Conference noted::sf

    I believe that Anne McCaffrey went into this in some depth with
    the Unicorn stories. Her theory (and it seems plausable to me) is
    to do with residual electrical impulses emanating from the brain.
    All of us have them but, just like the other senses, some of us
    use them better than others. Also I presume that, given the right
    atmosphere, viz an electrical storm, they could be amplified.
    On a personal note I have also experienced minor esp but one could
    explain it away as either familiarity with situation, mental
    rationalisation or just pure co-incidence. Me I like to think that
    there is something in it.
    Yours thinkingly
    James

    	If the McCaffery theory were correct, then people who work in
    power generating stations, near radio and TV transmitters, etc.
    would regularly have very high levels of ESP potential.
    	
    	I don't notice this effect.
    	
    	

Well, there are certain odd phenomenon in the ionosphere that cause 
radio waves to actually be amplified.  One could imagine that the large
clouds of charge in an electrical storm could amplify the 
low-frequency output of the brain.  Since an EEG can pick up a 
voltage from the brain, perhaps another person could also.

Perhaps, but probably not.  Brain waves are on the order of a few 
cycles per second, and household current is 60 cycles per second.  If 
you could sense brain waves, you would be overwhelmed by the noise 
from power lines.  If you touch an oscilloscope probe, you can see several
volts worth of signal dancing around on your skin.  Brain waves would 
be hopelessly lost in the noise.

No, telepathy has to be explained some other way.  Pheromones, perhaps.
The other person could give off minute amounts of some chemical which you
could somehow smell and guess their state of mind.  Dogs can probably 
do this.  That wouldn't permit fine distinctions, though.  You 
couldn't guess what card they were holding, unless they get really 
excited about certain cards.

Or how about this?  Telepathy is long-range thought forecasting.  When
you know someone very well, you can often guess what they're going to
say ahead of time.  If I pause the least little bit in saying
something, my brother has the annoying habit of finishing my sentence.
Spouses (spice?) are even closer.   They can predict each other's
thoughts a few seconds ahead of time.  Well, extend that to hours or
days.  "If Fred was walking down the Champs Elysee right now, I bet he
would be thinking about how Paris isn't as romantic as it's cracked up
to be."  Sure enough, you get a postcard a few days later showing
the Arc D'Triomphe and saying what a lousy time Fred's been having. 
It's not very mysterious, but it does take a lot of knowledge and insight.

/jlr

    	For those interested (this is NOT a reply to end this topic),
    there is a lot of discussion on ESP in the DEJAVU Note.
    
    	Larry
    

    From first-hand knowledge:
    
    Pheromes ain't it.
    
    Distance (I can only attest to ~ 2,000 miles) is not a factor.
                           
    The sender or receiver doesn't have to have strong ESP tendencies,
    only one esper is neccessary.
      
    Familiarization helps, but it works for casual aquaintances.
                                
    Drugs (not junkie or "mind-expanding") taken as a child seem to be 
    a factor in causing the ESP, but this cannot be proved.  Could also,
    however, been born with it.
    
    Electrical storms have no effect. (Except maybe panic diverts attention
    from ESPing.  :-))
    
    "Transmission"/"Reception" is real quick.  (Not controlable so
    I can't give actual minimum time.)               
    
    They make *great* radar detectors.  (Screw Connecticut!)
    
    If I have an accident someone is looking for me real quick!  (I
    try not to let everyday things get to me; if I do the phone rings.)
    [No, that doesn't mean I make the phone ring, it means someone is
    calling to see if I'm O.K.]
    
    						Don (A believer.)

How ESP might work depends on whether you think there's a
"ghost in the machine"--if there's a "spirit" that is using
the brain and its attached neural systems as a downloadable
I/O processor, the knowledge gained via ESP might come from
some other interface completely and be then "dropped down"
into the brain.

If the brain is "it", then the information being conveyed
must either come via the normal sensory pathways (perhaps
below the attention-grabbing threshold, somewhat like
subliminal advertising) or by the action of some hitherto
unknown radiation directly acting on neurons in the brain
(i.e., bypassing the sensory system altogether).

    Exploring the dualist (or vitalist) side of the hypothesis, ESP
    might come from the SAME interface as the normal one between a spirit
    and its brain.  But instead of interacting with its own brain, it
    would be interacting with someone else's, in a temporary and partial
    manner.  Thus telepathy.
    
    If it interacted with outside objects (and learned to interpret
    the result) that might be clairvoyance and psychokinesis (for passive
    and active interactions respectively).
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    	Once read (can't remember where) that the brains of people having
    telepathic abilities produced less `background noise' than the average
    brain. When relaxing, these brains don't appear to be thinking about
    anything, whereas the average brain is constantly working.
    
    Can someone elaborate?
    

    
    	I don't think it works that way for precognition, at least.        
    
    (Ahhh- I see something in the future-  you will, you will...
                                                               
    
                                              
    
    
    
    - you will ask me to prove I can see the future 
    							:-)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I can't prove I'm precognitive, let's just say a number of interesting
    (and occasionally soul-searing) coincidences have occurred.  I *know*
    I have a very noisy mind (no flames please about how my mind would
    be quieter if it was cleaner...).  Ideas pop up at times I'm truly
    not thinking about them- the more absurd a time the better the idea.
    	
    Times like taking a shower, eating a *truly* wretched Tobin's lunch,
    and engaged in ...ahem... physical romance.  (the latter two led
    to patent filings)
                                                  
    The precognitive images (or texts) appear in the same sort of context
    as these "creative ideas"; perhaps I've got no innate creativity
    at all, I just get an image of the solution out of the future, and
    then "steal" it from myself.  Yes, I've read "The Door Into Summer",
    it seems an easy way to do inventing.
    
    Perhaps it's the level of sense stimulation that induces precognition
    episodes?  If so, there's a big future in "professional engineering
    assistant" :-).
    	
    Anybody else out there have a noisy brain?  
    
    

    Re .9:
    
    I don't see how a truly wretched Tobin's lunch or physical romance
    can be patented. ;-0
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    Defoliants and pesticides can be patented; the Patent Office considers
    them "new and useful compositions of matter".  Hence a Tobin's lunch
    could be patented.  :-@
    
    

RE: -.1

I would not consider a Tobin's lunch, either new, or usefull!

Jim.

    	It's digression time again!
    

    re: Tobin's lunch
    
    "To think of all the marvelous ways
     They're using plastics now-a-days..."
    
    --- jerry

      
      re: Tobins lunch 

    Most theories of ESP involve subconscious perception somewhere along
    the line.  The least magical theorize that ESP is in fact nothing
    but subconscious perception through ordinary channels and there
    is nothing "extra-sensory" about it.  Those who think ESP is the
    perception of electromagnetic waves or unknown agencies like mana
    or quantum mechanical hiddne variables, generally suppose that the
    unconscious chews on this exoitc input before presenting it to the
    conscious in the form of a dream, vision, or hunch.
    
    Only in SF (notably the Telzy stories of James Schmidt) have I run
    across people who perceive psychic energies directly and consciously,
    as a new spectrum of sensation, the way normal people perceive light
    or sound.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    	Would it ever be possible to "tune in" computers to one's
    brainwaves, so that what humans could manipulate computers without
    having to use keyboards, as in Asimov's FOUNDATION'S EDGE?  
    	Are such systems being worked on now?
    
    	Larry
    

    Yes, they are working on computers as nervous prosthetics.  Several
    deaf people now have choclear implants, feeding signals from a hearing
    aid straight to their auditory nerves.  A chip is involved in the
    processing, I believe.  Then there is a crude visual system that
    hooks directly to the visual cortex of a blind man.  These are,
    of course, input.  Output is less common, but I believe they are
    working on some examples to help people with cerebral palsy.  I
    couldn't sight any sources.  They are still drastically far away
    from "telepathic" computers.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    re: .17
    
    		You better believe it. One issue of OMNI mag. reported
    of research in just that area. Also, in an old issue of BYTE mag.,
    Steve Ciarcia had a project dealing with bio-feedback and how such
    monitoring of brain waves could be used to control computer input.
    
    re: Topic & .16
    
    	That would support the `Quiet Brain' theory, wouldn't it? If
    a person were not thinking on a conscience level, then subconscience
    perception and `processing' would be more in control.
    
