The Paranormal Trickster Blog

Martin Gardner and the Paranormal: An Appreciation and Critique

2010-06-01T18:43:00.000-07:00

Martin Gardner died on May 22, 2010. There will be many articles and tributes to him in the coming weeks and months, but probably few will be from proponents of the paranormal. Gardner generally was not liked by them, and the feeling was mutual.

He had a real dislike for some researchers, including J.B. Rhine and Russell Targ (as well as some members of Targ’s family).¹ Nor was he able to maintain friendly relations with moderate skeptic Marcello Truzzi. Gardner was a “hard-line” debunker, and his writings were frequently laced with invective, sarcasm, and ridicule—a style less suited for scholarly journals but more for zines such as Saucer Smear (Gardner was a non-subscriber to Smear, and an occasional contributor).²

But the implications of the paranormal debates go far beyond the personalities, foibles, and animosities of those involved in the disputes. Gardner is too important to be dismissed, and the twentieth-century controversy over the reality of psychic phenomena cannot be understood without him.³

He dealt with the issues frequently, in depth, and for more than half a century. He was passionate about the topic, and it is not too strong to say that paranormal claims enraged him. In its own way, the paranormal was part of his life, and part of him. His writings, and also his person, merit attention. The emotion that paranormal controversies generates, and the schisms they provoke, are key to understanding the anti-structural nature of the phenomena.⁴

I grew up reading Gardner’s Mathematical Games column in Scientific American, long before I had any interest in the paranormal. His occasional allusions to the paranormal sometimes puzzled me, but I didn’t pay much attention to them. After I developed an interest in parapsychology and began reading The Zetetic, Skeptical Inquirer, and Zetetic Scholar, I became familiar with the controversies, and of course, with Gardner’s role. His clear, vigorous (even vicious!) prose, was fun to read, if one was not too close to the receiving end. Newsweek magazine commented: “Gentle as he is, he is driven almost beyond satire...he wields Ockham’s razor like a switchblade.”⁵

My own opinion of Gardner is comparatively favorable, considering the views of most paranormal proponents. He made important contributions to psychical research, especially when he pointed out that parapsychologists needed a knowledge of magic. As I became professionally involved in parapsychology, I found his point to be largely ignored.⁶ His writings were a significant influence on my thinking and orientation to psychic claims. When I critiqued the research with Bill Delmore, which was highly regarded within parapsychology, Gardner provided very useful information.⁷

Proponents, as well as debunkers, have almost entirely avoided addressing his religious views (though I’ve made some attempt). Gardner’s struggles over his religious beliefs had a profound impact on his intellectual life. He understood that parapsychology had implications for religion, and he was uncomfortable with them. In fact, he wrote that some parapsychology experiments could be blasphemous, going on to add, “Let us not tempt God.”⁸

My comments above have been brief; they are meant only as an introduction to the more extended analysis included in The Trickster and the Paranormal. There I devoted more than 14 pages to Gardner, far more than for any other individual. The section appeared within the chapter on reflexivity, partly to provide a respite from that highly abstract topic and partly because Gardner was an important popularizer of the topic of self-reference. The section, which is critical but also appreciative, is now online.

Click here for section on Martin Gardner in The Trickster and the Paranormal (PDF file, 230KB)

Endnotes

1. Gardner’s animosity can be seen in his article “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher: Distant Healing and Elisabeth Targ” (Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 25, No. 2, March/April 2001, pp. 12-14). Russell Targ quoted at length from the article in his Do You See What I See?: Memoirs of a Blind Biker (Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.; 2008. See pages xxx-xxxii.), demonstrating Gardner’s mean spiritedness.

2. Saucer Smear is the insider’s gossip zine of ufology, covering its scandals, fights, hoaxes, recriminations, lawsuits, felony convictions, etc. One could not become a “subscriber” to Saucer Smear, only a “non-subscriber.” Now in its 57th year, Smear is still edited by the court jester of ufology, James Moseley, who had a close association with James Randi.

3. Gardner was one of the founding members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [CSI]). Jerome Clark justifiably called him “the godfather” of the skeptics movement (Clark, Jerome. [1990]. Skeptics and the New Age. In J. Gordon Melton, Jerome Clark, & Aidan A. Kelly [Eds.], New Age Encyclopedia [pp. 417-427]. Detroit, MI: Gale Research. See page 420.). For more on CSICOP, see my “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview” (Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1992, pp. 19-63), which is available on my website.

4. The ubiquitous controversies and schisms in paranormal fields are captured by the word anti-structure, a term derived from the anthropological study of ritual. The concept explains characteristics of the trickster figure of mythology as well as properties of paranormal phenomena.

5. Adler, Jerry; with Carey, John. (1981, November 16). The Magician of Math. Newsweek, Vol. 98, p. 101.

6. As magician-academics such as Marcello Truzzi, Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, Daryl Bem, and Peter Lamont became more active in parapsychology, greater attention was given to the problem of deception.

7. Hansen, George P. (1992). The Research With B.D. and the Legacy of Magical Ignorance. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 307-333. Available on my website.

8. Gardner, Martin. (1983). The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. New York: William Morrow. See page 23.

Psychophysical Research Laboratories’ PsiLab // Manual Now Online

2009-12-07T18:25:00.000-08:00

During the 1980s, Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) developed a package called PsiLab // to test psychic functioning using the Apple II series of computers.

The package included an electronic random number generator (RNG) on a circuit board that fit into an Apple II slot. The RNG was a modified version of one built by Dutch physicist Dick Bierman.

PsiLab // also included software to test the randomness of RNGs, computer games that used RNG output, and utilities for analysis. The PsiLab // manual (126 pages) gave considerable detail, but a very limited number of copies—perhaps no more than two dozen—were produced.

The PsiLab // manual is now online in PDF format. Two versions are available:

Click here for PsiLab // -- Searchable PDF (7.3 MB)

Click here for PsiLab // -- Nonsearchable PDF (3.1 MB)

The manual was cited in a number of journal articles reporting both laboratory-based research (e.g., Berger 1988; Don, McDonough, & Warren 1992; Honorton 1987) and field studies (e.g., Maher & Hansen 1992; Maher & Hansen 1995). Also, a number of researchers made use of the random analysis software and the methods for verifying adequate functioning of RNGs (e.g., Palmer & Kramer 1987; Vassy 1990).

