> Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:45:47 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.19.142.240 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net X-Trace: news.abs.net 952238595 207.19.142.240 (Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:43:15 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:43:15 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!news.abs.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34961 "John M Price PhD" wrote in message news:38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com... > > Never mind. I got the piece. > > Questions: > > Who wrote it? It is plural. > > When was it written? > > Where was it originally written? It seems to be a link to one of Uri Geller's pages. http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/pbt.htm I remembered reading it while following the Geller "after-bending effects' thread in alt.paranormal. -- Cathy ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:06:55 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 42 Message-ID: <89t1qc$hvu$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <7mnw4.502$LJ4.270442@news.abs.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952240807 18430 63.27.213.140 (5 Mar 2000 07:20:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35002 The link you provided lead to a webpage from which I have cut the books title and a chapter citation. I am now going to amazon.com for review information and any other material I can find. For anyone interested, I have pasted the title and chapter citation below: Psychic Breakthroughs Today An excerpt from Chapter 17, The failure of Skepticism I would say that the title wouldn't exactly impress the skeptics nor the fact that Cathy says it was on a Geller page (I didn't hang around long enough to find out as I would like to stay out of the Geller is/is not a fake fracas .) However, perhaps the book is by a more scientifically rigorous author despite the title. At any rate I shall see what I can find out. Thanks. Cathy Credulous wrote in message <7mnw4.502$LJ4.270442@news.abs.net>... > >"John M Price PhD" wrote in message >news:38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com... >> >> Never mind. I got the piece. >> >> Questions: >> >> Who wrote it? It is plural. >> >> When was it written? >> >> Where was it originally written? > >It seems to be a link to one of Uri Geller's pages. >http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/pbt.htm >I remembered reading it while following the Geller "after-bending effects' >thread in alt.paranormal. > >-- >Cathy > > ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:19:54 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 40 Message-ID: <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952241586 18949 63.27.213.140 (5 Mar 2000 07:33:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!falcon.america.net!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34983 Thanks to Cathy below, I was able to track down the name of the author. His name is D. Scott Rogo, or Scott Rogo and the book is out of print. There was only one (reader's) review ( for this book) which claimed he was a very scientific writer. He has many book titles to his credit and a lot of them look interesting while some look rather "fluffy". I suppose if I looked for all the titles for reviews or authors information on the latest one we could get some idea of his credentials, but it was a rather extensive list. Perhaps you can come up with some info on him. John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com>... > >Never mind. I got the piece. > >Questions: > >Who wrote it? It is plural. > >When was it written? > >Where was it originally written? > >-- >John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. >Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > >God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be >tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be >akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose >to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man >says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his >imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him "loving" and >build churches in his honor. > - William C. Easttom II, skeptic@icon.net > > ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:40:18 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 62 Message-ID: <89t3r0$j3a$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952242849 19562 63.27.213.140 (5 Mar 2000 07:54:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34970 Apparently he is dead. there is a educational grant in his honor an chapter about it is pasted below: LITERATURE AWARD In honor of the generosity of the late D. Scott Rogo, parapsychologist and prolific writer, the Parapsychology Foundation offers the D. Scott Rogo Award for Parapsychological Literature. This annual award of $3,000 is given to an author working on a manuscript pertaining to the science of parapsychology. A brief synopsis of the proposed contents of the manuscript should be included in the initial application. The deadline for submission is April 15th and the awardee is notified on or about May 1st. He had about thirty three books to his credit according to my earlier amazon.com search. Jerry Adams wrote in message <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net>... >Thanks to Cathy below, I was able to track down the name of the author. His >name is D. Scott Rogo, or Scott Rogo and the book is out of print. There was >only one (reader's) review ( for this book) which claimed he was a very >scientific writer. He has many book titles to his credit and a lot of them >look interesting while some look rather "fluffy". I suppose if I looked for >all the titles for reviews or authors information on the latest one we could >get some idea of his credentials, but it was a rather extensive list. >Perhaps you can come up with some info on him. > >John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com>... >> >>Never mind. I got the piece. >> >>Questions: >> >>Who wrote it? It is plural. >> >>When was it written? >> >>Where was it originally written? >> >>-- >>John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >>Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! >> Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. >>Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 >> Syndicate Section III - Number 1 >> >>God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be >>tortured for eternity in hell. That sir, is not free will. It would be >>akin to a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose >>to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man >>says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his >>imprisonment/execution. When god says the same we call him "loving" and >>build churches in his honor. >> - William C. Easttom II, skeptic@icon.net >> >> > > ###### Message-ID: <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 952267850 207.103.34.8 (Sun, 05 Mar 2000 07:50:50 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 07:50:50 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 14:50:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!europa.netcrusader.net!206.132.58.120!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34906 Jerry Adams wrote: > > Thanks to Cathy below, I was able to track down the name of the author. His > name is D. Scott Rogo, or Scott Rogo and the book is out of print. There was > only one (reader's) review ( for this book) which claimed he was a very > scientific writer. He has many book titles to his credit and a lot of them > look interesting while some look rather "fluffy". I suppose if I looked for > all the titles for reviews or authors information on the latest one we could > get some idea of his credentials, but it was a rather extensive list. > Perhaps you can come up with some info on him. I have a book of Rogo's in the house, called *UFO Abductions: True Cases of Alien Kidnappings*. This was something required for a folklore course in which we compared the fairy faith of European cultures to modern beliefs in aliens. As far as I can recall, and assess from a quick perusal of the "Towards an Explanation" section at the end, he had a rather elaborate neo-Jungian interpretation of the phenomenon. ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:22:37 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 19 Message-ID: <89u66u$6ep$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89st5o$euu$1@news.laserlink.net> <89sut8$gdj$1@news.laserlink.net> <89tpiq$mpg$1@news.ost.eltele.no> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952278047 6617 63.22.216.54 (5 Mar 2000 17:40:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feeder2.wcg.net!WCG!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34974 Don't worry, I tracked it down. The important part was the author's name not the website. ;) Øystein Hokstad wrote in message <89tpiq$mpg$1@news.ost.eltele.no>... >Hi, >sorry i don't remember where I found it. I downloaded it for reading when I >surfing the net many weeks ago. It probably could be found with some >searching. > >Oystein Hokstad >-- >http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s084533 >Oystein.Hokstad@sensewave.com > > > > ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:31:51 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 19 Message-ID: <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952278609 6945 63.22.216.54 (5 Mar 2000 17:50:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34971 Well, in addition, if the institute that gives that grant I mentioned in another post has true academic/science credentials it might be a little bit more convincing. (provided it has other links to the departed author.) Janice wrote in message <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net>... >I have a book of Rogo's in the house, called *UFO Abductions: True Cases of Alien Kidnappings*. This was something required for a folklore course in which we compared the fairy faith of European cultures to modern beliefs in aliens. As far as I can recall, and assess from a quick perusal of the "Towards an Explanation" section at the end, he had a rather elaborate neo-Jungian interpretation of the phenomenon. My reading on abductions is scant, at best. If I understand you correctly that would be the theory that these are some sort of archetypal phenomenon based on group unconscious? ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 13:54:05 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 91 Message-ID: <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: async150.starlinx.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35079 [May be a duplicate - my news server was acting up.] Jerry Adams wrote: > > Well, in addition, if the institute that gives that grant I mentioned in > another post has true academic/science credentials it might be a little bit > more convincing. (provided it has other links to the departed author.) Here's an excerpt from the "About the Author" segment at the back of the book (p. 243): "D. Scott Rogo is well known as an educator and researcher in the fields of ufology and parapsychology. He has been a visiting research consultant for the Psychical Research Foundation in Durham, North Carolina; a visiting researcher at the division of parapsychology and psychophysics of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York; and director of research for the Society for Psychic Research in Beverly Hills, California. He is currently lecturer in parapsychology at John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, Califonia." > > Janice wrote in message <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net>... > > >I have a book of Rogo's in the house, called *UFO Abductions: True Cases of > Alien Kidnappings*. This was something required for a folklore course in > which we compared the fairy faith of European cultures to modern beliefs in > aliens. As far as I can recall, and assess from a quick perusal of the > "Towards an Explanation" section at the end, he had a rather elaborate > neo-Jungian interpretation of the phenomenon. > > My reading on abductions is scant, at best. If I understand you correctly > that would be the theory that these are some sort of archetypal phenomenon > based on group unconscious? Something like that. Rogo was apparently basing this on suggestions in earlier works such as Clark and Coleman's *The Unidentified*. The gist of their idea was that an encounter with a UFO causes "an existential crisis in the life of the observer" resulting in a vision "couched in terms of a UFO abduction during which the victim is forced to confront cosmic and metaphysical issues presented to him by his own mind in the form of psychological archtypes and symbols" (p. 230). Rogo goes on to speculate that personal issues may be addressed as well as cosmic ones, then gets into a complex theory about how some mysterious force that he calls *The Phenomenon* (again following Clark) extracts information from the unconscious mind of the victim and somehow beams it back to him or her in physical reality. ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:41:53 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 101 Message-ID: <89uegf$bqo$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952286544 12120 63.22.216.54 (5 Mar 2000 20:02:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!uunet!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35084 No. The first one did not show up at least at my news feed. How reputable are those organizations mentioned (if you have any idea)? Janice wrote in message <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net>... >[May be a duplicate - my news server was acting up.] > >Jerry Adams wrote: > >> > >> Well, in addition, if the institute that gives that grant I mentioned in > >> another post has true academic/science credentials it might be a little bit > >> more convincing. (provided it has other links to the departed author.) > > > >Here's an excerpt from the "About the Author" segment at the back of the > >book (p. 243): > > > >"D. Scott Rogo is well known as an educator and researcher in the fields > >of ufology and parapsychology. He has been a visiting research > >consultant for the Psychical Research Foundation in Durham, North > >Carolina; a visiting researcher at the division of parapsychology and > >psychophysics of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York; and > >director of research for the Society for Psychic Research in Beverly > >Hills, California. He is currently lecturer in parapsychology at John > >F. Kennedy University in Orinda, Califonia." > > > > > >> > >> Janice wrote in message <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net>... > >> > >> >I have a book of Rogo's in the house, called *UFO Abductions: True Cases of > >> Alien Kidnappings*. This was something required for a folklore course in > >> which we compared the fairy faith of European cultures to modern beliefs in > >> aliens. As far as I can recall, and assess from a quick perusal of the > >> "Towards an Explanation" section at the end, he had a rather elaborate > >> neo-Jungian interpretation of the phenomenon. > >> > >> My reading on abductions is scant, at best. If I understand you correctly > >> that would be the theory that these are some sort of archetypal phenomenon > >> based on group unconscious? > > > >Something like that. Rogo was apparently basing this on suggestions in > >earlier works such as Clark and Coleman's *The Unidentified*. The gist > >of their idea was that an encounter with a UFO causes "an existential > >crisis in the life of the observer" resulting in a vision "couched in > >terms of a UFO abduction during which the victim is forced to confront > >cosmic and metaphysical issues presented to him by his own mind in the > >form of psychological archtypes and symbols" (p. 230). Rogo goes on to > >speculate that personal issues may be addressed as well as cosmic ones, > >then gets into a complex theory about how some mysterious force that he > >calls *The Phenomenon* (again following Clark) extracts information from > >the unconscious mind of the victim and somehow beams it back to him or > >her in physical reality. ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:20:08 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 65 Message-ID: <38C2C178.6E0D@not-here.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net> <89uegf$bqo$1@news.laserlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: async141.starlinx.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35111 Jerry Adams wrote: > > No. The first one did not show up at least at my news feed. It may turn up eventually. > How reputable > are those organizations mentioned (if you have any idea)? I have no idea. Haunter might know. > > Janice wrote in message <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net>... > >[May be a duplicate - my news server was acting up.] > > > >Jerry Adams wrote: > > > >> Well, in addition, if the institute that gives that grant I mentioned in > >> another post has true academic/science credentials it might be a little > bit > >> more convincing. (provided it has other links to the departed author.) > > > >Here's an excerpt from the "About the Author" segment at the back of the > > > >book (p. 243): > > > >"D. Scott Rogo is well known as an educator and researcher in the fields > >of ufology and parapsychology. He has been a visiting research > >consultant for the Psychical Research Foundation in Durham, North > >Carolina; a visiting researcher at the division of parapsychology and > >psychophysics of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York; and > >director of research for the Society for Psychic Research in Beverly > >Hills, California. He is currently lecturer in parapsychology at John > >F. Kennedy University in Orinda, Califonia." > >> > > > >> Janice wrote in message <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net>... > > > > > >> >I have a book of Rogo's in the house, called *UFO Abductions: True Cases > of > >> Alien Kidnappings*. This was something required for a folklore course in > >> which we compared the fairy faith of European cultures to modern beliefs > in > >> aliens. As far as I can recall, and assess from a quick perusal of the > >> "Towards an Explanation" section at the end, he had a rather elaborate > >> neo-Jungian interpretation of the phenomenon. > > > >> My reading on abductions is scant, at best. If I understand you correctly > >> that would be the theory that these are some sort of archetypal > phenomenon > >> based on group unconscious? > > > >Something like that. Rogo was apparently basing this on suggestions in > >earlier works such as Clark and Coleman's *The Unidentified*. The gist > >of their idea was that an encounter with a UFO causes "an existential > >crisis in the life of the observer" resulting in a vision "couched in > >terms of a UFO abduction during which the victim is forced to confront > >cosmic and metaphysical issues presented to him by his own mind in the > >form of psychological archtypes and symbols" (p. 230). Rogo goes on to > >speculate that personal issues may be addressed as well as cosmic ones, > >then gets into a complex theory about how some mysterious force that he > >calls *The Phenomenon* (again following Clark) extracts information from > >the unconscious mind of the victim and somehow beams it back to him or > >her in physical reality. ###### From: Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:01:56 GMT Organization: AlteredState Imaging/Psi App/WCS Lines: 35 Message-ID: <38ecca01.253321445@cnews.newsguy.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C2AD4D.1D3A@not-here.net> <89uegf$bqo$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C2C178.6E0D@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-995.