    		I'd like to here more on this subject.
    
    mar
    

            The technical info behind radio waves, band lengths,
         etc.. is beyond me at the moment so I'll leave that up
         to the commenters: 

                  "Heiro's Journey" and "Forsaken Heiro" 

            Those two books (by an author I can't remember) deal
         heavily with ESP, Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, and mental
         powers in general.  The theory being that all thoughts
         generated by sentient life forms exist upon certain
         'bands' or wave lengths.  Those with the innate ability
         and proper training can access these various bands,
         thereby tapping in on, and possibly controlling the
         thoughts/actions of other beings.  The controlling
         ability lying in the person's capabilities to manipulate
         the 'circuits' within the subjects mind. (Hotwiring???) 

            Any electronics Wizards out there that care to elaborate
         on the author's 'band' theory? 

	    Also, as a tid-bit related to transferral of energies
         betwix brain and being/object, Ripley's Believe It Or
         Not reported on a Oriental boy that could project a
         picture onto a piece of Polaroid film.  He'd stare at
         it, grunt, and a minute later - viola! 
         "Believe it..(hiss [Jack Palance]) or not"...

         Gearhead 

    re .20:
    
>    	    Also, as a tid-bit related to transferral of energies
>         betwix brain and being/object, Ripley's Believe It Or
>         Not reported on a Oriental boy that could project a
>         picture onto a piece of Polaroid film.  He'd stare at
>         it, grunt, and a minute later - viola! 
>         "Believe it..(hiss [Jack Palance]) or not"...
    
    "Believe it, or not" 
         .nes. 
    "It is true whether you believe it or not"
    
    Didn't actually see that one, but there was a similar scam back
    in the sixties. This guy could project images onto normal film,
    through the lens of a camera. He worked with a little tube hidden
    in his hand, in the tube was a transparency of the image he was
    trying to project. During the course of his histrionics he would
    put his hands on the lens and tell the photographer to snap the
    shutter. He would of couse be staring into the camera with contorted
    face and all that...
    
    sm

    One of the things - tho not the specific events - that prompted
    my original note was a number of experiences I and almost all
    of my women friends whom I've mentioned it to have had with our children
    under about 3. Some of these "mind reading" experiences were
    very strange. Any theories on why kids might be able to read
    minds? Less busy brains, or more emotional than intellectual at
    that age? Or maybe we out grow it? 
    Bonnie

    If, as mentioned earlier, ESP depends on unconscious perceptions,
    small children might be better at it because there is less clear
    division between conscious and unconscious.  The information can
    flow to the front more readily.
    
    On a more skeptical note, all children, but especially very young
    ones, devote tremendous conscious and unconscious effort to immitating
    their elders.  This intense effort of imitation and observation
    might result in telepathy-like anticipations.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    	There is a theory that the human race had HIGHER ESP powers
    in the distant (pre-historic) past, which was lost as humanity
    developed and relied on spoken and written language.
    
    	Studies have shown that lower animals and human children have
    high ESP powers, which the children gradually lost as they developed
    language.
    
    	Larry
    

    re -.1
    
    Good point.  Life was on a more basic level then.  It is logical
    to assume subliminal communication was more prevalent.
    
    What we need is some input from someone who has been involved in
    (legit) ESP research that did not discover a real ESPer.
    
    						Don 

I have always felt that if some form of ESP existed, that either
humans or some animal would already use the 'sense'.
Evolution would have immediately rewarded even a feeble aptitude
at this sort of thing, and we would not be in a quandry about
its existance.

