Conference hydra::dejavu

    Asking a leader of CSICOP about the increase or decrease of books
    on the paranormal is not unlike asking the minister of propoganda
    if he's giving out the strait dope.  See the note on _the Skeptical
    Inquirer_.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  If Raymo was told that there were computer conferences on
    the subject(s), his reaction might be, "Well, it just goes to show
    you that despite our technology ...."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    For repeatable experiments on psychic phenomena, I refer you to
    a NOVA program on PBS about two years ago.  NOVA is generally very
    much party-line science, so when I heard about the upcoming ESP
    show, I decided to watch but resigned myself to a debunking sessions
    comparable to their programs on UFOs and creationism.
    
    Much to my surprise, they were mildly positive about the existence
    of ESP.  As for the repeatable experiment, my memory of the details
    is hazy, but two scientists teamed up with a retired police detective
    who felt he had often solved cases with second sight.  One scientist
    and the detective stayed in a radio-proof Faraday cage with no
    communications lines while the other scientist set out in a car.
    In the car he had a list of places to go and a random number generator.
    He selected a place according to the random numbers, drove there,
    and hung around.  Meanwhile, the clairvoyant dictated impressions
    into a tape recorder.  Afterwards, the tapes were transcribed and
    independent judges were handed the addresses and the transcripts
    and invited to match them up.  Matches were consistently far above
    chance on many trials.
    
    That particular clairvoyant is now dead, but the procedure at least
    is repeatable, and I think they said it HAD been repeated pretty
    successfully.  I also noted that the disbelieving authorities they
    interviewed seemed none of them to have read through the experimental
    procedure.  They accused the scientists of holes which they had
    specifically plugged.
    
    CSICOP, in the person of the Amazing Randi, demanded rebuttal time
    on PBS.  Randi castigated NOVA for falling from the path of grace
    and demonstrated how he could fake some alleged PK phenomena that
    appeared in the NOVA film.  However, the phenomena in question were
    merely cited by NOVA at the beginning of the film as the sort of
    ESP claims people often make.  Randi did not address the clairvoyance
    experiment.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

	    [RE .0]:  Psychology is an eclectic discipline, and some
	parts of it (Freudian conjecture, for example) have more his-
	torical value than scientific value.  Most of it, though, is
	true science.
	    I'd agree that this science is in its infancy; its growth
	is slowed by the fact that the area of inquiry is so complex.
			<_Jym_>

  I'm not very impressed with this fellow.  He obviousely has a
  strong belief/fear concerning paranormal circumstances and is
  simply reflecting his ignorance.
  
  There are certain principles involved in achieving clairvoyant
  experiences and when followed almost always produce the desired
  outcome - 
  
  I also refer you to the Silva People who guarentee money back
  if you don't succeed in having the tools and developed ability
  to gather information clairvoyantly.  I sat in a room of 30 or
  40 people who, with the exception of one person, properly diagnosed
  ailments and illnesses of strangers having only their name, age
  and location.  
  
  All information is available to everyone if they believe it.
  Ask any responsilbe clairvoyant 
  .....their hit rate is consistantly way above average.
                                      
  
             Lora Wallis

                      addendum 
  
  I want to add to my last comment that "responsible clairvoyants
  hit rates are way above average" is verifyable by those who have
  direct contact with the subject questioned.
  
  There needs to be a caution around confusing the terms clairvoyant and
  psychic experiences - when we talk about psychicness we step
  into the real of future events which are constantly influenced
  by free choice and therefore can appear less accurate.
  

    I don't remember clearly, I'm afraid.  I think they were a couple
    of physicists doing it in their spare time, without funding, but
    that was just an impression.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .7:
    
    Maybe some parapsychologist can tell us.
    
    Topher?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE: .6, .7 (& .8)

I haven't seen the NOVA show, unfortunately (every time it comes on I've
got a conflict -- next time I'll get it), so I can't say for sure.  I
*can* make a pretty good guess, however.

Odds are it was Putoff and Targ.  The basic technique is theirs, though
others have used it.  They dubbed it remote viewing.

