Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!masscomp!ulowell!vdsvax!barnett
From: barnett@vdsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.psi
Subject: Re: levels of description
Message-ID: <953@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Mar-87 09:15:10 EST
Article-I.D.: vdsvax.953
Posted: Tue Mar 17 09:15:10 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 19:34:11 EST
References: <33446a71.44e6@apollo.uucp> <2618@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <1135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Sender: rickheit@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (Bruce G Barnett)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 71
Approved: rickheit@ulowell.UUCP

[]

In article <1135@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> "David A. Sheppard" <das@godot.think.com.uucp> writes:
>Their subject, a Chicago 'psychic'
>named Olaf Jonsson, guessed at symbols on standard ESP cards while
>connected to an EEG machine.  He guessed at a 50% hit rate (random
>would be 20%), and the researchers found a 73% correlation of of 
>a particular pattern and correct guesses.
>
>--das

	I would like to find out more about these `results'.  Most of
the research done with Olaf Jonsson, and most of the research with
PSI, has been extremely flawed in the methodology.

	As an example, the Burack-Jonsson tests done in 1971
were embarrassing. When the proper controls were in place, Olle had a headache.
Yet when the controls were eliminated, amazing results occurred!

	In the tests with Edgar Mitchell, the 20% probability became
40%!  Of course, these figures are suspect when it is discovered that
Jonsson recorded the results of his own experiment.

	In another example, Dr. J. B. Rhine reported success in 1949
with Jonsson and later retracted the results when he admitted that
the tests were under Jonsson's control.

	As far as I know, positive results in PSI experiments are
inversely proportional to the amount of controls placed on the
experiment. In blunt terms, scientists are not qualified to specify
the controls needed. And the easiest people to delude are the
scientists who want to show a positive results.

	On the other hand, the SCIOP is quite capable of ignoring
experiments that they can't disprove. Randi never talks about his
failures.

If you make the above claim, please document it.  In fact, I would
like to hear about ANY test that proved the existence of PSI. Just
because there was a report in some journal doesn't prove anything. A
thorough reading of Randi, Marks/Kamman, and the Skeptical Inquirer
demonstrate that.  

	I don't say Randi is perfect either. One of these days he is
going to hand over his $10,000. Not because of a real PSI phenomenon,
but because he was fooled. As a concrete example, it is obvious that
the grooves on records appear different on different albums. You can
see changes between quiet passages and loud passages on classical
records.  And there are large differences between rock albums.

	So if the labels were covered, it is easy to identify records
with sight alone. Yet when someone (I forget the name) claimed he
could use his fingers to identify records, Randi was completely
baffled.  He was unable to determine how the effect was done.

To start another subject, I often wonder about the following:

	Suppose PSI phenomena was real.
	Suppose PSI phenomena is by its very nature uncontrollable.
	If it is uncontrollable, it is unmeasurable, and unrepeatable.
	If it did happen, the scientists would ignore it because it
		was not done under controlled conditions.
	If it did happen under controlled conditions, other scientists
		would reject the claim because they could not repeat it.
	Therefore PSI phenomena will never be accepted as real.
--
			Bruce G. Barnett 
barnett@ge-crd.arpa, barnett@steinmetz.uucp
	...!{chinet,rochester}!steinmetz!barnett