Of course if you still want to believe in it, you might theorize
that we have all evolved to minimize ESP 'radiation' so that a
ESP sensitive predator would not be able to find us.

I do put great faith in the powers of the unconscience.  I often
joke to friends that whenever my drifter brother shows up in town,
that I usually anticipate his arival by several days.

    One of the SF Myths is that psychic powers are a side-effect of
    massive brain power.  While I doubt that telepathy (if it exists)
    could be mastered like Rubik's Cube (tm), it might be that ESP gets
    better the bigger your brain, perhaps because of increasing abilities
    to recognize subtle patterns of some sort.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

As DEC's resident parapsychologist (no that's not what I'm paid to do here)
I guess its time to put in my 200 cents worth. 

First off some vocabulary -- just so we aren't talking at cross purposes.
Here are informal definitions for some technical terms. 

ESP -- Extrasensory Perception.  Knowing things which there is no
conventional way you could know (Note upper case, this is an abbreviation). 

PK -- Psychokinesis.  Effecting external things when there is no
conventional mechanism by which you could effect them (Upper case again).
Science fiction frequently uses the term "telekinesis" for this.  At the
turn of the century both terms were in use in what was then called
psychical research.  PK became the accepted term. Telekinesis is now almost
never used in parapsychology.  It has a rather archaic flavor. 

psi -- ESP + PK (+ a few hard to classify things).  This is not meant to
imply any particular theory about the mechanisms involved.  (Note lower
case, this is *not* an abbreviation). 

clairvoyance -- One of the two major, accepted, forms of ESP.  Knowing
things which are shielded by distance or physical barriers from normal
(sensory) perception.  Originally this term referred only to "visual"
knowledge, but distinguishing visual from auditory or other forms of
knowledge has been found to be rarely useful, so the term has become
generalized. 

precognition -- The other major, accepted, form of ESP.  Knowing things
which have not yet occurred. 

telepathy -- generally considered a form of ESP.  Knowing what someone else
is thinking.  Telepathy is not generally considered a distinct phenomena.
There is no rigorous experiment which can show telepathy acting distinct
from clairvoyance and/or precognition.  Experiments *might* be designed
which show a difference in scoring rate between "telepathic" and "pure
clairvoyance" conditions.  Although there has been some indications of
this, no experiment I know of has shown this effect and properly eliminated
other explanations (e.g., subject preference or non-telepathic cooperative
psi effects).  Nevertheless, because many subjects and experimenters are
more comfortable with it (telepathy seems to most people the least
improbable form of psi), many experiments are set up as telepathy
experiments. 

GESP -- General ESP.  Term used by some researchers in reference to
"telepathy" experiments to make it clear that the experiment does not
attempt to distinguish telepathy from other forms of ESP. 

percipient -- the person who attempts to learn things through ESP. 

agent -- the person who attempts to effect something through PK or who
tries to communicate his/her thoughts to a percipient in a telepathy
experiment. 

psychic -- generic term for someone who shows evidence of being able to use
psi ability.  The term "esper" is confined to science fiction. 

active agent telepathy -- telepathy viewed as a form of PK, i.e., the
attention is focused on the role of the agent in actively "transmitting"
rather than on the percipient as actively "receiving". 

psi missing -- a tendency to do more poorly in a psi task than can be
explained by chance.  When general subjects are used in experiments there
is a tendency for psi missing to occur in roughly the same number of
subjects and to the same extent as psi hitting, but there are more subjects
in either group than can be explained by chance.  I.e., there are generally
fewer subjects who score right around chance than would be predicted in the
absence of psi.  Most parapsychological testing therefore uses "two-tailed"
statistical tests which include negative scores as significant at a cost of
requiring a larger positive score to be counted as significant (see any
elementary statistics book). 

There is a lot more, specialized vocabulary in parapsychology.  But this is
what occurs to me as likely to be useful in this discussion. 

More notes to follow...

