Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819)
From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re:  Weird Science (response)
Message-ID: <580@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:32:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.580
Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:32:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 04:36:10 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 54

In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes:
>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful
>experiences with experiments in the paranormal.  He noticed that when
>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is
>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply.  Of course, there are
>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an
>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur.  If that's
>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is.

Can you say straw-man?  I knew you could.

I suppose there are people who would make the above claim.  There are also
many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say.
This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers.

Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many
(conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists
would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that
the experiment were a parapsychology experiment.

Without knowing more about the experiments and what "enforcing scientific
rigor" means in this case, I could not speak with any authority on why Hawking
got the results he did.  The simplest explanation from a parapsychologist's
point of view is the obvious one.  Hawking failed to illicit psi phenomena
at all, and was only observing artifacts, which disappeared upon application
of rigorous methods.

Parapsychology can best be described as an observational science.  We set up
conditions in the laboratory which will allow us to distinguish psi phenomena,
if it occurs, from noise, statistical and physical.  We are also starting to
discover those conditions which are "psi conducive", i.e., which increase the
likelihood that the phenomena will be there to be observed.  It occurs more
often than chance would predict.  Failure to observe it under a particular set
of conditions or on a particular occasion, modifies the meta-statistics from
which we determine whether something real is going on but, by itself, does not
disprove the hypothesis.  Non-occurrence says exactly as much about psi as
failure to observe a black hole on some particular night of viewing says about
general relativity.

Speaking of rigor, how rigorous was the experiment of "enforcing scientific
rigor?"  Were all other factor held constant or counter-balanced?  Was
condition order (rigorous vs. non-rigorous) counter-balanced?  Was subject,
supervising experimenter, tabulator and scorer (whether or not these were
different people) all blind to which condition was in effect?  If not, how
much credence can be put in the result?  Is sauce for the goose sauce for the
gander?  Or is rigor only required when you don't like the results?

		Topher Cooper

USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl

Disclaimer:  This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com