At 08:51 AM 9/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> For a discussion of possible ways of and
>evidence for cheating in lab studies, including labs involved in
>many of the Ganzfeld studies, see Blackmore's "In search of the
>light: The adventures of a parapsychologist."
I have not read Blackmore's book nor her earlier edition of that book where she
first made such allegations and, unfortunately for me, neither our university
library nor my local library branch own either edition of her book. Nevertheless,
I remember reading back in the 80s a review of her first edition. Well, I dug up
the review and here is what the reviewer had to say with respect to the alleged
cheating.
In a review of the first edition of her book, Berger (1988) writes:
"Any possibility that Sargent (a parapsychologist who has carried out Ganzfeld
research) could prove to be her psi guru was dashed when she felt she observed
inconsistencies in the Ganzfeld sessions she personally witnessed. She wrote up a
report of her observations (which vaguely implied cheating on Sargent's part) and
submitted it to the Society for Psychical Research in 1980 (Blackmore, 1987b). In
the book, Blackmore writes cryptically that 'Carl (Sargent) asked me never to
return
to his lab again' (p. 132), but does not say why. By leaving it at that,
Blackmore
intimates that it was Sargent's guilt, rather than something she had done which
evoked his response. Sargent, 7 years later, writes that 'after the multiple
deceptions of her visit, she wrote to both Trevor Harley and myself stating that
she accepted our explanations for the errors which had occurred .... Having done
this, she then proceeded behind our backs to spread defamatory rumours and
insinuations of fraud'. (Sargent, 1987, p. 217)"
"Blackmore (1987b), in a stronger criticism than the original, suggests possible
fraud in the Sargent Ganzfeld work - Sargent suggests that Blackmore's criticisms
show, at best, minor errors in procedure (Sargent, 1987). Blackmore's
unsubstantiated allegations have apparently resulted in Sargent's exit from the
field of parapsychology. Details of this affair are missing from the book and
could have provided important insight into this matter. What were the 'multiple
deceptions' Sargent referred to?" (p. 379).
Italics are mine.
-------
Again, keep in mind that the above is based on her first edition. Perhaps in the
latest edition of her book, Blackmore provides more specific allegations of
cheating in Sargent's ganzfeld studies, including, judging by Jim's post above,
evidence of actual cheating in at least one of the other labs that generated some
of the ganzfeld experiments. At any rate, as I remember discussions with others
about this particular case, my understanding of the above segments was that the
'subject cheating' pertained to a problem of sensory leakage. Such problems have
been known to exist in some parapsychological experiments and these are typically
due to some inadvertent design or procedural flaw. In such instances, the subject
is suspected to have the _potential_ to obtain information about the ESP targets
via normal sensory means, rather than to the planned extrasensory means, thus the
term cheating. Again, as I understand the above, the problem with Sargent's
experiments was that there was the _potential_ for sensory leakage not that
actually sensory leakage or any other form of cheating had occurred. Of
course, in
her earlier edition, Blackmore appears to insinuate that sensory leakage and
perhaps some other type of fraud _may_ have occurred.
At any rate, as I have stated previously on this list, I have really not kept up
with much of the current parapsychological literature. However, given that I
still
maintain an interest in this area and that my current research interests have
taken
me into the field of scientific misconduct, I would appreciate very much any
additional information about this matter that any of you might have. So, would it
be at all possible for you, Jim, or anyone else who might own a copy of her latest
book, to provide a more specific page reference to these claims? Obviously, some
quoted text would be ideal! :-)
>I will also admit
>to being influenced by an argument Blackmore attributes to Pierce
>(she discounts it herself) that it is easier to believe that
>cheating is going on than in true Psi effects, which are
>incompatible with so much of natural science. I see this as a
>kind of parsimony argument.
Because cheating in the above context can be easily interpreted to mean (or is
meant to mean) some sort of malicious attempt at committing fraud whether by
subjects or by the experimenter, it is an argument whose use can result in
potentially irreparable damage to the professional lives of those whose
experiments
are in question. Ethically speaking, I wouldn't use it unless I had some pretty
good evidence that something fraudulent had taken place. On the other hand, if
the
argument makes it clear that 'cheating' refers to common sensory leakage,
experimenter bias, or some other experimental artifact, then obviously it is very
appropriate. These days, on the rare occasion when I read a parapsychological
study that shows positive results, I will often, and rather instinctively,
entertain a version of that argument (i.e., experimenter bias, artifact, etc.).
And I am, as some of you might call me, a 'believer'. Go figure.
References
Berger, R. E. (1988). Review of The Adventures of a Parapsychologist. The
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 82, 374-384.
Blackmore, S. (1987b). A report of a visit to Carl Sargent's laboratory.
Journal
of the Society for Psychical Research, 54, 186-198.
Sargent, C (1987). Sceptical fairytales from Bristol. Journal of the Society
for
Psychical Research, 54, 208-218.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Miguel Roig, Ph.D. Voice: (718) 390-4513
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology Fax: (718) 442-3612
Dept. of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
St. John's University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
300 Howard Avenue http://area51.stjohns.edu/~roig
Staten Island, NY 10301
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