PRL was headed by Charles Honorton, and it carried out research from 1979 to 1989 in Princeton, New Jersey. It focused on two primary areas: ESP under ganzfeld conditions and psi effects on electronic RNGs. For more information on PRL, see Broughton (1991, pp. 105-114; 1993), Hansen (2001, pp. 195-196, 206), and especially Schechter (1993). The 1993 articles by Broughton and Schechter were reprinted in Rao (1994).

References

Berger, Rick E. (1988). Psi Effects Without Real-Time Feedback. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 52, pp. 1-27.

Broughton, Richard S. (1991). Parapsychology: The Controversial Science. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Broughton, Richard S. (1993). A Craftsman and His Tools: The New Technology. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 57, pp. 111-127.

Don, Norman S.; McDonough, Bruce E.; & Warren, Charles A. (1992). Psi Testing of a Controversial Psychic Under Controlled Conditions. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, pp. 87-96.

Hansen, George P. (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris.

Honorton, Charles. (1987). Precognition and Real-Time ESP Performance in a Computer Task With an Exceptional Subject. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 51, pp. 291-320.

Maher, Michaeleen C. & Hansen, George P. (1992). Quantitative Investigation of a Reported Haunting Using Several Detection Techniques. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 86, pp. 347-374.

Maher, Michaeleen C. & Hansen, George P. (1995). Quantitative Investigation of a “Haunted Castle” in New Jersey. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 89, pp. 19-50.

Palmer, John & Kramer, Wim. (1987). Release of Effort in RNG PK: An Attempted Replication and Extension. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 51, pp. 125-136.

Rao, K. Ramakrishna. (1994). Charles Honorton and the Impoverished State of Skepticism: Essays on a Parapsychological Pioneer. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Schechter, Ephraim I. (1993). Psychophysical Research Laboratories. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 57, pp. 67-82.

Vassy, Zoltan. (1990). Experimental Study of Precognitive Timing: Indications of a Radically Noncausal Operation. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 54, pp. 299-320.

The Muhlenberg College 2009 Conference on Magic: A Review

2009-06-30T20:16:00.000-07:00

Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, held The Theory and Art of Magic conference during March 19-21, 2009. It was part of a larger academic program directed by Lawrence Hass, a professor of philosophy and theatre. The meeting was neither a typical magic convention nor a fully academic conference, but rather an unusual hybrid.

Although the conference was primarily devoted to performance magic, several paranormal and religious issues were discussed. Some of those were relevant to trickster theory. As such, I believed it worthwhile to prepare a focused, non-comprehensive review of the conference.

My review is available at—

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Muhlenberg2009-ConferenceReview.pdf
(37 KB PDF file)

I spotlight the work of Eugene Burger, one of the most profound thinkers in magic today. I also allude to the marginal and anti-structural nature of performance magic, a characteristic it shares with the paranormal. Extensive endnotes are included for readers with specialized academic interests.

A schedule of the conference program is on the Muhlenberg College website—

http://www.muhlenberg.edu/cultural/magic/schedule.html

Photos from the conference can be found at Dexter Lane’s website—

http://www.dexterlane.com/Muhlenberg/

Articles on Magicians and the Paranormal Now Online

2009-06-29T19:46:00.000-07:00

Now available on my website is the article “Magicians on the Paranormal: An Essay with a Review of Three Books,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (JASPR) in 1992. The article is something of a bibliographic study that addresses magicians’ writings on paranormal topics. For over 400 years magicians have confirmed and disputed the reality of paranormal phenomena. (The length of that debate is one illustration of the inherent anti-structural nature of the paranormal.)

Appended to the bibliographical study are three short reviews of non-academic books, two of which deserve little notice. The third, which has some merit, was coauthored by Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly known as CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal]).

Click here for the JASPR article (2.2 MB PDF file)

Already available online is my article “Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena,” which appeared in The Linking Ring, the monthly magazine of the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

Click here for The Linking Ring article (1.1 MB PDF file)

X-Conference 2008: Scott Jones & John Alexander, speakers

2008-04-04T20:52:00.000-07:00

X-Conference 2008 is to be devoted to uncovering the truth about government activity with UFOs. It is scheduled for April 18-20 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Two of the speakers merit special attention: C. B. “Scott” Jones and John B. Alexander. Both have had decades-long involvement with ufology (as well as with remote viewing and parapsychology).

In the early 1990s, Jones publicly proclaimed that he “honestly did not know of any activity of the U.S. government” in the field of UFOs.¹ But in 1992 Robert J. Durant produced a detailed, widely circulated white paper demonstrating that Jones was in a position to throw considerable light on government-UFO activities. (I am not aware of any response Jones made to that report.)

The Durant paper is available here

Colonel John Alexander (U.S. Army, retired) was heavily involved with the U.S. government’s psychic spying program, but he was also active with UFOs. In fact, Alexander admitted that he was the model for the “Harold Phillips” character in Howard Blum’s book Out There: The Government’s Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990). (I was present when Alexander made the admission. Joseph Stefula was also present and can confirm it.)

Alexander has some unusual connections, such as the person of Gordon Novel—an exceptionally “colorful” character.² Novel was somehow able to evade the extradition attempts of prosecutor Jim Garrison during his investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Garrison concluded that Novel’s intelligence associates were protecting him.³ Whatever the truth of the matter, other peculiarities in his background are disturbing.

Novel was convicted of illegally transporting electronic surveillance equipment in Nevada. Later in Georgia, he pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms. After being charged with fire bombing in Louisiana he jumped bail, but after recapture, his trial ended in a hung jury.⁴

Alexander has spent some time with Novel and has flaunted the affiliation,⁵ perhaps in an attempt to intimidate others. Martin Cannon, an investigator who has written on government mind-control projects, received a call from Alexander’s wife on May 30, 1993. She left a message on his answering machine saying: “Martin, as an ex-friend I have to warn you. John and Hal [Puthoff] are really pissed off at you. And they’ve given the matter over to Gordon [Novel] to handle. Watch out.” Cannon had no idea what had provoked the threat, but in his book The Controllers he had suggested that perhaps some UFO abduction accounts were actually due to screen memories imposed on the victims of a government mind-control program in order to conceal other atrocities. Cannon was well aware of Alexander’s interest in UFO abductions and of Novel’s background. He was quite alarmed, and the day he received the message, he called and played me the tape. I suggested that he alert a number of people in the media, and he also notified the FBI.