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35195 I've been hearing/seeing Rogo's work referenced for years and I believe he has a very good reputation in the field, although I'm not familiar with the UFO/abduction work talked about. The Psychical Research Center is actually the Rhine Research Center...home of the Journal of Parapsychology and named after the dude who first applied statistics to the study of Psi phenomena. JFK University no longer has degree programs in Parapsychology. Mamonides Medical Center is known world-wide for their excellent studies over the years in the area of Dream Telepathy and such. Haunter On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:20:08 -0500, Janice wrote: >Jerry Adams wrote: >> >> No. The first one did not show up at least at my news feed. > >It may turn up eventually. > >> How reputable >> are those organizations mentioned (if you have any idea)? > >I have no idea. Haunter might know. > >> >"D. Scott Rogo is well known as an educator and researcher in the fields >> >of ufology and parapsychology. He has been a visiting research >> >consultant for the Psychical Research Foundation in Durham, North >> >Carolina; a visiting researcher at the division of parapsychology and >> >psychophysics of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York; and >> >director of research for the Society for Psychic Research in Beverly >> >Hills, California. He is currently lecturer in parapsychology at John >> >F. Kennedy University in Orinda, Califonia." >> >> > ###### Message-ID: <38c2f820_1@news3.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 5 Mar 2000 16:13:20 -0800 X-Trace: 5 Mar 2000 16:13:20 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 22 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!cleanfeed.inet.tele.dQ!netscum.int!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35142 Thanks, Jerry. This is an interesting thread. That said, I don't think very highly of Targ et al as scientists. They seem to be more into confirmation. They did drop data that didn't fit. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 "As a matter of fact, the cultural, mental, and behavioral correlates of... races seem ... to be of very slight importance. In so far as heredity is a determinant of these capacities and activities, it is one's own individual inheritance (his unique genic combination) that is all important ... and most insignificantly, racial inheritance." - E. A. Hooton, 1946,_Up From The Ape_, Revised Edition, pp. 658-659. ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:03:33 -0600 Organization: laserlink.net Lines: 32 Message-ID: <89uvt7$oba$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <38c1e8eb_1@news3.calweb.com> <38c1f04d_1@news9.calweb.com> <89t2ji$ig5$1@news.laserlink.net> <38C27485.52FB@not-here.net> <89u6of$6p1$1@news.laserlink.net> <38c2f820_1@news3.calweb.com> X-Trace: news.laserlink.net 952304361 24938 63.22.216.42 (6 Mar 2000 00:59:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@laserlink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!uunet!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35189 Thanks. Even people who have ideas at variance with accepted norms don't enjoy being taken in by false information what our more abrasive skeptics would call "kooks". I am not sure of the rigor of Targ et al either, but based on what little I know about it I cannot write them off. Even this author we're discussing because I have not read any of his books. John M Price PhD wrote in message <38c2f820_1@news3.calweb.com>... >Thanks, Jerry. > >This is an interesting thread. That said, I don't think very highly of >Targ et al as scientists. They seem to be more into confirmation. They >did drop data that didn't fit. > > >-- >John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com >Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! > Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. >Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 > Syndicate Section III - Number 1 > >"As a matter of fact, the cultural, mental, and behavioral correlates >of... races seem ... to be of very slight importance. In so far as >heredity is a determinant of these capacities and activities, it is >one's own individual inheritance (his unique genic combination) that is >all important ... and most insignificantly, racial inheritance." > - E. A. Hooton, 1946,_Up From The Ape_, > Revised Edition, pp. 658-659. > ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:22:23 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 45 Message-ID: <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.213.70 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 06 12:22:23 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.131.213.70 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35137 In article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. [...] [quoted section] > If you will recall, > Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of > California > at Davis in the early 1970s with > the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to determine > if a subject's ESP scores would > improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes and > failures. The > experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an experimental > room with a console in front of > him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in a > circle. A light was located next to > each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a > similar console, where he was > provided with a television monitor so that he could see the subject. > The experimenter randomly chose a > series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated > randomly by a device hooked to the set up. > He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the subject > then made his choice. After this > choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of the > correct target by illuminating the > proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best subjects > scored phenomenally above chance, > with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. I have scanned Medline but cannot find a reference to such a paper, Can anyone give a citation for it? Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: PZ Myers Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 07:39:23 -0500 Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp12.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/myers/ X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, Sherilyn wrote: > In article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net>, > John Garrison wrote: > > A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. [...] > > [quoted section] > > If you will recall, > > Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of > > California at Davis in the early 1970s with > > the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to > > determine > > if a subject's ESP scores would > > improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes > > and > > failures. The > > experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an > > experimental > > room with a console in front of > > him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged > > in a > > circle. A light was located next to > > each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a > > similar console, where he was > > provided with a television monitor so that he could see the > > subject. > > The experimenter randomly chose a > > series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated > > randomly by a device hooked to the set up. > > He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the > > subject > > then made his choice. After this > > choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of > > the > > correct target by illuminating the > > proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best > > subjects > > scored phenomenally above chance, > > with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. > > I have scanned Medline but cannot find a reference to such a paper, > Can anyone give a citation for it? I'd be mildly interested, too. However, given: 1) Tart's reputation as a flake and 2) The fact that the experiment that 'worked' is one in which he intentionally set up a means of communication between experimenter and subject, I suspect that this is all going to turn out to be more sloppy pseudoscience from the paranormalists. So, if these subjects who were 'trained' were then tested with all the flashing light cues removed, did they retain these phenomenal scores? And if this is a skill that can be trained with feedback, where are all the well-practiced mindreaders? ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:02:41 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 70 Message-ID: <8a0a9f$ljm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.213.70 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 06 13:02:41 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.131.213.70 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35146 In article <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Sherilyn wrote: > In article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net>, > John Garrison wrote: > > A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. > [...] > > [quoted section] > > If you will recall, > > Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of > > California > > at Davis in the early 1970s with > > the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to > determine > > if a subject's ESP scores would > > improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes > and > > failures. The > > experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an > experimental > > room with a console in front of > > him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in > a > > circle. A light was located next to > > each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a > > similar console, where he was > > provided with a television monitor so that he could see the subject. > > The experimenter randomly chose a > > series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated > > randomly by a device hooked to the set up. > > He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the > subject > > then made his choice. After this > > choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of > the > > correct target by illuminating the > > proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best > subjects > > scored phenomenally above chance, > > with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. > > I have scanned Medline but cannot find a reference to such a paper, > Can anyone give a citation for it? I think I've found the citation, in one of Tart's later papers on the same subject. Gardner's comment on the bias in the random number generator appears to have been right on the money, though. It's funny how these guys always start ranting and pulling their hair out as soon as you point out an error in their methodology. This is the paper I think is being referred to--it's the only one on the subject that predates his book on the subject. TART, C. T. The application of learning theory to ESP performance. (Parapsychological Monographs No. 15.) New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1975. An attempt by Tart to replicate the original results using a reliable random number generator apparently failed, and he is apparently reported by Gardner and Randi to have blamed this failure variously on less talented subjects and machine malfunctions. It's odd that someone should choose this case as an attack on Randi, who simply reported Tart's failure. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:26:53 GMT Organization: AlteredState Imaging/Psi App/WCS Lines: 14 Message-ID: <38c4b1e0.850374@cnews.newsguy.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-052.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!pln-e!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35169 It's prolly one of these, Sherilyn: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/sci-docs/ctt85-pcatn.html http://www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/sci-docs/ctt83-iarif.html On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:22:23 GMT, Sherilyn wrote: >I have scanned Medline but cannot find a reference to such a paper, Can >anyone give a citation for it? > > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Before you buy. ###### Message-ID: <38C3F276.33BF6E2B@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a0a9f$ljm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 62 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:57:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp01.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:57:24 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35230 Sherilyn wrote: > > It's odd that someone should choose this case as an attack on Randi, > who simply reported Tart's failure. > It's odd how you comment on this as a defense of Randi and blatantly ignore the lies that Randi put in his book about Dr. Hebard never asking Swann to stop the field charge, even though Dr. Hebard says that he did. (and Dr. Hebard appears to be the skeptical one!). It is also convienent that you ignore the part where after Randi tried to get Hebard to call some of Targ and Puthoff's claims lies and Hebard refused, Randi went ahead and put said that Hebard called some of Targ and Puthoff's claims lies in his book anyway! Hebard was pretty annoyed by this blatant lie as you can imagine! (and might I add that the printed graphs support Puthoff's claims more than Hebards claims anyhow!) What about this part: "Naturally, our beloved debunker plays down the importance of the Nature paper and states that 'as early as 1972, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, its authors, had submitted it to US publications as a project of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). All had rejected it.' Now this is blatantly untrue, since Targ and Puthoff had made no prior submission. Their goal was always to submit their report to Nature" It's also funny how Randi just "makes up" a size and position for the hole and puts it in a place that Gellar could see through instead of in the place that it actual was, were noone under even perfect circumstances could see through. And of course one again blatantly lies and says that the scientists didn't monitor the hole during the test. What about when Randi says Pressman told him that the footage of Gellar was a re-enactment because he wasn't there to see it, and then Dr. Puthoff supplies the author with an affadavit to the contrary and Pressman denies ever talking to Randi! So am I to assume Sherilyn that it is OK to lie your ass of in the name of skepticism! You guys love to call what we do downright lies, but the fact that you are still defending Randi as some type of patron saint of Debunking, tells me that it is your kind that are the liars. Now, I am going to ask nicely that if any skeptics want me to take them seriously then they stop using Randi's prize as their scapegoat. If you are a real skeptic are truly value the "scientific method" and "critical thinking" then you cannot possible condone such behavior. ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:21:01 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 21 Message-ID: <8a0su7$3et$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38c4b1e0.850374@cnews.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.188.143.107 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 06 18:21:01 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.188.143.107 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!europa.netcrusader.net!205.231.236.10!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35143 In article <38c4b1e0.850374@cnews.newsguy.com>, Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:22:23 GMT, Sherilyn > wrote: > > >I have scanned Medline but cannot find a reference to such a paper, Can > >anyone give a citation for it? > > It's prolly one of these, Sherilyn: > http://www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/sci-docs/ctt85-pcatn.html > http://www.paradigm-sys.com/cttart/sci-docs/ctt83-iarif.html No, it's none of them. The study in question, from 1975, is not available on that website, though it is referenced in a 1977 paper. Gardner debunked it. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Shaking Hell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Organization: collection60@hotmail.kom References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: ('6#W3M0VcTo"48.W9C'HH[]}D;ZATZ;(K~h4&sqcUp(NpxUQKztt93LZ(hMQ fp[:%MK!c2S<7'Ix>7fum|@@+m;v]O}!`+Rg@pmO,1K@=D\|:tUx.1f}#!Jb>$v4!3B7 5y}=X\oO+7!v/`>7$0-n4I>9[D;$BlY)$hw#Yg|f&DLl"r-%v9Hi(-a&$CrP1/*V|6m] ?y"O*bT`sw@nd<_L!l2e>*95Q>&/A6B-)AW-#g/saJ|t/arNjaLt.0di4Fl Message-ID: Lines: 528 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:57:25 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.60.207 X-Complaints-To: news-admin@dircon.co.uk X-Trace: news.dircon.co.uk 952390684 194.112.60.207 (Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:58:04 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:58:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!easynet-melon!easynet-uk!easynet.net!peer1.news.dircon.net!peer2.news.dircon.net!news.dircon.co.uk.POSTED!asdfg Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35213 John Garrison wrote: A few people asked me to find this on Deja and repost it. All I did was copy and paste so the formatting might be a bit.. well.. horrible. Hope ya can read it. I should point out that the only response Wally gave (it was addressed to him) was asking the newsgroup sci.skeptics to help him refute it. That is to say he couldn't do it by himself. To the best of my knowledge no other skeptics had a rebuttal either. --------Begin Repost-------- Psychic Breakthroughs Today The Failure of Scepticism .... Now let's turn to another sceptic and critic of parapsychology. This is a sceptic who is familiar with the field. A Magician's Crusade Against the Paranormal One of parapsychology's more recent attackers is James ('the Amazing') Randi, a magician-turned-debunker from Rumson, New Jersey. As a former escape artist and mentalist, Randi has been waging a holy war against psychics and parapsychologists for several years. Randi's most complete challenge to the field comes by way of his recent book Flim-Flam! It was originally published in 1980 and was subtitled 'the truth about unicorns, parapsychology and ocher delusions'. Despite this cynical subtitle, very little in the book is concerned with conventional parapsychology at all. Most of it is devoted to such disreputable topics as 'fairy' photographs, the ancient astronaut controversy, biorhythms, and other 'scientific' borderlands. So just what areas of parapsychology does Mr Randi cover in his book? Most of the coverage is devoted to what most scientifically-trained psi researchers snidely call 'pop' parapsychology or 'drug store' parapsychology. This is the world of television psychics, psychic surgery, Kirlian photography, do-it-yourself ESP development courses, and so on. These are areas towards which most orthodox parapsychologists cast a scornful as well as sceptical eye Randi never tells his readers this, of course. But now and again he does talk about and criticize more legitimate parapsychology, and it is here where he is at his glorious worst. Time and time again he flagrantly misrepresents what parapsychologists have said about psychic phenomena. If this weren't bad enough, he goes on to woefully misquote and misdescribe their research. This fact can no better be illustrated than by examining what Randi has to say about two well-known bodies of research: 1. The research of Dr Charles Tart of the University of California at Davis, who has been testing to see if certain people can be trained to learn ESP. 2. The highly publicized research of Russell Targ and Dr Harold Puthoff formerly of the Menlo Park, California-based Stanford Research Institute. Their investigations included a series of PK tests with Ingo Swann; some ESP experiments with Uri Geller; and considerable research into the byways of 'remote viewing'. By examining what Randi says about this research, one sees him for what he really is - either a hopelessly confused critic who just doesn't seem capable of understanding the sophisticated way parapsychological research is designed and conducted, or a shrewd antagonist for whom debunking has become a holy war in which deliberate distortion and misrepresentation become a valid means towards a greater end. Mr Randi's brief attack on Dr Tart's research on ESP learning is a good case in point. If you will recall, Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of California at Davis in the early 1970s with the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to determine if a subject's ESP scores would improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes and failures. The experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an experimental room with a console in front of him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in a circle. A light was located next to each one. The experimenter remained in another room in front of a similar console, where he was provided with a television monitor so that he could see the subject. The experimenter randomly chose a series of 'targets' by relying on a sequence of digits generated randomly by a device hooked to the set up. He signalled the subject after generating each target, and the subject then made his choice. After this choice was recorded, the experimenter then informed the subject of the correct target by illuminating the proper light on the subject's console. Some of Dr Tart's best subjects scored phenomenally above chance, with accumulative odds of millions to one against chance. Randi feels confident he can explain Dr Tart's results, for he writes that: . . . Sherman Stein, a mathematician at the University of California at Los Angeles where the tests were done, in examining the raw data on which the book was based, came upon an anomaly. It seems that though Tart had checked out his random-number generator and found it gave a good distribution of digits, it did not repeat digits as it should. In 5000 digits produced by the machine, there should have been close to 500 'twins'. If, for example, a three comes up, there is exactly one chance in ten that another three will be produced next. There were only 193 twins - 39 per cent of the number expected. Since a subject in such tests had a tendency not to repeat a digit just used, this bias of the machine fits in nicely with the results observed. It is remarkable how many errors and distortions crop up in just this one paragraph alone. It was, in fact, Dr Tart himself who first noticed the lack of double digits. Being a good and conscientious experimenter, this led him to seek the advice of Dr Stein (who teaches at the University of California at Davis and not at UCLA). But is it true, to quote Randi, that 'the bias of the machine fits in neatly with the results observed'? Not on your life! The scoring of some of Tart's subjects was so astonishingly high that the generator's slight bias does not appreciably alter the overall significance of the tests. This is true even if we adjusted the statistics to take this flaw into account. Anyone who takes the time to read Dr Tart's Learning to Use ESP can determine this for himself by recomputing the statistics. Despite this fact, Randi deliberately implies that Tart's work was not significant when it is re-evaluated. This misrepresentation is all the more serious since Randi surely realizes that his argument is totally ridiculous. When Dr Tart's book was first published, it was critically reviewed in the New York Review of Books by Martin Gardner, one of parapsychology's most caustic critics and a long-time friend of Randi's. Gardner had learned of the bias in Tart's work from Dr Stein, so he brought up the issue in his review with seeming relish. But after a lengthy series of exchanges with Dr Tart, even Gardner had to back down on this point! Since Gardner and Randi are fellow members of CSICOP the magician must have been aware when he wrote his book that his lame 'statistical bias' theory had been settled long ago. Of course, Randi's criticisms of Dr Tart are really rather peripheral to Flim-Flam! The main crux of the book is to make a frontal attack on Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff, and the entire SRI research programme in parapsychology. This would include their remote viewing experiments, as well as their work with such 'star' psychics as Ingo Swann and Uri Geller, the famous Israeli telepath and psychic 'metal-bender' Being that I was able to personally visit SRI to investigate Randi's claims and charges, I can only describe his chapter on their work as a shameless bit of prevarication. Space limitations will not permit me to expose all of Randi's errors and misrepresentations. So the following pages will cover only a few of his more important criticisms. To begin with, Randi particularly flays a series of magnetometer 'demonstrations' which Dr Puthoff conducted with Ingo Swann at Stanford University in 1972. Since these experiments were not discussed earlier in this volume, the following represents a brief summary of what occurred. The idea behind these tests was to see if Swann could influence a magnetometer, buried under a physics building around which a decaying magnetic field was set. Since the magnetometer was protected by a super- conducting shield, the output of the decaying field should have been impervious to any random influences. These brief experiments were described by Targ and Puthoff in their book Mind-Reach, in which they report that Swann was asked to interfere with the magnetometer by 'remote viewing' it. When Swann began to describe the device, the output of the decay pattern suddenly doubled! (This was easy to determine since a chart recorder was constantly monitoring the decay pattern.) This curious phenomenon was witnessed not only by Dr Puthoff, but also by Dr Arthur Hebard, a young Stanford physicist. The perturbation lasted for thirty seconds and Dr Hebard was surprised by this effect, since the strange output seemed to be physically inexplicable. So he suggested that Swann stop the output of the device completely. Swann tried and succeeded within seconds! He produced this same result later during the test by merely thinking about the machine, and the results did not seem due to some quirk in the magnetometer. The magnetometer chart was examined for two hours after Swann left the building, but no odd perturbations were noted during this control period. Mr Randi completely disputes this sequence of events. He reports that Dr Hebard was not happy with Swann's demonstration. The physicist was particularly annoyed that neither Russell Targ nor Dr Puthoff bothered to ask whether or not a normal explanation - such as equipment malfunction - could account for the effects. Randi then goes on to challenge other aspects of the demonstration. Based on his personal conversations with Dr Hebard, Randi next claims that a total of fifteen minutes went by between the time Swann began focusing his attention on the magnetometer when the perturbation really took place. It was only then, claims Randi, that Swann asked the experimenters, 'Is that what I'm supposed to do?' The magician further claims that Swann was never asked to stop the output of the magnetometer. The chart suddenly produced a levelling out, and then Swann opportunely asserted that he had produced the effect. When I spoke to Dr Puthoff about these charges, the SRI physicist grew extremely annoyed. He disputed Randi's information and explained in no uncertain terms that not more than sixty seconds went by between Swann's 'remote viewing' procedure and the occurrence of the magnetometer's first perturbation. He also maintained that Dr Hebard - unimpressed by the effect - had off-handedly suggested that it would be more impressive if Swann could cause the magnetometer's output to cease. There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff's views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology. It become quite clear during our phone conversation that Dr Hebard's memory of Swann's performance differed somewhat from Puthoff's. He disagreed with the physicist primarily about the length of time that passed from when Swann first attempted to remote view the magnetometer and when the subsequent perturbations took place. He recalled that several minutes passed by, as Randi asserts, and not merely several seconds, Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi's claim that Swann was never asked to 'stop the field charge' being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff's claims 'lies'. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me. So while Randi has indeed shown that there are several unanswered questions about Swann's Stanford demonstration, he has certainly not provided the definitive scenario of what happened that day. His portrayal of Dr Hebard as a strong critic of both Targ and Puthoff and parapsychology also seems questionable, while his summary of his conversations with the physicist is rather inaccurate as well. (I might add that several weeks after I spoke to Dr Hebard, Dr Puthoff showed me the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's.) Randi doesn't end his attack on SRI with his comments on Ingo Swann, though. His real focus is the research that SRI conducted with Uri Geller, which was designed to study his purported telepathic and clairvoyant powers. This research was first published in Nature in October 1974. Since Nature is a prestigious British science publication, the SRI report caused a stir in scientific circles. Their report claimed that Geller, while sequestered in a sealed isolation booth, successfully and repeatedly reproduced drawings sent to him telepathically. The SRI researchers also explained that Geller was able to 'call' the uppermost face of a single die shaken in a closed box. Naturally, our beloved debunker plays down the importance of the Nature paper and states that 'as early as 1972, Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, its authors, had submitted it to US publications as a project of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). All had rejected it.' Now this is blatantly untrue, since Targ and