Putoff and Targ are controversial both inside and out of parapsychology.
This is for a number of reasons:

    1) Many (including myself) feel that their experimental work is rather
	sloppy.

    2) They are publicity hounds, frequently making premature announcements
	and not clearly distinguishing to the press (a) what they actually
	demonstrated as opposed to what they think it means and (b) what
	is theirs and new as opposed to what other people have done. This
	is an additional reason to suspect that it was their work on NOVA,
	-- they are the parapsychologists most likely to have arranged for
	a television camera crew at an experiment.

    3) It was an open secret that they were funded by the CIA.  As far as
	I know, the only "public" parapsychologists so funded.  (Although
	Honorton (who I would tend to believe) claims to have been
	approached).

    4) They appeared on the scene announcing essentially that all previous
	work in the field was nonsense (though, at that time, they showed
	no evidence of being familiar with that work) and that they, as
	physicists, were going to put things on a firm scientific footing.
	Needless to say, they proceeded to repeat many of the mistakes
	beginners to the field tend to make, but with press releases at each
	step.

    5) They make claims that they can't back up.  For example their claims
	that their "remote viewing" experiments show superior repeatability
	to all other techniques in parapsychology, that indeed, here is
	the much sought after "truly repeatable" experimental procedure.
	In reality, the repeatability seems to be about the same as other
	"free-response" type experiments -- between 1/3 and 1/2 of the
	experiments show detectable results.  (I may talk about the
	repeatability issue at greater length in connection with the Boston
	Glob [sic] article, when I have time).

    6) They did some experiments with Uri Geller, and proclaimed him
	genuine for one particular task.  These results were published in
	Nature.  Needless to say they had overstated the case even on that
	one experiment.  Although the experiment as described seemed pretty
	tight, in actuality their was some sloppiness with their procedures.
	This is *completely* unacceptable when working with professional
	psychics, particularly those who are known to "cheat" at times.

    7) They have not tended to be forthcoming with more details about their
	experiments when requested by either critics or parapsychologists.
	This may actually be a special case of (1), i.e., they might not
	have kept careful enough records to be *able* to supply more
	details.

Unfortunately, because of the publicity they have received, P & T are
frequently presented as "typical" parapsychologists, or worse as "leading"
parapsychologists.

		Topher

    Regarding astrology:
    
    In my reading (not tremendous, I admit) on scientific debunking
    of astrology, I have noticed that scientists (particularly of the
    statistical variety) also have problems with anything that depends
    on the uniqueness of a human being.  Nutritional requirements, for
    example.  All kinds of experts argue back and forth all the time
    on what quantities of nutrients/vitamins/supplements/etc. the general
    populace should have available.  The problem is that "the general
    populace" does not exist--only individuals.  I worked with a nutri-
    tionist to improve my diet, and not once did he talk about anything
    general--just finding out what was right for _me_.  My physician,
    a GP of long practice, admits that the ranges of normality and disease
    are vast, and often very different among individuals.
    
    What does this have to do with astrology?  Basically, that the books
    that purport to give you character anaylsis by only looking at your
    Sun sign, the two-line horoscopes in the paper, are all junk, and
    would be considered junk by any professional astrologer.  This is
    because each person is unique, and the model that we call "astrology"
    is wonderfully designed for showing up all the facets that make
    up the essential YOU.  Because the system is really designed to
    model unique character/soul traits, it's no wonder that mass results
    are not reproduceable.  I design and document models in my work
    at DEC, and I give answers to my users many times that certain
    statistical correlations they want to state about the model results
    are just not possible.  This doesn't mean the models don't work,
    just that one can't draw mass statistical correlations about the
    results, or the degree to which certain inputs influence the results.
    Astrology works much the same way.
    
    The other problem with "statistically reproduceable results" is
    that the skill of the astrologer is the _key_ factor.  Astrology
    is _only_ a tool, and the tool is only as good as the artisan. 
    No one would say higher mathematics "doesn't work" because a specially
    talented and trained mind must be brought to bear to reveal its
    secrets.
    