But Cannon was not the only one targeted by Alexander. Armen Victorian of England was one of the most effective researchers to use the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to uncover government involvement in paranormal areas.6 Citing the FOIA, Victorian requested information about research at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but it was denied him. Undeterred, he placed a second request, seeking copies of all paperwork relating to the denial. Victorian thereby obtained a memorandum written by John Alexander to Gilbert Ortiz, dated 28 September 1993. In that memo, Alexander discussed Victorian and specifically complained about his role in the expose of Bruce Maccabee, a Navy physicist who spread rumors that the U.S. government knew of ET alien bases on earth.⁷ (Maccabee is scheduled to speak at X-Conference 2008.)

Alexander’s memo revealed that the CIA had requested “British Intelligence and the police to assist in resolving problems with” Victorian. Alexander did not discuss court action, legal remedies, or regulations that might be used to deny information. Rather it implied retaliation by government agents without due process, a serious abuse of power. Victorian subsequently reported that his home and car were broken into, that computer disks and other records stolen, and that someone had tampered with his mail.⁸ After an account of all this appeared in the January 1, 1995 edition of British newspaper The Observer⁹ his problems seemed to stop.

Concluding Remarks

Whatever one may think of Jones and Alexander, one cannot reasonably conclude that they have worked to inform the public about government-UFO activities. They have fostered ambiguity and suspicion, and perhaps worse. One might be skeptical of any statements they may make on the topic.

For more on Jones and Alexander, see The Trickster and the Paranormal pages 169-170, 228, 237-241, 243-244.

Endnotes

1. For instance: Jones, Cecil B. Government - UFO Connections in Mufon Symposium Proceedings, 1991, pp. 173-184. Seguin, TX: MUFON. See page 176.

2. An entire chapter is devoted to Gordon Novel in The Kennedy Conspiracy: An Uncommissioned Report on the Jim Garrison Investigation by Paris Flammonde, New York, NY: Meredith Press, 1969, pp. 96-109.

3. On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison, New York, NY: Warner Books, 1991, see pp. 208-211. (First published 1988)

4. Bizarre Rome Case Ends with Man Pleading Guilty by Betsy Neal, Atlanta Constitution, November 6, 1977, p. 15-B (page depends on edition).

5. A picture of Alexander with Novel was printed in Saucer Smear, Vol. 41, No. 9, December 5th, 1994, p. 6. Available at: http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v41/ss941205.htm. Accessed March 28, 2008.

6. Victorian formerly used the name Henry Azadehdel. On June 6, 1989, he was convicted of smuggling orchids into England.

7. Alexander’s memo was reproduced in Third Eyes Only (No. 19, March-April, 1994, pp. 33-38). Maccabee’s spreading of rumors of ET bases on earth can be found in his article Hiding the Hardware (International UFO Reporter, Vol. 16, No. 5, September/October, 1991, pp. 4-10, 23. See pp. 10, 23.) The expose of Maccabee was the Associated Investigators Report AIR #1 The Fund for CIA Research? or Who’s Disinforming Whom? (Third Eyes Only, No. 14, July, 1993, pp. 1-14.)

8. Britain in the 90s: Up Against the State by Armen Victorian, Lobster, No. 28, 1994, pp. 12-13. Victorian sent me copies of police reports he filed. If he had filed false ones, he could have been subject to prosecution.

9. Secret Service ‘Targets’ Military Writer by William Goodwin, The Observer (London), January 1, 1995, p. 10.

Zetetic Scholar: Numbers 6-8 Now Online

2008-03-28T11:20:00.000-07:00

Zetetic Scholar numbers 6-8 (1980-1981) have just been put online in PDF format. Earlier issues were uploaded last year.

Click here to go to issues of Zetetic Scholar

Zetetic Scholar (ZS) was edited by Marcello Truzzi, who co-founded CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). Truzzi resigned from CSICOP after it became apparent that other members didn’t want a scientific organization, but rather an advocacy group. Truzzi established ZS to foster scholarly debate and dialogue between critics and proponents of the paranormal.

ZS issues 6-8 include dialogues on remote viewing, parapsychology, and UFOs. Some of the contributors include: Robert Jahn, Paul Feyerabend, Ray Hyman, John Beloff, I. J. Good, Charles Tart, Antony Flew, Henry Bauer, David Hoy, Jerome Clark, Robert Morris, Persi Diaconis, J. Allen Hynek, John Keel, and Bruce Maccabee.

Back Issues of Archaeus Are Now Online

2008-03-08T12:50:00.000-08:00

Click here for back issues of Archaeus

The Archaeus Project: Overview

The Archaeus Project was one of the groups active in the 1980s and early 1990s. It was founded in 1982 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (Bakken, n.d., p.74), and during its early years it focused heavily, though not exclusively, on the paranormal. It conducted investigations, sponsored lecture series, held conferences, established a library, and published periodicals and monographs.

Its journal, Archaeus, was published in five volumes, from 1983 to 1989. It carried papers from a variety of contributors, with names familiar to paranormal researchers, including (in order of first appearance): Eldon A. Byrd, Jack Houck, James McClenon, John Thomas Richards, Dennis Stillings, Robert C. Beck, Jule Eisenbud, Andrija Puharich, Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Otto H. Schmitt, George P. Hansen, W. E. Cox, Robert E. L. Masters, Earl E. Bakken, Hilary Evans, Martin S. Kottmeyer, Peter M. Rojcewicz, Michael Grosso, Alvin H. Lawson, Michael A. Persinger.

The Archaeus Project began as a discussion group in the home of Earl Bakken, an inventor-businessman who co-founded Medtronic, which was ranked number 222 in the 2007 Fortune 500 list, with a market value of $57 billion (Bakken, n.d., p. 73; Fortune 500, 2007, pp. F-11 – F-12). The group was soon joined by Dennis Stillings, who had earlier built the collections of The Bakken, now a renowned library and museum focusing on electricity and life (Bakken, n.d., pp. 70-71; Stillings, 2001). Stillings went on to become the director of the Archaeus Project.