Puthoff had made no prior submission. Their goal was always to submit their report to Nature. Randi also snidely comments that the Nature paper was published with an editorial explaining that the report was being issued 'so that scientists could see the kind of. material that was being turned out in the field of parapsychology, and typified it as 'weak' and 'flawed.' Randi here engages in a series of half-truths, since he seems to be implying that the paper was published in order to embarrass parapsychology. The truth of the matter was that the editors of Nature found many flaws in the report with which to take issue. But they clearly stated in their editorial that they had decided on publication despite some of their reservations. They simply felt that they had an obligation to bring this type of research to the attention of their readers since the experiments had been conducted by legitimate scientists. The editorial was perfectly respectful and contained none of the innuendos implied by Randi. So let's look at the way Randi thinks Geller pulled the wool over Targ and Puthoff's eyes during the most critical series of experiments they ran together. The focal point of the SRI's Nature report concerned a series of experiments designed to explore or expose Geller's purported telepathic powers. For this carefully conducted series of tests, the psychic was placed in an isolation booth at SRI, while the experimenters remained in an adjoining room and selected the targets from a dictionary. (They opened the dictionary randomly and then sketched the first drawable word listed on the page) This drawing was then hung up for everyone - researchers and on-lookers alike - to see. Geller's job was to reproduce these drawings from his position inside the sealed chamber by telepathy. While there still remains some unanswered questions concerning the times Geller 'passed' on a drawing (i.e., refused to draw it), some of his successes were simply astounding. There is simply no way coincidence can explain some of them. For example, for one trial Geller drew a bunch of twenty-three grapes. The target was not only a similar drawing, but the grapes in that picture were even placed in the same configuration. Either this result was due to telepathy or somehow Geller managed to see the target before reproducing it. Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how Geller carried out the shenanigans. He offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where the tests were held. This diagram shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and out of the booth) is situated in the booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely peeked through this hole for at least two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled by a confederate located in the adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually kept stuffed with gauze, he believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out his secret observations. This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It is three-and-a- quarter inches and extends thorough a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments. But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments. Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the Geller work, since the important point is not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but whether Randi can be considered a responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be obvious by now. This fact, however, doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and Puthoff, even to the point of questioning their scientific honesty. It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle' Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim- Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did. l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) So just where did Randi come up with this nonsense about the SRI's Geller film? Randi does not specifically state that he personally spoke to Pressman, although he vaguely implies it. It seems instead that he procured this piece of misinformation from another SRI source, who was perhaps honesty mistaken about the film. Randi then repeated the error, never checked out his source, and used the error to make wild accusations against the SRI experimenters. The truly hilarious thing about this mess is that no film showing Geller making eight hits in a row was ever shot! Pressman only filmed one experiment, in which Geller is seen 'passing' - although guessing correctly - on the test. So Randi wasn't even able to describe the SRI film correctly, and he certainly never saw it. So much for Randi's attacks on Geller and those who have studied him. Finally we and Randi came to Targ and Puthoff's original 'remote viewing' research, which they pioneered at SRI, (as discussed earlier) during some informal tests conducted with Ingo Swann. These tests were refined when the physicists began conducting similar experiments with the late Pat Price, another gifted psychic and a former Burbank, California police commissioner. For these initial experiments, the subject was kept at SRI while an outbound experimenter drove to a location somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area. The subject was simply asked to visualize the outbound experimenter's location and describe it. After each session was completed, the subject was taken to the target site and a comparison was informally made between the location and the subject's description. During these early trials, each subject usually co-operated in a series of such sessions. The transcripts for all the sessions were then given to an independent (blind) judge, who then visited the sites or examined photographs of them. He then tried to match the sites with the descriptions. The overall success of these sets of remote viewing experiments was therefore based not only on the quality of the subject's responses, but by way of statistical tests calculated from the judge's correct matchings. The only criticism that Randi can come up with is to complain that the SRI judging procedures were extremely faulty. This criticism is not an original one, for Randi bases his information on some 'findings' made by two New Zealand psychologists - the late Richard Kammann and David Marks - who visited SRI when the remote viewing research was first beginning to come to scientific attention. (They report on their visit in their own book The Psychology of the Psychic.) Drs. Marks and Kammann discovered that the SRI researchers often forgot to edit out little 'clues' in the transcripts, clues that could have helped the independent judge to determine which target went to which description. For instance, in one test the subject was told that he already had 'three successes' behind him. The judge was thus clued to the fact that this transcript corresponded to the fourth session and target site But this wasn't all that the psychologists claimed. For according to Randi, they also 'discovered [that] the judges had been given the locations in chronological order, and they knew it. The barest trace of experimental care would have demanded that this list be "scrambled" But it was not.' Randi then goes on to explain how the two psychologists then re-edited the transcripts for one particularly successful series of SRI tests in order to correct this fatal flaw. They then proceeded to have the entire series rejudged, but their judge couldn't make the correct matches at all. 'The Targ and Puthoff miracle is out of the window,' declares Randi. These criticisms may seem devastating but they really aren't. To begin with, there certainly were flaws in the early remote viewing work, and the issue of the faulty editing was crucial. But parapsychologists working at other laboratories were quick to point out these problems to their SRI colleagues, who immediately corrected the flaws. But the story of the SRI remote viewing work doesn't end here, by any means. Dr Charles Tart eventually came to take a special interest in these early 'flawed' experiments, and he re-edited the same remote viewing reports the New Zealand psychologists had worked with. He deleted the possible cues and then sent them to be rejudged. This time the results were still statistically significant. Nor is it true that the transcripts and/or the sites for the critical series were given to the judge in chronological order. Some time after the publication of The Psychology of the Psychic, I personally spoke to the psychologist in charge of judging this series. He told me that everything was properly randomized when he received the materials from SRI. Of course, our sceptic totally ignores the fact that the remote viewing effect has been replicated both at SRI and at several other laboratories, using even more stringent controls than went into the original experiments. Successful remote viewing experiments have been reported from Mundelein College in Evanston, Illinois; from the Lawrence-Livermore Laboratories in California; and recently from the Institute for Parapsychology in Durham, North Carolina. So the validity of the remote viewing effect no longer rests on Targ and Puthoff's experiments alone, but on a large body of experimental findings . . . findings that even Randi, with all his magical knowledge, can't make disappear. Some Concluding Notes So there rests the sceptic's case. Not every sceptic is this irresponsible, but the cases we've been evaluating tend to be embarrassingly typical. The simple fact remains that parapsychology's detractors have a terrible time explaining away the field's findings. If psi doesn't exist, this fact would be self-evident by now. So it is more than revealing that the field's debunkers so often fall to manufacturing flaws in our experiments - or even, as with the CSICOP/Gauquelin fiasco, cover up their own positive findings. Where does this leave parapsychology? The field certainly seems to be in healthy shape. There is probably more fruitful research going on within parapsychology today than during any other time in its short history. It is also currency turning in even more exciting directions, and these directions promise to help convert even more scientists. We briefly examined this trend in chapters two and three, where the use of ESP for predicting the results of horse-races and financial investments was discussed. When parapsychology first became a primarily experimental science, nobody thought that psi would ever be harnessed for any practical purpose. No one really thought that there existed a practical side to the sixth sense. Editorializing back in 1945, in fact, Dr J.B. Rhine eschewed searching for any real uses for extrasensory perception or psychokinesis. 'No practical use can be made of them with our present state of knowledge,' he wrote 'They are not reliable enough.' Rhine didn't even think that the practical applications issue was very important to the parapsychology of his day, for he went on to write that ' . . practical application has never been the objective of the investigations. This is not because practical application is regarded as of no importance, but because the true goals of research are so incomparably greater in importance that practical application seems downright trivial in contrast.' The 'true' goal of parapsychology, believed the Duke researcher, was to disclose mankind's place in the universe. Since Dr Rhine entered the field to resolve his personal religious conflicts, this was a reasonable view for him to take. And if we examine the research projects conducted by parapsychologists fifty years ago, Rhine's position seems even more logical. The field had been previously preoccupied with the survival enigma and was only beginning to turn to the scientific laboratory. Rhine's pioneering research at Duke University in the 1930s certainly proved the existence of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis. But his research strategies - which were basically card-calling ESP experiments and dice-rolling explorations of PK - were extremely limited. While they demonstrated that some people possess a sixth sense, the faculty seemed to be weak and capricious. The Duke researchers came to feel that the days of the great psychics were over. These younger parapsychologists, who had been trained specifically in the lab, even began to wonder whether truly great psychics ever really existed - or whether their feats were the result of fraud clever enough to dupe their predecessors. These researchers began to see ESP and PK as incredibly elusive powers, powers that surface only rarely. In fact, they didn't even become interested in ESP and its role in day-to-day life until the 1940s. What is so ironic is that primitive cultures, these wellsprings of the sixth sense, have never considered psychic power in this ludicrously limited way. To these peoples, ESP and PK were (and are) powerful forces that should be put to work to help their community. This point was recently made by Dr Jule Eisenbud, a psychoanalyst from Denver, Colorado who has been studying parapsychology for years. Speaking before a conference of anthropologists in 1978, he pointed to several differences between the Western and the 'primitive' belief- systems concerning psychic phenomena. To the world of the primitive ' . . behaviours based upon the power of thought to accomplish things are reality oriented. They simply make use of processes considered to be inherent in the social order and the universe.' It was this world view that gave rise to the Shamanic tradition. The shaman is supposed to employ his powers for the good of his people. It would be a pretty pathetic shaman who constancy excused himself for failing to conjure a rainstorm, couldn't find someone's lost ring, or failed to heal a member of his community. We are hardly so demanding when we work with our own psychics! Luckily, though, we are seeing a real change of attitude within today's parapsychological community. Practical applications for the sixth sense is becoming the topic of the 1980s. This promising area of study has been christened with its own name Psionics is a term originally coined by Dr Jeffrey Mishlove, who was one of the first parapsychologists to urge his colleagues to explore the world of 'applied psi' research. He employs this term to separate it from formal experimental/laboratory research. Have you tried buying Email Cleaner? Did this in one click. -- http://members.tripod.com/LanTheBoy Email: Anti-chaos. ICQ://26027485 doomdoomdoomdoomdoom................... zink %%%%%%%The Darkness will love you, the Darkness will take care of you%%%%%%%% ###### Message-ID: <38C47641.88244F94@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 03:19:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp04.ts8-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:19:43 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newsfeed.icl.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35224 Shaking Hell wrote: > > John Garrison wrote: > > Luckily, though, we are seeing a real change of attitude within today's > parapsychological community. Practical applications for the sixth sense > is becoming the topic of the 1980s. This promising area of study has > been christened with its own name Psionics is a term originally coined > by Dr Jeffrey Mishlove, who was one of the first parapsychologists to > urge his colleagues to explore the world of 'applied psi' research. He > employs this term to separate it from formal experimental/laboratory > research. > > Have you tried buying Email Cleaner? Did this in one click. > Hmmm, a post where you actually say something, that is a change from recent posts of yours. In response to your query, no I haven't tried buying Email Cleaner. I am a cheap bastard when it comes to software. If I really wanted to clean it up I could have loaded it into StarOffice and reset the word wrap for 72 chars, or I could have simply wrote a Perl Script or small C program to do it for me (assuming that their isn't already a free program to do such a thing, but thanks for the idea, if there isn't a free program out their already maybe I'll make one) ###### Message-ID: <38c48234_1@news.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 6 Mar 2000 20:14:44 -0800 X-Trace: 6 Mar 2000 20:14:44 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 38 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!195.27.83.146.MISMATCH!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed03.univie.ac.at!news.sbg.ac.at!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35126 In alt.out-of-body article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> John Garrison wrote: l, : Dr Tart conducted some of his research at the University of California : at Davis in the early 1970s with : the use of a ten-choice trainer. The project was designed to determine : if a subject's ESP scores would : improve if he was given immediate feedback about his/her successes and : failures. The : experiments were simply run. Each subject was placed in an experimental : room with a console in front of : him. This console depicted ten playing cards, which were arranged in a : circle. A light was located next to Just a small note. The device I saw used Tarot cards. This is not to say to was the same one, or the same experiment. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 The essence of wisdom... lies not in what is known but rather in the manner in which that knowledge is held and in how that knowledge is put to use. To be wise is not to know particular facts but to know without excessive confidence or excessive cautiousness. Wisdom is thus not a belief, a value, a set of facts, a corpus of knowledge or information in some specialized area, or a set of special abilities or skills. Wisdom is an attitude taken by persons toward the beliefs, values, knowledge, information, abilities, and skills that are held, a tendency to doubt that these are necessarily true or valid and to doubt that they are an exhaustive set of those things that could be known. - Robert J. Sternberg in "Wisdom" (Cambridge, 1990) ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:45:09 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 27 Message-ID: <8a3155$klo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> <8a07tu$k39$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8a0a9f$ljm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38C3F276.33BF6E2B@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.49.237.28 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 07 13:45:09 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.49.237.28 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35133 In article <38C3F276.33BF6E2B@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > Sherilyn wrote: > > > > > It's odd that someone should choose this case as an attack on Randi, > > who simply reported Tart's failure. > > > > It's odd how you comment on this as a defense of Randi and blatantly > ignore the lies that Randi put in his book about Dr. Hebard never asking > Swann to stop the field charge, even though Dr. Hebard says that he did. > (and Dr. Hebard appears to be the skeptical one!). [Remainder of highly intemperate personal attack snipped] Note that my above comment is about the Tart section of the posting. I haven't yet read the other sections, which are apparently about quite separate matters, but I'll comment on them as and when I do. However, given the inaccuracies in the Tart section of this attack on Randi, I'm not inclined to trust the author of the piece very far. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Sherilyn Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: About Randi (LONG) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:07:04 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 233 Message-ID: <8a422k$edm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.49.227.93 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 07 23:07:04 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.49.227.93 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newshub.bart.