Hi
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Miguel Roig wrote:
> At 11:23 PM 9/10/00 -0500, you (Jim Clark) wrote:
> >4. The area is full of cheating.
> Yes, cheating has probably occurred in studies of
> self-proclaimed psychics by the psychics themselves.
> Parapsychologists themselves have acknowledged these
> problems. However, since the thread is on the ganzfeld, are
> you implying that cheating has also occurred in ganzfeld
> studies or other ESP laboratory studies with unselected
> subjects? If so, I would like to know what evidence you can
> offer for the above statement.
I was referring to the general area of parapsychology, including
both the everyday variety (Houdini's "Miracle Mongers") and
laboratory studies. 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 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.
> >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.
>
> By your statement below, Bem and the editors of Psych.
> Bulletin must obviously be both, credulous and naive.
>
> >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.
That is correct. The most telling argument on this for me is the
psychological one that I gave in the previous post. How many
journals would publish some effect, even if it is significant,
without the slightest hint of the _psychological_ mechanisms by
which such behaviour could possibly occur? The perceptual,
attentional, and cognitive processes that would be necessary to
support such effects are simply implausible.
On top of its psychological implausibility, the idea that objects
or minds have emanations that communicate information that humans
can process despite no physical evidence of the presence of such
emanations stains credulity to the breaking point. The idea that
strange features of the new physics might help, is dubious.
Hooft, a physicist, writes in the Skeptical Inquirer, "there is
_absolutely_no_way_ one can explain the paranormal in this
fashion [i.e., via modern physics]" (emphasis is his). He lists
as the _least_ likely explanation for paranormal phenomena "1.
Hitherto unknown physical phenomena, implying paranormal transfer
of information," followed in increasing order of probability by:
"2. All phenomena are pure coincidences," "3. Psychic claimants
are liars and charlatans, "4. A delicate psychological
phenomenon, caused by wishful thinking," and "5. People can be
tricked by their own brain." I would include methodological
errors somewhere high up on the list as well.
Another physicist, Stenger, is even more adamant (and less
polite?), in a Skeptical Inquirer article title "Quantum
quackery." He writes "Certainly no mystical assertions are
justified by any observations concerning quantum processes."
By pandering to misguided beliefs about the paranormal,
psychology is adding to the all-too-many ways that we undermine
our discipline's scientific credibility. Here is Hooft
again: "Scientists are often accused of not being open enough to
'paranormal phenomena.' 'As scientists' they should be open to
them, it is said. But it wouldn't be very open-minded if we
wouldn't try to fit reported phenomena logically into the web of
established physical phenomena and laws of nature. The laws of
physics, biology, and psychology point all to the most plausible
explanation of them all: paranormal phenomena are in the eye of
the beholder. They happen between the human ears, not outside of
them." The "But ..." sentence above needs a close reading; at
least, I didn't catch its drift at first.
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
============================================================================