The group had a number of other members with significant mainstream accomplishments. Otto Schmitt, an eminent biophysicist, was one of the early members involved with paranormal investigations. The November-December 2004 issue of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine devoted over 40 pages to Schmitt and his work, including an article by Stillings. John E. Haaland, a former Corporate Vice President of the Pillsbury Company, was another member. In 1998 Haaland and members of Robert Jahn’s PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) laboratory at Princeton University received a patent for an electronic random-number generator used to control a game toy or computer display (Bradish et al, 1998). Archaeus Project member Karen Olness, M.D., a professor of pediatrics, has received honors for improving children’s health around the world.

The Archaeus Project kept in touch with other groups and brought active researchers to Minneapolis and St. Paul for public lectures. Stillings was given sufficient funds for considerable travel, and he had a chance to observe a wide range of paranormal activities and the subcultures surrounding them. Through its journal Archaeus and its newsletter/magazine Artifex it chronicled the paranormal scene, and Stillings provided illuminating commentary, often from a Jungian perspective. (Most of his commentaries are not currently available online.)

In 1993 the Archaeus Project moved to Hawaii as its focus shifted to more mainstream healthcare-related matters. In 2001 it became a sole proprietorship owned by Dennis Stillings. It has not since been active in paranormal areas, though Stillings retains his personal interest.

The Archaeus Project and Anti-structure

The Archaeus Project displays characteristics of anti-structure that typify many paranormal groups. The term anti-structure captures the instability and marginality of paranormal organizations, as well as the lack of long-lived institutions that remain effective. (I am speaking here primarily of those groups that make attempts to directly engage paranormal phenomena.)

The word anti-structure was used by anthropologist Victor Turner in the subtitle of his book The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (1969). He used it almost synonymously with liminality. Neither of the two terms is commonly known within paranormal fields, and indeed, even young anthropologists are not too likely to be familiar with the words (the social sciences are marked by a high degree of faddishness). Yet Turner was a major figure in anthropology; his concepts have been adopted in other fields, and extensions of his theoretical work give considerable insight into the paranormal. A full explanation of anti-structure and its ramifications would take too much space here. But I hope that the reader will get some sense of them from this discussion.

The Archaeus Project had office space and a paid staff. But it was small. Most of the work was done by Stillings, with help from Gail Duke. Yet for a paranormal group, it was well supported; indeed it would be the envy of many researchers today. Nevertheless, by comparison to a conventional business, church, or school, it was a tiny operation. It was not integrated into a larger organization; rather, it was an autonomous entity. That allowed considerable freedom but made it more vulnerable to the vagaries of funding, personnel changes, etc.

The Archaeus Project was supported by a wealthy individual, rather than government agencies or foundations run by professional philanthropists. As I pointed out in my book (pp. 197-198), the funding sources for psychical research reflect the anti-structural nature of psi. The greatest support for open (i.e., nonclassified) research has come from wealthy individuals such as James S. McDonnell (McDonnell Douglas Corporation), Thomas Welton Stanford (brother of Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University), Frances Bolton (congresswoman), Thomas Baker Slick, Jr. (oil man), John E. Fetzer (owner of radio and television stations and the Detroit Tigers baseball team), George W. Church, Jr. (Church’s Fried Chicken), W. Clement Stone (insurance magnate), Arthur Koestler (author), Chester F. Carlson (inventor of the Xerox process), Masaru Ibuka (co-founder of Sony), and Robert Bigelow (real estate tycoon, Bigelow Aerospace). Overall, large philanthropic institutions have made comparatively modest contributions. Some of the people listed above established foundations to support parapsychology, but after their deaths, professional philanthropists took control, changed the focus of the foundations, and eliminated support for parapsychology. Unlike other areas of science, it is not institutions (e.g., corporations, government agencies, philanthropic foundations), but rather individuals, who have provided the primary financial backing for psychical research. This is simply another manifestation of anti-structure and the anti-institutional nature of psi.

The Archaeus Project’s involvement with paranormal topics spanned approximately 10 years. Its historical trajectory is typical of other groups. In the early phase, experiments were undertaken, and efforts were made to directly observe paranormal events. Small newsletters were published. As the Archaeus Project became more established, the bulk of its efforts shifted more toward publishing its journal and magazine, rather than directly engaging the phenomena. Eventually, attention turned away from paranormal topics altogether, and its research into the paranormal failed to be effectively institutionalized for the long term.

Concluding Comments

Some might perceive my above comments as being rather downbeat, focusing too heavily on the failure. Such a perception would miss the point. The Archaeus Project was far more successful, and made more of a contribution, than the vast majority of groups devoted to the paranormal. It left a legacy of written materials that chronicled paranormal activities and commented on many facets, often with considerable insight. Despite its successes, it displayed the manifestations of anti-structure typical of paranormal groups.

In closing, I might mention that the single most important factor that led me to writing The Trickster and the Paranormal was a decade of discussions with the director of the Archaeus Project, Dennis Stillings.

References

Bakken, Earl E. (n.d.). One Man’s Full Life. Available at: http://www.earlbakken.com/content/publications/one.mans.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2008.

Bradish, G. Johnston; Dobyns, York H.; Dunne, Brenda J.; Jahn, Robert G.; Nelson, Roger D.; Haaland, John E.; Hamer, Steven M. Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output. U.S. Patent No. 5,830,064. November 3, 1998.

Fortune 500 Largest U.S. Corporations. Fortune, Vol. 155, No. 8, April 30, 2007, pp. F-1 – F-29.

Hansen, George P. (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation.

Stillings, Dennis. (2004). Otto Schmitt and the Archaeus Project: Adventures in the Anomalous. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 57-59.

Stillings, Dennis. (2001). The Bakken: A Library and Museum of Electricity in Life. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 255-266.

Turner, Victor W. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

Links

A short history of the Archaeus Project is given at:

http://www.archaeusproject.com/main.shtml

A short history of The Bakken is given at:

http://www.thebakken.org/about-us/history.htm

Dennis Stillings’ article on The Bakken in the Journal of Scientific Exploration is available at:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/15.2_stillings.pdf

Paul Stevens and the European Journal of Parapsychology

2008-01-30T20:17:00.000-08:00

The European Journal of Parapsychology (EJP) has been well respected within parapsychology for decades. For instance, Radin, May, and Thompson (1985, p. 223) judged its quality to be well above that of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. EJP articles are consistently at a professional level, and the journal has no need to cater to a nonprofessional membership society.

The EJP was founded in 1975 at the University of Utrecht. Its editors included Martin Johnson and Sybo Schouten. From 1990 to 1999 it was edited by the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh. The journal then moved to the University of Gothenburg in Sweden where it was edited by Adrian Parker and Jan Dalkvist. It is now edited at Bournemouth University in England by Paul Stevens.

Stevens earned a Ph.D. in 1997 at the University of Edinburgh under the supervision of Professor Robert Morris. He was a research fellow at the University from 1997 to 2007, producing a substantial number of papers. He also supervised Ph.D. students. Stevens is now Senior Lecturer in the School of Design, Engineering and Computing at Bournemouth University. He is a council member for the Society for Psychical Research and serves on the editorial board of its journal.

As editor of the EJP in 2005, he published his own paper on a test of the effect of magnetic fields on an electronic number generator (Stevens, 2005). In March 2006 I contacted him, pointing out that the description of Table 1 in the text (page 143) did not match the Table itself. He responded promptly and graciously. I then emailed him, reporting that a number of values in that table seemed suspiciously small to me, and I asked him how the values were computed.

I received no reply. After additional attempts to contact him, I sent a letter by post. Again, I received no response. I emailed the Associate Editor of the EJP, Ian Baker, who simply informed me that I needed to contact the author of the article (i.e., Stevens).

After several months I submitted a letter to the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, which to its credit, published it promptly (Hansen, 2006). I was informed that Stevens was offered a chance to reply, but he declined.

It is unprofessional for a scientist not to respond to questions about his own work. But it is very troubling when a journal editor fails to do so. It reflects badly not only on himself, but also on the journal. It calls into question the scientific reliability and integrity of that professional forum.

Over the years the EJP made a substantial contribution to parapsychology. Will its reputation continue?

References

Radin, Dean I.; May, Edwin C.; & Thompson, Martha J. (1985). Psi Experiments With Random Number Generators: Meta-Analysis Part I. The Parapsychological Association 28th Annual Convention, Proceedings of Presented Papers, Vol. 1. (Tufts University, Medford, MA, August 12-16, 1985). pp. 199-233.

Hansen, George P. (2006). Letter. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 70.4, October, p. 254. Copy available at: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/JSPR-2006-LetterReStevens.pdf.

Paul Stevens B.Sc, PhD [staff profile]. Bournemouth University website. Available at: http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/about/people_at_bu/our_academic_staff/DEC/profiles/pstevens.html. Accessed January 29, 2008.

Stevens, Paul. (2005). The Effect of Weak Magnetic Fields on a Random Event Generator: Reconsidering the Role of Geomagnetic Fluctuations in MicroPK Studies. European Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 135–149.

Stevens, Paul. (2006). My Career in Parapsychology. Posted at: Lives in Parapsychology, PF Lyceum Blog #11. Available at: http://www.pflyceum.org/128.html. Accessed January 28, 2008.

Salaries at the Parapsychology Foundation

2007-12-31T15:00:00.001-08:00

The tax return of the Parapsychology Foundation (PF) for 2005 (signed November 9, 2006) lists compensation paid to its officers. President Eileen Coly received $37,000 and Executive Director Lisette Coly received $90,020—the total being $127,020. No entry was made for “Other employee salaries and wages.”

That year the Foundation gave $18,000 in grants and scholarships.

Lisette Coly (b. 1950) and Eileen Coly (b. 1916)

In 2004 the Foundation moved its library on Manhattan’s upper east side to Greenport, Long Island—a move of 98 miles (MapQuest estimate). Greenport is near the northern tip of Long Island and quite remote; one would expect the library to attract few visitors. Indeed today (December 31, 2007), the Foundation’s webpage, “Library Basics,” includes this sentence: “The Library will be open on an occasional schedule through-out [sic] the summer of 2006 — if the flag is out, we’re in! — and by appointment.”

In decades past, the PF was also known for its conferences and lecture series, but such events now rarely occur.

Given the library’s remote location and presumably few patrons, and the paucity of conferences and lectures, one might expect the PF to turn its attention to its International Journal of Parapychology (IJP). In fact, the last published issue of the IJP was dated 2001. (Lisette Coly is Editor-in-Chief of the journal.)

The Foundation’s 2005 tax return reports that Eileen Coly and Lisette Coly each devoted an average of 40 hours per week to the PF. One wonders how their time was spent.

References

Coly, Lisette. (2005). Parapsychology Foundation on the Move. Parapsychology Foundation Now, Issue 4, Spring, pp. 1, 4. Available at: http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/info/PF%20Now%20Issue%204%202005.pdf. Accessed December 31, 2007.

Library Basics. [webpage of the Parapsychology Foundation website]. Available at: http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/030100.html. Accessed December 31, 2007.

Marilyn Schlitz and Ian Stevenson: Embarrassed by Parapsychology

2007-11-29T20:01:00.000-08:00

Marilyn Schlitz is the consummate insider in parapsychology. She conducted her first formal remote-viewing experiment in 1979 at the University of California at Irvine while she was an undergraduate. Soon thereafter she began working at J. B. Rhine’s Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man (now the Rhine Research Center) in Durham, North Carolina. In 1982 she moved to the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas. She later worked for Science Applications International Corporation on classified research in support of the U.S. government’s psychic spying program. Interspersed with all her professional work, she earned a doctorate from the University of Texas and held a postdoctoral fellowship at Stanford University. Currently she is Vice President for Research and Education at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.

Schlitz herself has been a very successful subject in psi experiments, and she is known in the field as a psi conducive experimenter. She conducted a major study with skeptic Richard Wiseman. Together they tested people to see if they could psychically sense whether someone was staring at them. Both used the same laboratory and same procedures. She obtained statistically significant results; he did not (Wiseman & Schlitz, 1997).

During her career, Schlitz has collaborated with many major figures in the field, including Robert L. Morris, K. Ramakrishna Rao, Elmar Gruber, J. E. Kennedy, Charles Tart, Debra Weiner, Ralph Locke, William Braud, Helmut Schmidt, Gary Heseltine, Charles Honorton, Edwin May, Elizabeth Targ, Dean Radin, Nancy Zingrone, and Richard Wiseman.

