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!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!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: <852@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 17:46:54 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.852 Posted: Tue Oct 15 17:46:54 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:15:43 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 190 >> 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. > >If that is true, why do most scientists, and most non-parapsychological >scientists who have investigated, reject it? What a very complicated question for a single sentence. It presupposes so much. First I want to make sure that we agree on what the referents of the pronouns are: "that" (in "If *that* is true") -- There is a large body of rigorously obtained, positive, parapsychological experiments. "it" (in "... reject *it*?") -- the existence of psi phenomena. And we better get some key terms defined: Psi phenomena -- For our purposes: either ESP or PK. ESP -- ESP is said to manifest when a subject (usually human) behaves in a way correlated with information from which they are isolated on known physical channels. PK -- PK is said to manifest when an external system (usually with a large "random" component to its behavior) isolated in all known physical ways from a subject (usually human), acts in a way correlated with information available to the subject, but also isolated from directly influencing the external system. In both the definition of ESP and PK it is assumed that chance and patterned correlation (e.g., the subject alternates "guesses" which corresponds to to an alternation of "targets") have been eliminated statistically as an explanation. Note that these definitions are purely operational: they presuppose no mode of action, physical or non-physical. In practice, a little bit more of a model of what is going on is usually assumed: ESP is viewed as the subjects "knowing" what they have no ordinary way of knowing and PK is viewed as the subjects effecting the external system when they have no ordinary way of doing so. These working definitions are more convenient, but are not thought to be fully justified by the existing evidence. And now let's deal with the presuppositions in the question: Presupposition #1: Most scientists reject the existence of psi. I don't have the information with me but my impression is that most surveys show the majority (by a small margin) of scientists' opinions range from "psi is likely" to "psi has been established." Offhand, the only exception I know was a survey of "elite scientists." This showed about only about 1/3 accepting psi phenomena as at least probable. "Elite scientists" was defined essentially as people of power in the scientific community. No attempt was made to separate administrators from "top scientists." Various explanations might explain why this group is more against parapsychology than the mainstream. Some reflect positively on parapsychology, some negatively, and most are neutral. Presupposition #2: Most non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated (the existing body of parapsychological evidence) reject the existence of psi. This might be true, I don't know. What is your basis for this statement? The one or two non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated who I have met personally accept the evidence as fairly conclusive, but my sampling may well be biased. There are clearly non-parapsychological scientists who know about the evidence but nevertheless do not accept the existence of psi as proven, but is it a majority? It seems to me that most of the outspoken critics of parapsychology are either not scientists or do not seem to be aware of the body of evidence for parapsychology (usually both). They therefore are not included in the set of people under discussion. Very few non-parapsychologists seem to be aware of the scientific literature of the field. Most negative "investigations" of parapsychology have been instead investigations either of the claims of professional psychics, most of whom are considered obvious frauds by parapsychologists (whatever the psychics claim), or of particular pieces of research, generally done by unqualified people. Such investigations say nothing about the body of evidence to which I refer: if it has not appeared in the refereed technical organs of parapsychology it is not part of the body of scientific evidence. Even if a particular piece of research has appeared in that body has been shown to be flawed in some way, it still must be established by the critic that this flaw is representative of the ENTIRE body, before it can be taken as meaningful. If I point out the obvious flaw in the Aspect experiments, I have in no way invalidated all evidence for QM. Presupposition #3: The opinions of non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated the claims of parapsychology are representative of the opinions that would be held by all scientists if they also investigated. The motivations of those scientists who have chosen to investigate the evidence is obviously a confounding factor (whether for or against psi is unclear once you've eliminated investigators in the field). There is also another factor which biases this grouping against psi. Very few scientifically oriented people deny the monumental significance that psi would have *if* it were shown to exist. Scientists who have investigated the evidence and found it positive have frequently become involved in parapsychology, at least part time (given the lack of funds, most parapsychology is done part-time or spare-time). They then become excluded from your grouping of "non-parapsychological scientists." It also seems a bit odd to exclude at the outset people working in a field, presumably these people are generally the most knowledgeable. What would your reaction be if a "scientific" creationist excluded from the outset as "biased" the opinions of anyone working in biology, physics, geology or related fields? Presupposition #4: The opinions of scientists as a whole, as opposed to those who have investigated the matter, mean anything. As I tried to indicate above, the number of scientists who have actually investigated the evidence which I'm referring to is very small. The opinions of scientists as a whole is made up overwhelmingly of the opinions of those who have not investigated the evidence, who indeed, are at best barely aware of its existence. I don't see what relevance those opinions, positive or negative, have. Presupposition #5: If there was a large body of rigorous experiments supporting the existence of psi phenomena, then the majority of scientists who have investigated the existing evidence would accept the existence of psi. First, "a large body of rigorous experiments" is not equivalent to a "body of conclusive evidence." One can accept the existence of evidence and still feel that the issue is open. Second, scientists are human, not purely objective; and this issue strikes at some very fundamental assumptions of the philosophy of science as it is found in practice. No this is not the "Galileo" argument ("'They' thought Galileo was crazy, and 'They' think I am; Galileo was right; therefore I am also right"). In general, if you go with the majority of informed scientists, then you will be right much more often then if you use the opposite strategy. Sometimes, however, you will be wrong. I am telling you that the evidence exists (this is fact, not opinion), and that it is of as high quality as any other large body of evidence on a complex issue (this is my own evaluation). I am recommending that you check for yourself. It is your privilege to feel that the a priori probability of me being correct is low enough so that it is not worth your time to check; but until you have checked, you are not in a position to refute my statement. Presupposition #6?: If there were anything to it, "they" would have told me. I put a question mark on this one, since I am not sure it is a presupposition you actually made. It is one which I run into frequently, and if you made it, some of the more explicit presuppositions would result. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Particularly when the lack is in your knowledge of any evidence, rather than an actual lack of evidence. "They" have not told you because most of "them" don't know. Those very few who do know have good psychological (not, again in my opinion, scientific) reasons for rejecting the evidence. Those who know and accept the evidence have a great deal to lose by admitting it. Those who know, accept and admit it find that publication in mainstream science publications is a process where editors and publishers must be willing to accept (not necessarily wholeheartedly) and admit to that acceptance as well. Those who surmount all those hurdles find themselves labeled as a member of a small minority of "nuts," whose opinions may be safely dismissed. Am I proposing a conspiracy? Of course not: neither anything so sinister nor so easy to deal with. I am simply saying that there are a number of aspects of parapsychology which run headlong against certain factors in the sociology and psychology of contemporary science. So where does that leave us? There are a very few scientists who have made a thorough investigation of the rigorous evidence for psi phenomena. Of those, some accept the evidence, some reject it and some are "agnostic." This leaves us with a legitimate question: why do some informed scientists fail to accept the evidence at face value? I was going to answer this question here, but decided not to for several reasons: 1) this is getting rather long, 2) I should give people the opportunity to express an interest in the answer, and 3) I should provide anyone in the category who is out there with the opportunity to speak for themselves before I put words in their mouth. > Please document these claims. >Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely >because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim. > Jim Balter (ima!jim) Glad to, but once again I will do so in a separate posting. 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.