HART_CHRISTIAN
Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:19:26 -0700
Howdy TIPSters, I tend to fall on the side of Chuck Huff; the side of humility. I certainly agree with most of what Jim Clark writes vis-a-vis charlatans, the effect of chance, and certainly all the emotional reasons people have for wanting to believe in telepathy, clairvoyance, etc. But unlike Jim Clark, I have some reasons (including one personal) to keep an open, if critical, mind regarding the possibilities. (Note, however, that I take a more conservative approach with students who have not yet learned to weigh evidence or think critically). Why indeed would someone of Bem's stature continue to examine psi? (Psi is the term used by those who conduct research in parapsychology.) Unlike an area such as astrology, of which I know of no corroborating study whatsoever, psi continues to be an area that produces mixed findings. Surely those predisposed to "believe" would be just as likely to find supporting evidence in astrology. But apparently not. For me, the most compelling reason for humility regarding psi is my past experience as a "pseudo-scientist." (Orwell was so right when he wrote about our exceedingly short memories.) For those of you teaching introductory psychology, perhaps you are familiar with the "pseudo-science" that all my graduate work was about: psychoneuroimmunology. I began my graduate work in 1988, a mere 3 years after Marcia Angell's infamous editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine decrying the wasted resources going toward psychoneuroimmunology. And you know what? She was right...based on the data that had been published to that point. Lack of replicability, was the refrain. And for those who don't know, scientists like my mentors, Margaret Kemeny, George Solomon, and others...well, apparently they should have been ashamed to accept research funding for their work, according to the critics. Perhaps you have heard of my field? Yes, NOW, it is a fairly standard component in any run-of-the-mill intro. psych. textbook. How amusing to me now, in retrospect! At the time, it simply was not yet clear to us that we were dealing with small to moderate (at best) effect sizes. There were not enough subjects in our studies typically. Actually, it's amazing that effects were found at all given the sample sizes. Of course, meta-analysis has made all those criticisms fade away. Like most things, hindsight makes it all seem so obvious. As I tell my students (who greatly overestimate the size of the stress-health relationship), "if every time someone cut you off on the freeway, you got cancer and died...well, our species would hardly be around to debate the issue." I wonder if those scientists who LAUGHED at the absurd notion that psychological events could directly affect immune function (in contrast to the more prosaic and less interesting indirect route via the usual diet, exercise, etc.)...I wonder if they remember the scorn. Given hindsight bias, I strongly doubt it. Perhaps they remember having had more of an open mind or, ironically, even "remember" being supportive of the exploration. Nowadays, I love teaching full time. Never was much of a writer once my curiosity had been assuaged by the numbers from SPSS. And goodness knows, I consider it a victory when I can get students to question the validity of Ms. Warwick's Psychic Hotline (the poor dear should have stuck with music). But I remember how lack of theoretical mechanisms and replicability placed me and others in the same conceptual category as tarot card readers and palm readers. So, I'll be gracious to those parapsychologists who labor in good faith and who (based on an admittedly limited perusal) appear to be SO concerned with precision that they include estimates of effect sizes in their journal articles!!!! Wow, what a concept. Would that good old-fashioned psychological researchers would show as much diligence. Will the parapsychologists eventually say "I told you so"? I don't know. I do know it could, and has, happened before. The part of me that cheers for an underdog hopes so, perhaps vainly. At least, I will observe what I see in my quite elder colleagues who have seen more than I and who seem to imply that the lay public are not the only ones with dearly held belief systems--patience and respect for colleagues whose views differ. Just my two cents, and with respect to all, Christian Hart, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Psychology Santa Monica College -----Original Message----- From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:23 PM To: TIPS Mailing List Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: James Randi & Daryl Bem Hi On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Chuck Huff wrote: > But I like more Myer's comment below that: "The scientific attitude > blends curious skepticism with openminded humility. It demands that > extraordinary claims be supported by clear and reliable evidence." > > Humility seems an excellent scientific virtue. Having just reviewed Shirley MacLaine's "The Camino" for a local newspaper, I'm afraid that the nonsense being promoted and accepted by laypeople suggests to me that this is no time and no matter to be "humble" about. There are numerous reasons to discount the false hopes in ESP and the like: 1. If demonstrated under controlled conditions, it would violate much of natural scientific thinking. Note that physicists generally discount the idea of a natural explanation in terms of quantum theory or any of the far-fetched ideas that have been suggested. 2. Just by chance some positive effects are expected. 3. We truly do not know what important flaws might be in the studies without complete access to everything that was done. One of my students studies implicit serial learning, a task in which subjects demonstrate considerable sensitivity (but not necessarily awareness) to transitions between successive events. If, for example, sloppy randomization or simply chance resulted in transitions in the Ganzfeld being predictable, then the chance would no longer be 25%. 4. The area is full of cheating. 5. The psychological mechanisms to allow remote viewing, ESP, and the like are so implausible as to be fantastic. Emanations from some object (or mind) somehow transmit information about its shape (or the view of some shape) in such a way that remote viewers can detect that pattern out of all the other objects (and minds) that are present. The population of objects (and minds) approaches the infinite if, as is sometimes suggested, the "forces" are not limited by distance. Personally, I will never understand how someone of Bem's stature could participate in such a venture, nor how the editors of Psych Bull could permit such a fiasco. Imagine the boost given to promoters of this stuff by being able to cite one of the most prestigious journals in psychology. The problem with humility in cases like this is that it wrongly gives the impression that science cannot put some matter to rest. Imagine if biologists were "humble" about evolutionary theory and still granted that creationism offers a possible alternative? I believe that ESP survives because it provides a faint ray of hope to some people that mystical and spiritual forces still have a place despite the apparent success of the naturalistic worldview. And this hope in turn helps to undermine acceptance and promotion of the scientific approach to understanding human behaviour and experience. Let us demonstrate humility about things that we truly do not know about, nor understand. But ESP and parapsychology is not one of those things and does not merit a so-called "open" mind, unless by "open" one means naive and credulous. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================