In year 2000, Schlitz served as president of the Parapsychological Association (PA), the professional association of parapsychologists. In her presidential address that year, she stated:

“Today I direct the research program at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. We have about 40 projects on various aspects of consciousness. A number of them fall into the area of parapsychology, although I almost never use that word” (emphasis added, 2001, p. 342).

This statement was made directly to the Parapsychological Association. It was published in the Journal of Parapsychology. It is an astounding declaration. For a president of any professional organization to openly admit, in a presidential address, that she avoids being identified with the name demonstrates the disrepute, even shame, of parapsychology.

But Schlitz was not alone in her views. In fact, she echoed earlier statements made by another former PA president, Ian Stevenson.

Stevenson (1918-2007) was chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia medical school. He gave up his chairmanship and founded what is now the longest-running university-affiliated parapsychology research unit in the United States. His work focused primarily on reincarnation and other topics related to the issue of survival of bodily death.

In 1988 he published a guest editorial in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research asking: “Was the Attempt to Identify Parapsychology as a Separate Field of Science Misguided?” In that piece he stated:

“the words parapsychology and parapsychologist have gradually acquired negative connotations that are now proving gravely disadvantageous” (p. 310)

“the word parapsychology, originally intended to earn respect, now often evokes dismay and derision” (p. 311)

Stevenson described, in detail, the isolation and marginality of professional parapsychology. He discussed the same themes in a 1984 editorial titled: “Are Parapsychology Journals Good for Parapsychology?”

About 20 years ago he changed the name of his research unit from the Division of Parapsychology to the Division of Personality Studies. He hoped to avoid the stigma associated with the name. (The unit is now called the Division of Perceptual Studies.)

Schlitz and Stevenson devoted the bulk of their careers to parapsychology. They are highly respected within the field, but their observations on the field’s marginality were not altogether warmly received. But given their professional statuses, their observations are important.

Because of their social and career positions, Schlitz and Stevenson were required to be attuned to the views of academic and cultural elites. People familiar with Schlitz likely know of her social skills, which have served her well in her career. Stevenson, as a department chairman for 10 years, was undoubtedly adept at effectively dealing with people in positions of power.

The two recognized the marginality of parapsychology, especially within status-conscious, bureaucratic institutions, such as academe. But apparently neither understood that psychic phenomena themselves are inherently liminal, and thus marginal.

Let us remember that there has been a substantial effort to remedy the situation. The Society for Psychical Research has been in existence for 125 years, the Journal of Parapsychology for 70. The Parapsychological Association celebrated its 50th anniversary this year. Yet leaders who have devoted the bulk of their professional lives to psi research, and who held relatively secure positions, still felt some embarrassment about being associated with the term parapsychology.

The fact is, the field is consistently marginalized, and frequently attacked. But the antagonism is not simply normal “opposition to new ideas.” After all, the phenomena are not new—they’ve been known for thousands of years. But the phenomena are liminal, and until researchers understand that fact, and the implications, they will continue to be puzzled by the low status of parapsychology.

References

Schlitz, Marilyn. (2001). Boundless Mind: Coming of Age in Parapsychology [Parapsychological Association presidential address for year 2000]. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 335-350.

Stevenson, Ian. (1984). Guest Editorial: Are Parapsychology Journals Good for Parapsychology? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 97-104.

Stevenson, Ian. (1988). Guest Editorial: Was the Attempt to Identify Parapsychology as a Separate Field of Science Misguided? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 309-317.

Wiseman, Richard & Schlitz, Marilyn. (1997). Experimenter Effects and the Remote Detection of Staring. Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 197-207.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Web sources of possible interest:

http://www.marilynschlitz.com/

Obituary of Ian Stevenson by Emily Williams Kelly at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/Stevenson-s-Obit-Emily.pdf

Stevenson, Ian. (2006). Half a Career With the Paranormal. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 13-21. Available at: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/Stevenson.pdf

CSICOP to CSI: The Stigma of the Paranormal

2007-10-23T19:10:00.000-07:00

A year and a month ago, on September 23, 2006, the Executive Council of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) met and decided to change the name of the organization to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). (CSICOP becomes CSI… [press release], November 30, 2006)

The January-February 2007 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer reflected the name change, and an article by editor Kendrick Frazier explained the decision. It included a revealing passage:

“Finally, many academics and others just didn’t want to be associated at all with anything with the paranormal in its name, no matter the context. Many of us understood, and some even shared the feeling.” (Frazier et al, 2007, p. 6)

This statement directly acknowledges that many status-conscious academics feel the stigma associated with the paranormal. This is despite the fact that CSICOP has had numerous high-profile scientists, including Nobel laureates, on its roster. Yet those credentials were insufficient to overcome the taint. Even debunkers are contaminated by associating with the paranormal.

This fact is important, but it is nothing new. For thousands of years, the paranormal/supernatural has been marginalized. There have been restrictions on approaching the realm, and rituals of purification were often required.

The ancient taboo is still active today. Members of religious congregations often encounter direct prohibitions. Within academe, derision and ridicule enforce the taboo—and CSI serves as an agent of enforcement.

But the stigma of the paranormal is not just any taboo. It’s fundamental to the nature of taboo itself. Freud had some insight into this. Drawing upon anthropological findings, in Totem and Taboo he noted that:

“For us the meaning of taboo branches off into two opposite directions. On the one hand it means to us, sacred, consecrated: but on the other hand it means, uncanny, dangerous, forbidden, and unclean.” (Freud, 1913/1961, p. 26)

The paranormal/supernatural is intimately associated with the sacred. Many debunkers seem to understand that fact, and it is no accident that CSI is thoroughly tied to anti-religious, rationalist, and atheistic groups. Parapsychologists, on the other hand, are largely oblivious to the connection.

The supernatural and the divine are part of the human condition, but they are non-rational. They can be studied empirically; patterns can be discovered and observed, but there are limits to knowledge of them.

Professional parapsychology is currently dominated by psychologists and physicists. They are largely unfamiliar with the concepts, tools, and methods of analysis developed in the humanities and social sciences. As such, they fail to comprehend the extent of their predicament, and the reasons for their marginality. This situation is unlikely to change any time soon.

References

CSICOP becomes CSI after thirty years: Name change reflects growth, focus on science and reason [press release]. Amherst, N.Y. (Nov. 30, 2006). Available at: http://www.csicop.org/about/csi.html. Accessed October 22, 2007.

