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!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
From: cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Parapsychology
Message-ID: <753@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 18:14:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.753
Posted: Tue Oct  8 18:14:58 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Oct-85 06:42:28 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 55

>> 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.
>  
>      The point is that conditions which are rigorous for an experiment
>  in the natural sciences are not rigorous enough for a parapsychology 
>  experiment.  Electrons cannot attempt to cheat or violate the experimental
>  conditions; people can, and they have been observed to do so in many 
>  previous parapsychology experiments.  This means that the experimental
>  conditions must be made much more rigorous than in other sciences (to 
>  completely rule out the possibility of cheating.)
> 
>                                  David Moews
>                            ...decvax!harvard!h-sc4!moews
>                            moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa

It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to be sure when dealing with
"professional psychics" that no cheating is going on.  Parapsychology has been
aware of this for a long time: the Society for Psychical Research got into hot
water with many of its financial backers (mostly Spiritualists) soon after it
was founded in the 1880's.  This was because they set up a policy of NOT
investigating professional mediums because of the high risk of cheating.

Although the Uri Gellers of the world get most of the publicity, only a very
small percentage of the laboratory work has been with such people.  Of course,
non-professionals are perfectly capable of trying to cheat, and even of using
fairly sophisticated techniques to do so.  But such tests rarely depend on
a single person or even a small group of people scoring high.  Subjects are
frequently gotten the same way as for psychology experiments: classes of
undergraduate students, tested in class.  High school students, grade school
students, the experimenters themselves, and, of course, volunteers are also
used.

Still, one must take some care against fraud, but, this is not very difficult
in a well designed experiment.  The problems with professional psychics is that
they have specific "claims" to be tested, and these claims, to a greater-or-
lesser degree control the experimental situation.  I agree, however: any
scientific work with human subjects should include precautions against fraud;
the temptation to pull a prank exists when there is no other motivation.  It
is foolish, however, to feel that it is ever possible to completely rule out
possibility of cheating IN ANY experiment, even in the physical sciences:
electrons cannot cheat but the janitor, lab technician or experimenter's spouse
can.  The motivation to cheat in parapsychological experiments with
"unselected" subjects is not much (if any) higher than in any other field, and
unlike other fields such precautions are taken.  So in this limited sense the
standards ARE more rigorous.

		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.