    And finally, astrology is not "true", in that it is not reality;
    it is a _model_ of reality, and an abstract one at that.  Maxwell's
    equations or other mathematical models of reality are not "real",
    but they are correct, abstract representations of a certain realities.
    As a matter of fact, Maxwell's equations are "wrong" (!) when you
    get to detailed a level of electromagnetic activity (which they
    weren't designed to model--it took quantum mechanics to do that)
    AND about the assumption that electromagnetic phenomena were "waves".
    But they still "work", in that they correctly _model_ electromagnetic
    activity in a general fashion.  Scientists haven't, as far as I
    know, abandoned Maxwell's equations because they don't go far enough;
    they use them when they can, and switch to the math for quantum
    mechanics when they have to.
    
    Marcia

    Re .0:
    
    One of the funniest aspects about the _Globe_'s psi-bashing is that
    they have a daily astrology column.  It used to be Richter's Horoscope
    (_very_ funny); nowe it's Sydny Omarr.
    
    Oh, well: there's always a double standard.  :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    It's been awhile since anyone responded to this note, but if anyone
    is still interested............
    
    While doing a research project for school, I came across a book
    titled "Beyond Coincidence" written by Alex Tanous.  This man claims
    to be a psychic and underwent rigorous scientific testing to try
    to prove/disprove that it exists.  In the book, he mentions who
    it was who conducted these experiments, but I don't recall.  If
    anyone is interesed, I could find out.
    
    Debbie

    Re .13:
    
    Interesting, and I'm hardly close-minded on the subject.  I would
    find a book written by a person that supports his or her claim to
    anything (psychic or not) far less credible than a book written
     _about_ the person by an uninvolved third party, however.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .13
    
    I would be interested.  I very strongly believe that a number of
    psychics have been tested successfully under very rigorous conditions
    by competent researchers.  There have been many other poorly done
    investigations by researchers ignorant of the specialized skills
    necessary for this type of study.  I am familiar (at least on a name
    recognition level) with most of the really outstanding subjects tested
    by people with the necessary training.  Alex Tanous does not ring
    a bell.  This may not mean anything, since I cannot claim to know
    *all* carefully tested, successful subjects, and I might simply
    be forgetting it, or he may be known within the field by a codename
    (this isn't uncommon).
    
    There is a legitimate problem with using "outstanding subjects" as
    evidence to present to critics.  An outstanding subject is well
    motivated to cheat and may have specialized (conventional) deception
    skills.  Since people are infinitely creative, it is impossible
    to be really sure that deception has not taken place.  *No* amount
    of knowledge can guarentee that you can't get fooled.  Any (honest)
    magician will tell you that they are frequently fooled by other
    magicians.  If you think that psi is extremely improbable, than
    it is reasonable to take a special subject passing even the most
    rigorous tests as evidence of a genius for deception rather than
    of paranormal abilities.
    
    I take the attitude (and many if not most other parapsychogists
    would, I think, agree with me) that professional psychics cannot
    be viewed as giving evidence for psi existing.  That evidence comes
    from the thousands of rigorous, successful experiments done with
    various general populations.  The effects found are quite small
    but they are definitely there (whatever they are).  Once you have
    evidence for the existance of small effects in the general population
    it becomes reasonable to interpret the best of the tests on special
    subjects as representing a strong version of the same phenomena.
    But even then, only with a grain of salt.  Some of those "best"
    subjects are probably very clever frauds.
    
    					Topher

    According to P. Isiac Bonowits in _Real_Magic_, some parapsychologist
    who are investigating claims to the paranormal are actually psychic
    who (usually unconsciously) skew the outcome of the tests with their
    own abilities.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Re .17:
    
    I believe that The House of Zodiac in Framingham still has _Real
    Magic_, or they can order it for you.  [Tell 'em I sent you. :-)]
    
    Bonewits' book is good, and makes an interesting counterpoint to
    _Supernature_.  His models are somewhat contrived, but his insights
    are very useful.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Although I agree with the past few responses, I believe that this
    book is very honestly written.  Also, Alex Tanous lived (don't know
    if he is still alive) in Maine.  He taught at St Anslem's College
    in Manchester, NH and had several articles written about him in
    the Manchester Union Leader.  I never was compelled to check into
    those articles however.
    