Frazier, Kendrick, and the Executive Council. (2007). It’s CSI Now, Not CSICOP. Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 1, January/February. pp. 5-6. Article available at: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/csicop.html. Accessed October 22, 2007.

Freud, Sigmund. (1961). Totem and Taboo: Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics. (Translated by A. A. Brill). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1913)

Douglas M. Stokes’ Consciousness and the Physical World now available online

2007-09-18T04:34:00.000-07:00

Douglas Stokes’ book Consciousness and the Physical World is now available as multiple Microsoft Word doc files at--

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/docs/stokes/

A paragraph from his Introduction reads:

“This book retraces many of the themes of my earlier book The Nature of Mind (Stokes, 1997) and in places may be regarded as an updating of that book. It also contains a comprehensive updating of my chapter on theoretical parapsychology in Stanley Krippner’s Advances in Parapsychological Research series (Stokes, 1987). However, the central focus in the present book is much different from that in these two earlier works, as are the ultimate conclusions drawn.” (p. iii)

Stokes has been a significant commentator on methodological issues in parapsychology. He has published in parapsychology journals as well as in the Skeptical Inquirer.

Response to Radin: The “Significant” Correlation Matrix (PA 1993)

2007-09-17T19:25:00.000-07:00

Dean Radin has responded to my comments regarding his correlation matrix (this blog August 5, 2007), in his blog entry titled: “Trickster, or failure of imagination?” (August 14, 2007).

Radin took me to task for not mentioning the control matrix presented in his paper. I did not mention it simply because it did not answer the key question (i.e., did the experimental matrix have a significant, non-artifactual number [N_s] of correlations associated with p < .05?).

In essence, Radin conducted a 1-trial Monte Carlo simulation to assess the effect of dependence among elements in the experimental matrix. But a 1-trial simulation cannot adequately characterize the distribution of N_s or determine how much the significance level was affected by the dependence artifact. Radin’s control value was lower than the experimental value, but one cannot therefore conclude that the experimental value was significantly greater than chance, let alone defend the claim of p = .0004 (or p = .000779).

Had Radin conducted a more usual simulation, i.e., with a large number of trials, perhaps he could have legitimately defended the reported p value, or at least the claim of significance. But he didn’t do that.

Radin’s response to me indicates that he still considers the 1-trial control simulation to be adequate. Readers with some familiarity with statistics are now in a better position to assess his methods.

References

Radin, Dean I. (1993). Environmental modulation and statistical equilibrium in mind-matter interaction. In Marilyn J. Schlitz (program chair), The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention: Proceedings of Presented Papers (pages 157-176). The Parapsychological Association.

Radin, Dean. (August 14, 2007). Trickster, or failure of imagination? [blog post]. Available at: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/08/trickster-or-failure-of-imagination.html. Accessed September 14, 2007.

A Salary in Parapsychology: Patrice Keane (ASPR)

2007-08-13T19:55:00.000-07:00

The 2005 federal tax return of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) was signed by its president, Nancy Sondow, on November 2, 2006. Page 5 of the return lists the compensation for officers, directors, trustees, and key employees. That for Patrice Keane, ASPR Executive Director, is given below.

Commentary

Years ago, the ASPR was one of the venerable institutions of psychical research. It was founded in 1885 through the efforts of William James, among others. In 1889 it became part of the Society for Psychical Research (British), but in 1906 it was reconstituted (Berger 1985). It regularly published the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research from 1907 until about 1997, when its appearance became intermittent. In July 2007, the ASPR mailed out copies of its most recent issue—dated January-April 2004.

The Society’s website (www.aspr.com) currently includes three sample articles from the Journal. The most recent is from 1976—31 years ago. I could find no mention of any ASPR-sponsored lectures or conferences on the website. It is unclear what services the ASPR actually provides.

Its tax returns for the last several years list income from “membership dues and assessments.” The website indicates that regular membership is $70. Membership for seniors (over 65) is $45. Assuming that half of the members are seniors, the average dues are $57.50. The table below gives the estimated number of members based on these figures.

In 1989 total paid circulation of the Journal was 1747 (McCormick, 1989).

I briefly mentioned Ms. Keane in my book chapter “Anti-Structure and the History of Psychical Research” (Hansen, 2001, p. 197). She has provided a striking demonstration of the anti-structural effect of the paranormal on institutions.

In anthropological terms, anti-structure is a synonym of liminality. It is characteristic of the paranormal, and anti-structure helps explain why institutions in paranormal fields are exceptionally vulnerable to instability and fractionation. It also illuminates the paranormal’s marginality, which has been observed over thousands of years.

Parapsychologists resist the idea that their field is inherently marginal and unstable. But the entire history of parapsychology demonstrates the fact. The current condition of the ASPR is an example—and entirely consistent with trickster theory.

References

Berger, Arthur S. (1985). The Early History of the ASPR: Origins to 1907. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 39-60.

Hansen, George P. (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation.

McCormick, Donna L. (1989). U.S. Postal Service Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Vol. 83, No. 3, p. 287.

Dean Radin’s Statistics: The “Significant” Correlation Matrix (PA 1993)

2007-08-05T19:06:00.000-07:00

In 1993 Dean Radin served as president of the Parapsychological Association (PA), the professional association of parapsychologists. By that time he had been working in the field for over a decade. He had held positions doing psi research at Bell Laboratories, Princeton University, SRI International, and the University of Edinburgh. This impressive set of credentials may have led some to feel confident in his experimental methods and statistical analyses.

At the 1993 PA convention held in Toronto, Radin presented a paper titled: “Environmental Modulation and Statistical Equilibrium in Mind-Matter Interaction.” It reported a study of a human’s mental influence on a Geiger counter.

Method

Four Geiger counters were connected to a computer that recorded the radiation counts. The human subject attempted to influence one of the Geiger counters. The 65 test sessions each had two conditions (real-time and pre-recorded). For each condition, the computer randomly designated 25 influence periods and 75 control periods. Results from influence and control periods were compared for each Geiger counter, for each condition. Two measures were computed (effect size and F-score). Four Geiger counters, two conditions with two measures each, resulted in 4 × 2 × 2 = 16 outcome measures for each session.