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35257 In article <38C1BC77.F060AEF0@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: [Quote from chapter in book attacking Randi] > > The scoring of some of Tart's subjects was so astonishingly high that > the generator's slight bias does not appreciably alter the overall > significance of the tests. This is true even if we adjusted the > statistics to take this flaw into account. Anyone who takes the > time to read Dr Tart's Learning to Use ESP can determine this for > himself by recomputing the statistics. As I have noted elsewhere, Tart has admitted that he encountered failure in his attempt to duplicate the experimental results in trials with a properly functioning random number generator. Somehow this fact was unknown to or wasn't felt to be of significance by the writer of the above "critique"--odd, because this must mean that the writer is ignorant of Gardner's and Randi's own writings on that very subject [Randi, FlimFlam!, p. 153], [Gardner, Science Good,Bad & Bogus, p. 211]. [...] [Section on Targ and Puthoff] [...] > So while Randi has indeed shown that there are several unanswered > questions about Swann's Stanford > demonstration, he has certainly not provided the definitive scenario > of > what happened that day. His > portrayal of Dr Hebard as a strong critic of both Targ and Puthoff > and parapsychology also seems questionable, while his summary of his > conversations with the physicist is rather inaccurate as well. (I > might add that several weeks after I spoke to Dr Hebard, Dr Puthoff > showed me the actual graphed > print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. > The records supported Dr > Puthoff's contention more than they did Dr Hebard's.) The above is very amusing, but it hardly reflects badly on Randi that the only information available on this supposed instance of a paranormal effect is a series of garbled verbal accounts that do not agree with one another. If there were anything to the effect, the principals have had around thirty years to reproduce it. In this they have failed. And the writer of the above is in no position to lecture anyone about getting facts wrong. > > Randi doesn't end his attack on SRI with his comments on Ingo Swann, > though. His real focus is the > research that SRI conducted with Uri Geller, which was designed to > study his purported telepathic and > clairvoyant powers. This research was first published in Nature in > October 1974. Since Nature is a > prestigious British science > publication, the SRI report caused a stir in scientific circles. I assume that most people reading this are aware that the article in question failed to pass peer review, and was published by Nature with a very large caveat. In case they are not, here is the editorial from that volume of Nature. http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/nature.htm > Their > report claimed that Geller, while > sequestered in a sealed isolation booth, successfully and repeatedly > reproduced drawings sent to him > telepathically. The SRI researchers also explained that Geller was > able to 'call' the uppermost face of a single die shaken in a closed > box. Naturally, our beloved debunker plays down the importance of the > Nature paper "plays down the importance of the Nature paper?" I think it would be as well at this point to have a brief laughter break. See you later. ******************* Okay, had a good chortle? Good, let's continue. > and states that 'as early as 1972, Russell Targ and Harold > Puthoff, its authors, had > submitted it to US publications as a project of the Stanford Research > Institute (SRI). All had rejected it.' > Now this is blatantly untrue, since Targ and Puthoff had made no > prior submission. Their goal was always to submit their report to > Nature. Given the author's earlier omissions, I'm not inclined to accept this as true on his say-so. It's a minor point, in any case. > Randi also snidely comments that the Nature paper was > published with an editorial explaining that the report was being > issued 'so that scientists could see the kind of. material that was > being turned out in the field of parapsychology, and typified it > as 'weak' and 'flawed.' Randi here engages in a series of > half-truths, since he seems to be > implying that the paper was published in order to embarrass > parapsychology. The truth of the matter was that the editors of > Nature found many flaws in the report with which to take issue. But > they clearly stated in their editorial that they had decided on > publication despite some of their reservations. They simply felt > that they had an obligation to bring this type of research to the > attention of their readers since the experiments had been conducted > by legitimate scientists. The editorial was perfectly respectful > and contained none of the innuendos implied by Randi. The reader is invited to check the editorial, which is available at the URL I have quoted. All of Randi's comments are correct, and are consistent with the tone of the editorial. [Geller "telepathy" experiments] > Geller's job was to > reproduce these drawings from his position inside the sealed chamber > by telepathy. While there still remains some unanswered questions > concerning the times Geller 'passed' on a drawing (i.e., refused to > draw it), some of his successes were > simply astounding. There is simply no way coincidence can explain > some of them. For example, for one trial Geller drew a bunch of > twenty-three grapes. The target was not only a similar drawing, but > the > grapes in that picture were even placed in the same configuration. > Either this result was due to telepathy > or somehow Geller managed to see the target before reproducing it. As the Nature editorial explains, the description of the experimental design was flawed. > > Randi opts for the fraud theory, and he even thinks he knows how > Geller > carried out the shenanigans. He > offers his readers a diagram of the booth and adjoining room where > the > tests were held. This diagram > shows that a four-and-a-half inch hole (used to extend cables in and > out of the booth) is situated in the > booth three feet above the floor. Randi claims that Geller merely > peeked through this hole for at least > two of the drawing tests, and either saw the targets or was signalled > by a confederate located in the > adjoining room. While the magician points out that the hole is usually > kept stuffed with gauze, he > believes that Geller simply withdrew the material while carrying out > his secret observations. Clearly this would be a major flaw in the experimental design, if true. And later on in the text, the author apparently confirms for himself that the hole exists, although he attempts to obfuscate by professing disbelief that the hole could have been used for the purpose (obviously he has not seen the relevant episodes of The Masked Magician). > > This all sounds reasonable enough until you check out the booth > which I was able to do when I visited SRI on 12 June 1981. I found, > first, that the hole is not four-and-a-half inches wide at all. It > is three-and-a- quarter inches and extends thorough a > twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely > limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, > since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely > run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their > subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through > this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy > experiments. Alas, no mention is made of this in the paper, available through a link at the URL I gave earlier. I draw the reader's attention to the fact that Geller passed when the experimental setup was varied. This indicates that Geller, an accomplished conjurer, was using normal, not paranormal, methods. > But the most > embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It > isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above > floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under > optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing > wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the > Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also > discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated > in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any > view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by > talking with two people who were present during these critical > experiments. > They both agreed that wires were > running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the > time of the Geller experiments. Alas, no mention is made of this in the paper, available through a link at the URL I gave earlier. Notice how Randi's hypothesis is set up as an all-or-nothing, succeed-or-fail explanation of the experimental results. But this is not necessary to shed doubt on the results--the paper was rejected by the referees as "disconcertingly vague". > Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the > Geller work, Indeed! He seems to have pointed to a major flaw in the experimental design--that there existed a hole though which a conjurer of Geller's caliber could have inserted a mirror probe in order to catch sight of the picture he was to reproduce. >since the important point is > not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but > whether Randi can be considered a > responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be > obvious by now. Not the answer the writer wants, however. > This fact, however, > doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and > Puthoff, even to the point of > questioning their scientific honesty. > > It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which > shows > Geller successfully guessing the > uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their > Nature report describes these tests > and phenomenal accuracy. The Nature editorial points out their lamentable write-up. Even a tenth-grader knows how important the write-up is in a science project. The writer's repeated omission of the fact that the paper failed peer review is most significant, here. [to be continued] Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.