Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site teklabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekchips!teklabs!jeffma
From: jeffma@teklabs.UUCP (Jeff Mayhew)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Gene Spafford on Psychic Phenomena
Message-ID: <2719@teklabs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 20:07:45 EST
Article-I.D.: teklabs.2719
Posted: Tue Jan 24 20:07:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jan-84 02:39:50 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 131

Gene Spafford has taken offense to my comments on defense spending for
psychic research.

Gene's old chestnut about keeping an "open mind" sounds very stylish,
but the rather cavelier meaning used in this context has a dangerous
tendency to lead to intellectual atrophy (i.e. don't criticize any public
statements about psychic research, because "nothing is impossible").
The act of holding all theories and "world views" as equally valid,
regardless of the evidence, is about as pathological as dismissing them 
all out-of-hand.  In the world of "psi" there's a whole lotta shakin' goin 
on, and precious little in the way of hard evidence (as responsible psychic 
researchers will admit).  And that's the way it's been for over a hundred
years.  Don't get me wrong:  I'm not opposed to cautious claims made on 
the basis of experimental evidence (and there is some provocative work
work going on), but the  ridiculous fairy tales that cloud the media are
just too much.  And another thing:  pro-paranormalists as a group are
remarkably antagonistic to criticism, something a legitimate scientific
enterprise ought to thrive upon.  At the same time they are often
remarkably unwilling to learn from the criticism offered.  This tendency
has caused some considerable embarrassment recently; any McDonnell Lab 
folks out there on the net??

Gene closes his note with a variation on the tired old "they persecuted 
Galileo" line:  

   "Your thoughts on matters like this may serve as great amusement
   to our descendents, along with people claiming that planes would
   never fly and radio was impossible."

Very cute, but totally irrelevant.  I could say the same about someone who
scoffs at Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.  Attitudes like this are a
luxury affordably only by those who prefer not to get involved in the
process of untangling claims and would rather "stay mellow" on the sidelines. 
It's not a very satisfying substitute for solid evidence, however, and
wouldn't get you diddly in a formal debate (in fact, you'd be laughed out
of the room):  "Your thoughts on matters like this may serve as
great amusement to our descendents, along with people claiming that
you can detect personal characteristics by bumps on the head (phrenology)
and that a special ray which enhances vision was discovered by Blondlot
(the infamous 'N-ray')."  Let's avoid this sort of kindergarten interchange;
it may make you look smug and clever to the naive, but otherwise it
just wastes everyone's time.

One thing Gene seems to be forgetting is that there is probably no field
more in need of merciless discipline and criticism than psychic research.
Why?  The answer is obvious:  the claims being made--even the cautious,
responsible ones by fellows like Schmidt--fly in the face of all known
properties of physics.  Furthermore, they often involve complex points of
perceptual psychology (such as the subjective validation element of remote 
viewing experiments), statistics, and experimental design (check out
Hansel's book "ESP and Parapsychology:  A Critical Re-Evaluation").  Hence
any reasonable researcher must expect to have to present rather spotless
and indisputable results before responsible scientists are ready to
go back to the drawing board.  Surely anyone informed on the history
of psychic research is fully aware of the many incidences of blatant
fraud and unbelievable carelessness/sloppiness.  If the field remains
insulated from external criticism, this sort of disease can easily spread.
One way to shield researchers from criticism is to chastise critics for
"attacking people's beliefs," as Gene is doing.

In the case of national defense, I think Gene's concern is entirely misplaced:
we simply cannot afford to devote military spending to this stuff, since
we can't even afford to fund the "real" weapons and defense measures.  Even
if we could afford it, it would be a foolish investment until there is solid
evidence to suggest that psychic phenomena represent a tangible, repeatable
controllable, and formidable force--and this evidence SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
Heck, the best "psychics" in the world have to cheat just to bend a soup
spoon.  I suppose we could wreak culinary havoc in Moscow by attacking their
silverware.   In the meantime, if we applied Gene's "keep an open mind"
approach to defense funding, without sensitivity to the strength of available
evidence, we'd also have to foot the bill for research on voodoo dolls and
witch's spells.  After all, since nothing is impossible, people may one day
be laughing at those silly 20th century types who used 747s instead of
broomsticks.  But unfortunately we've only got so much money, Gene; let's
be responsible with it.

If I went to the defense department with a new weapon that only "worked 
some of the time" (when it was in the mood), and the issue of whether or
not it actually succeeded in destroying it's target was a matter of continual
debate afterwards, I shouldn't expect a bit of funding.  Remember that a force
for which we know no physical mechanism is absolutely devoid of any reasonable
expectations of permanence:  by moving into a new limb of the galaxy (say, next
Monday), the "psychic force" could vanish completely.  How about a mechanism
for gaining information that sometimes gives you exactly the wrong information,
rather than the right--and you can't tell which it is until you compare it
with the real thing (not a very reliable way to tap into the Russian diplomatic
pouch). Hardly a sound basis for defense research--although that doesn't
exclude exploratory research at a more academic level.  The foundations for 
research in a defense context have NOT BEEN LAID, and hence this spending is 
UNWARRANTED.  Because my tax dollars are being used for this stuff, I think 
I have a perfect right to level criticism openly (and take a look at who
they've been funding!).

I happen to believe, as do many who are informed on the subject, that 
inflated stories of the "psi gap" are primarily ploys designed to gain 
funding for a particular brand of research which is so devoid of tangible,
repeatable results that it has a heck of a time gaining funding on its own 
merits (and, as James Randi showed us, even healthy funding cannot eradicate
bumbling in this wild and woolly field of research).

I do not deny that the Soviets have been examining psychic phenomena, but
they've shown a tendency to drool on anything that holds even the most 
tenuous promise of being used as a weapon.  I draw the line when I start 
hearing vague but suggestive stories about hard results, though;  in all
public media we ought to adhere to the tenet that extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary evidence.  Those of us who are skeptical have a legitimate
right to speak out on this, and demand some hard evidence for these 
grandstanding claims.  Part of the blame must, of course, fall on the 
shoulders of credulous reporters who publish first and verify/substantiate 
later.

Gene, you're welcome to hold your opinions, no matter how tenuous the
evidence for their validity.  However, I and a number of others
resent the thought of our tax dollars being used to burn little photos
of Soviet missiles.  I'd be more happy if they used the money to buy a 
new Coke machine for the Pentagon lounge.  In the meantime, I stick to
my original position:  funding defense projects in "psi," in light of
solid results to date, is RECKLESS at best; grandstand claims about Soviet 
psychics are HOGWASH.  If the Soviets are spending big bucks on that stuff, 
I consider it excellent news:  every rouble spent on spoonbenders is one less
for Kalashnikov rifles, MIG fighters, and nuclear warheads.  If I had
the choice of being threatened by a grimacing, learing Uri Geller, or a
totally unpsychic and uncommunicative Russian soldier holding a burp gun, 
I'd gladly face Uri.  In the meantime, let's hope that everybody tries their
best to keep their noses clean, and accept the rigorous scientific criticism 
that comes with the territory.  Maybe that way this controversial and
swamp-like field will yield something genuinely indisputable (but, then
again, maybe not...).

					Jeff Mayhew	
					teklabs!tekgvs!jeffma