In addition, 33 environmental variables were recorded for each test session (e.g., humidity, barometric pressure, time of day, local magnetic field, precipitation, sunspot number, background xray).

Statistics

Correlation coefficients were calculated for each of the 16 outcome measures with each of the 33 environmental variables, which resulted in a total of 16 × 33 = 528 correlations.

Radin reported that the 16 × 33 matrix produced 44 correlations that were associated with p < .05. He then used the binomial probability distribution to compute the probability of obtaining that many, or (presumably) more, correlations associated with p < .05.

He reported a value of p = .0004.

I have been unable to reproduce this number; three online binomial calculators have all given me p = .000779. I did check the general accuracy of these online calculators by comparing their results with the Tables of the Cumulative Binomial Probability Distribution (1955) for similar values with N = 550 and p = .05. In any event, Radin’s reported result is statistically significant.

However, the binomial distribution assumes independence for each of the measurements. But the correlations were clearly not independent. For instance, the environmental variables included background X-ray flux and log of background X-ray flux, humidity and precipitation, sunspot number and sunspot number for the day before.

Implications

The program chair for the 1993 conference was Marilyn Schlitz, who is now Vice President for Research and Education at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where Radin is Senior Scientist. Schlitz was responsible for seeing that the papers were adequately reviewed. She has been involved in parapsychology since 1979.

Radin has been doing statistically based parapsychology research since 1981.

Readers who have some familiarity with statistics may wish to ponder the implications.

References

Radin, Dean I. (1993). Environmental modulation and statistical equilibrium in mind-matter interaction. In Marilyn J. Schlitz (program chair), The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention: Proceedings of Presented Papers (pages 157-176). The Parapsychological Association.

Staff of the Computation Laboratory. (1955). Tables of the Cumulative Binomial Distribution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zetetic Scholar Issue Nos. 1-5 Now Online

2007-07-25T18:48:00.000-07:00

PDF files of Zetetic Scholar issue numbers 1-5 are now available online at:

http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZeteticScholars.html

Background

In 1976 the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) was founded. [Earlier this year it changed it’s name to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).] Marcello Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, but he left the organization in 1977.

From 1978 to 1987 he edited Zetetic Scholar, which carried many articles by both proponents and critics of paranormal claims. The journal fostered extensive dialogue and debate. It also published several exposés.

Dean Radin’s Statistics: Entangled Minds, page 120

2007-07-19T14:32:00.000-07:00

Dean Radin discusses a meta-analysis of 88 ganzfeld experiments in his book Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality (Paraview, 2006). Figure 6-6 on page 120 has a graph of the results.

The three-sentence caption is odd. The first sentence seems direct and plausible: “Cumulative average hit rate in the ganzfeld experiments, from 1974 through 2004, with one standard error bar.”

But the third sentence reads: “Each dot represents an experiment and the dates on the x-axis indicate the average year of study publication.” Can these two sentences be reconciled? It seems unlikely that each dot represents one experiment (the variance of the hit rates would be remarkably small). Why would the average year of publication be plotted on the x-axis? What range of years were used for each average?

I perused the book but could find no citation that might lead me to more description.

Before one relies upon Dr. Radin’s claims here, one may wish to seek further details of the meta-analysis.

Nobel Laureates Invited to Parapsychology Conference

2007-07-11T21:40:00.000-07:00

Nobel laureates have reportedly been invited to a conference on parapsychology to be held at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The event, “A Meeting of Minds,” is to take place on July 15-16, 2007. The co-hosts are Jonathan Schooler and Dean Radin.

Invitees

Nobelists Kary Mullis and Brian Josephson have been mentioned as likely attendees. Elizabeth Loftus, member of the National Academy of Sciences, has confirmed her intention to attend. Richard J. Davidson, a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin who was included in Time magazine’s list of “the world’s most influential people” (see May 8, 2006 issue), was expected, but now likely will be unable to take part.

Some of the other invitees are said to be: Harvard psychologist, Daniel Gilbert; Duke professor of philosophy and neurobiology, Owen Flanagan; Princeton psychologist, Jonathan Cohen; Morris Freedman MD of the University of Toronto; Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania Department of Psychology; and Ken Paller, psychologist from Northwestern University.

Paul Ekman, an expert on deception, reportedly served on the advisory committee, and Paul Werbos of the National Science Foundation was also mentioned in this capacity.

This is an “invitation-only” conference, apparently restricted to high-status scientists and selected “old guard” parapsychologists. A few academic members of CSI (nee CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] ) are also anticipated to be present.

Reportedly, over 80% of the invited participants are aging white males.

Funding

There is some money behind this meeting, and the expenses of the invitees are to be covered. Financial backing comes from several private donors, the Bial Foundation, the Samueli Institute, the Fetzer Institute, and the University of British Columbia.

Purpose

The expressed purpose of the conference is to explore why academia so actively avoids the paranormal despite the wide interest by the general public.

To acquaint the visiting scientists with the field and to facilitate discussion, parapsychologists will present evidence for the existence of ESP and review theoretical problems of the phenomena.

Commentary

Will this effort succeed? Let’s remember, it’s been 125 years since the founding of the SPR (Society for Psychical Research). Parapsychologists have published their work continuously since that founding. Innumerable scientists have learned of the research through books, journal articles, and conferences. Yet the field is now no closer to respectability than it was during the 19th century. Arguably, it is further from it.

Yet still today, many parapsychologists seem to believe that if they present their evidence objectively to other scientists, the broader scientific community will begin to accept them as legitimate members. Traditional scientific funding sources will welcome proposals, major journals will seek papers on psi, and conferences will regularly include symposia on paranormal topics. But such hope is forlorn.

Parapsychologists do not seem to realize that their field is inherently marginal. Psi phenomena are liminal, and they carry a taint, a stigma. This is nothing new. The stigma did not develop with the rise of modern science, nor with advent of the Enlightenment, nor with the Reformation. The stigma has been seen for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. Attempts to directly engage psi has consequences—one being the continuing marginality of psychical research.

Until parapsychologists recognize this state of affairs, they will remain bewildered—and bitterly disappointed.

- - - - - - -
The information for this post came from a source who wishes to remain anonymous and from a short notice in the magazine Shift: At the Frontiers of Consciousness, No. 15, June-August 2007, page 40.