    I will, over the weekend, pick the book up at the library and post
    further information next week.
    
    Debbie

RE: .16
    
    For a long time parapsychologists have known about something called
    the "experimenter effect", that is, the outcome of a parapsychological
    experiment is skewed by the results which the experimenter wanted.
    This is a familiar to anyone working with human (and to some extent,
    animal) subjects; but there has been a gut feeling, perhaps because
    of its "subconscious" nature; that psi was particularly sensitive
    to it.  Double blind experiments are used in medicine because of
    experimenter effects, and an experiment which is only "single blind"
    is considered highly questionable.
    
    When attention started to be payed to so called covert psi (psi
    which operates without the subject realizing that they are *doing*
    psi) the question of whether experimenters were using covert psi
    to get the desired results was raised.  Experiments were done
    demonstrating what is called the "psi-mediated experimenter effect",
    which is an experimenter effect which can only be explained by psi
    acting for the benifit of the experimenter, rather than the
    experimenter communicating his-or-her desires by unconscious, subtle
    but conventional means and then the subject acting in accordance
    with those desires.  The psi-mediated experimenter effect seems
    to be real but no one knows how much influence it has on everyday
    parapsychological experimentation.
    
    The most amusing (probable) case of psi-mediated experimenter effect
    involves Helmut Schmidt.  Dr. Schmidt had been testing psi
    (specifically PK) in animals.  He would use a random number generator
    (based on radioactive decay) and reward the animals if the right
    number were generated (reward used being whatever was appropriate
    to that particular animal, e.g., a heat lamp for lizards).  He got
    strong positive results.  Then he decided to experiment with negative
    reinforcement (punishment rather than reward).  He built a shock
    "cage" for cockroaches.  He found strong psi-*missing* with the
    cockroaches, i.e., the cockroaches seemed to be influencing the
    RNG to cause them to have more shocks.  He concluded that either
    cockroaches *like* being shocked, or he was himself causing the
    effect (he confesses to disliking cockroaches rather strongly).
    
    Anyway --
    
    One of the characteristics of psi experimentation is the wide range
    of variation of success of different experimenters.  This is again
    quite familiar (though rarely mentioned, and never studied) to other
    researchers who study very complex systems such as people.  Once
    again there was impression (perhaps wrong -- the search for general
    scientific recognition may have focussed too much attention on it)
    that psi seemed particularly sensitive to such individual.  It's
    hard to be sure, since only for parapsychology has anyone
    systematically measured relative success rates for different
    experimenters.
    
    Part of this was known (or accepted to be, anyway) straight-forward,
    though hard to measure, people-skills on the part of the experimenters.
    Best results are obtained when subjects are alert (particularly
    over a long series of essentially boring tasks), relaxed and
    enthusiastic.  A difficult combination to inspire consistently.
    
    An experimenter (I can't remember his (I think it was a he) name,
    I could look it up if anyone wants to know).  Got a large number
    of parapsychologists to rate other parapsychologists as very
    successfull or very unsuccessful.  He then gave the parapsychologists
    who consistently ended up in one group or the other, a battery of
    psychological tests designed to measure the various personality
    traits which had been proposed as characteristic of good experimenters.
    None showed a very strong correlation with experimental success.
    (This may simply mean that no one knows what personality traits,
    if any, result in the right people-skils).
    
    However, hidden in the personality test was a test of covert psi
    (i.e., some of the questions in the test had completely arbitrary
    right answers).  The successful experimenters scored considerably
    higher than the unsuccessful ones.  This has to be taken with a
    grain of salt, however: it is unreplicated (and probably unreplicatable
    given the small size of the parapsychological community) and is,
    of course subject to the psi-mediated experimenter effect on the
    part of the person conducting the test.
    
    Rex Stanford has gone so far as to deny that slight wide-spread
    psi exists in the general population.  He believes that psi is a
    rare ability and *all* results with general populations are due
    to psi on the part of successful experimenters, who are unconsciously
    attracted to the field because of their own buried strong psi. 
    He is in a definite minority within the parapsychological community
    (and no, I'm not on his side, though if he can prove it I'm willing
    to listen).
    
    					Topher