Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
From: lew@ihuxr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: SCIENCE: GOOD, BAD, AND BOGUS by Martin Gardner
Message-ID: <851@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 15:17:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.851
Posted: Fri Jan 20 15:17:39 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 07:23:05 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 38

I bought this book hoping to find something about the remote viewing
experiments depicted in NOVA: THe case for ESP. I was not disappointed.
The book is a collection of articles written by Gardner on a variety of
topics, and published in various magazines. Many are reviews of books
relating to paranormal phenomena. A significant fraction have to do with
the activities of Puthoff & Targ (P & T) who conducted the experiment
depicted in NOVA.

Gardner has an extensive history of knocking heads with P & T, starting
I think with a 1975 article he wrote about Targ's ESP teaching machine
and its negative results under controlled conditions. The book reproduces
letters Gardner exchanged with Targ, and Gardner comments on various
followups to the situations described.

Gardner compares the Uri Geller phenomenon with similar incidents in the
1890's. A striking parallel is that conventional scientists were the
principal dupes in those days too. (Zollner, an Austrian astrophysicist, eg)
He describes P&T's involvement with Geller extensively.

P&T's remote viewing is discussed in a review of the book, MINDREACH. One
gets quite a different perspective on the whole set-up compared to what
came across in the NOVA program. For example, there is quite a scientology
crowd involved. This includes Puthoff, who is not only "clear" but has
advanced to some sort of "Thetan" degree. The principal subject, Price,
was similarly advanced in this respect. NOVA's lack of mention of this
is damning in itself, I think.

Gardner and Randi are viewed by some as extremists who categorically
reject claims solely on the basis of their conventional prejudices, and
who are so insecure as to stoop to personal attacks in the face of any
rational challenge. I think their point is that trying to approach this
mess as though it were a scientific dispute is a gross misjudgement in
itself. The careers of various parapsychologists intertwine and run
in and out of all sorts of bizarre situations. You should think about
this entire context before agreeing to accept them on the terms of
conventional science.

		Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew