Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Why net.physics might be a forum for some psi discussion.
Message-ID: <368@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 11:25:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.368
Posted: Wed Jul 17 11:25:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 06:12:28 EDT
References: <3131@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 82

[]
I promised myself I would ignore this, but I can't resist one last comment.
> 
> There are, however, two reasons why I think people interested in physics should
> be interested in parapsychology.  One of these reasons is independent of the
> "reality" of the phenomena in question.
> 
> There is an underlying collection of facts on which modern parapsychology rests.
> These facts are frequently ignored but never knowledgeably denied.  Only their
> interpretation is in contention.  The facts are: in a significant fraction
> (roughly one-third) of experiments in which:
> 
> 	1) The outcome depends on sensitive statistical tests of large numbers
> 	   of trials;
> 
> 	2) There is an "agent" (e.g., the experimenter) who has a particular
> 	   outcome they would prefer;
> 
> 	3) All known ways that the outcome could be biased have been removed
> 	   at, or more commonly, well above, the standards one usually finds
> 	   in experimental science;
> 
> the experiment ends up showing a statistically significant effect.

Number three is critical.  Since the experiments usually have unique problems
the phrase "standards one usually finds in experimental science" translates
to "we know we blew it, but it's not any worse than most physicists would do
if they suddenly switched fields".  Incidentally the last comment only applies
to highly sympathetic researchers (and not always even them).  The reason why 
all this is not particularly interesting to physicists as an experimental 
endeavor is that the problems here are unique to the field.

> backing up that assertion.  If anything, the opposite is the truth, which is
> why the physicists who come into parapsychology to "put it on a firm, scientific
> footing" frequently make fools of themselves.

My impression is that the most frequent way they make fools of themselves is
by treating alleged psychics with the same trusting attitude they would normally
accord to their colleagues.  Hence the recommendation (usually ignored) that
a competent magician check any experimental procedure. 

> You can also recite the oft made complaints about the absence of
> "replicatability" in parapsychology.  The truth seems to be that
> parapsychological experiments are subject to the same 1-in-3 rule in
> replication as for the original experiment.  This means that when conditions
> are as described above, there is a 1-in-9 chance that you will get both a
> spurious result and a spurious replication.

Attempts to replicate experiments in ESP by independent, and skeptical observers
seem to have a much higher chance of rejection than 1 in 9.  To date it would
appear to be closer to 8 (or 9) in 9.

> I am aware of the fact that the picture of the evidence for PK is not what the
> Martin Gardner's and the James Randi's of the world would lead you to think it
> is..........

This is a "fact" that I am not familar with.

>   If people are interested I can post citations to surveys of the
> evidence for you to examine.

By all means. However, please give the people in this newsgroup a break and
use the mail system.

> I will not belabor the second reason that people who are interested in physics
> might be interested in parapsychology.  It is simply the implications to physics
> IF psychic phenomena, both PK and ESP, are accepted; and I doubt that anyone
> reading this who doesn't already accept that possibility will do so without
> examining some of the primary source material themselves.  Most people agree,
> however, that, almost by definition, the consequences to physics would be
> profound.

The implications to physics would also be astounding if it were discovered
that pigs could fly.  The present state of experimental parapsychology gives
me no reason to believe that I should be thinking about the consequences
for physics.
-- 

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas