Hi
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Miguel Roig wrote:
> 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!
> :-)
It is not easy to isolate a few quotes. Blackmore presents a
lengthy description of some anomalies that she observed in
Sargent's lab (she does cite and quote from the articles Miquel
quoted) when she visited because of her own failures to obtain
the Psi effects that Sargent was reporting. Essentially, there
were some indications that someone might have been controlling
which envelopes were being selected. There was a set of
identified envelopes in a drawer. These were supposedly used
just to replace envelopes selected from the target pile. The
numbers of cards remaining in the drawer after several
experiments were inconsistent with what they should have been.
She also reports that they found various envelopes "hidden"
around the room, which would have been necessary if substitution
was going on. There was also a short comment on possible
prompting of subjects by Sargent. She acknowledges that what she
observed could not account for the degree of hits obtained.
> >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.
I was not referring to methodological concerns when using the
term "cheating." Contrary to Miquel, I do not see the charge as
a worse ethical violation than leaving Psi results to stand
without including this hypothesis. Believing in such things has
led to far greater harm to people than erroneous charges of
scientific cheating. Moreover, it is relatively easy to rebut
the charges if they are untrue. That in essence is what would
normally happen by multiple researchers replicating an effect,
unless one wants to get into conspiracy models of cheating. The
possibility of cheating is increased, I think, whenever you have
a lab or center that depends on the existence of some phenomenon
for its own existence. There must be tremendous pressures to
produce positive results, not only on the chief investigators,
but also on all staff involved in a project.
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
============================================================================