		Topher

    When you say "accepted", accepted by whom?  I for one remain skeptical
    of all forms of psi.  To avoid precipitating a bs war, let me just
    remind people that "skeptical" means "unconvinced"; I don't outright
    deny the possibility, I just find the evidence unconvincing.

    len.
    

    Re .28
    
    I have heard "retrocognition" used for a form of clairvoyance in
    which the percipient views the past.  Is this a standard term?
    
    How about "psychometry"?  I had thought it was something like
    retrocognition, but then I have also seen it used to describe the
    purely mundane measurement of mental features, e.g. IQ.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Since hard evidence is scarce, ESP does not exist.  Simple.
    
    ('Course, you may get an arguement from the guy who's "gut feel"
    told him not to get on the plane that later crashed, killing all
    aboard....)

    							Don

    re .31 - no, that's not what I said.  I said I wanted to avoid a
    bs war, because skeptics' positions are almost universally
    misinterpreted, but I will try to say it one more time.  I find
    the evidence unconvincing, not non-existent.  Having studied
    neurophysiology and neuropsychology, I find that there are in a
    lot of cases simpler explanations that do not require invoking the
    "paranormal".  I would actually like to be able to believe in this
    stuff, I just find that I can't, given the "evidence" that's been
    put forth.  And about "gut feels" - how many of these are after
    the fact?  How much of this stuff is just plain coincidence?
    But I also admit that there are a lot of unexplained things.
    And I didn't say that "ESP does not exist"; I said I'm not convinced.
    No more than I'm "convinced" that we are visited by aliens on a
    regular basis, or that a particular geological structure on Mars
    is an alien artifact designed to send a message to mankind, or that
    JFK was murdered by a CIA conspiracy, or that Paul is dead and has been
    impersonated by someone for almost 20 years now.  These things are
    all quite possible, I just find there are simplere explanations
    for them.
            
    If you don't want to believe in "Darwin's Theory", fine, go ahead.
    (There is, in fact, a great deal of "proof" that I happen to find
    convincing with respect to the theory of evolution.)  I won't make
    glib, snotty, cute remarks implying you're stupid or closeminded.
    In return, I expect the same courtesy and respect from you.  You
    believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I want to
    believe.  But don't go saying something is "accepted" when there're
    an awful lot of people who don't accept any such thing.

    len.
    

RE: .30

Retrocognition is indeed the standard term used to refer to ESP for past
events.  As a verifiable phenomenon, however, it suffers from the same
problems as telepathy -- its existence cannot be scientifically
distinguished from "ordinary" clairvoyance and precognition. 

If a psychic discovers something about the past, its truth can only be
confirmed on the basis of physical records/traces/memories which exist in
the present.  Was the "actual" target (assuming that this was a veridical
incident) the past event or the present records used to confirm it? 

The term is not infrequently used, often with the adjective "apparent"
tacked on, for situations where the target appears to be a past event. 

Psychometry has a more limited meaning than general retrocognition.  It
refers to the "reading" of the past history of an object, or more
frequently, of a person associated with an object.  It was coined by
psychical researchers (an older term meaning roughly the same thing as
parapsychologist) in the late nineteenth century. 

Because of the independent adaptation of the term by psychologists to refer
to the measurement of psychological variables (which I must say is a more
meaningful use of the term) parapsychologists now generally use the terms
"token-object reading" or "token-object clairvoyance" for this.
Clairvoyance rather than retrocognition is used in the name because the
most common supportive system of beliefs among token-object readers is that
they are psychically reading present-time traces of past-time events.

			Topher

RE: .29,.32

When I say "accepted" I mean accepted by parapsychologists, who are the
scientists who's specialty is the study of these phenomena.  Most of the
terms were coined by them (I am lumping in people who would have termed
themselves "psychical researchers" with parapsychologists). 

The experimental literature of parapsychology consists of several thousand
papers each describing one or more experiments.  Not all of the experiments
are successful, but many times more (depending on how you count it, orders
of magnitude more) of them are successful than can be explained by chance.
Most of the experiments meet or exceed the criteria of careful
experimentation used in other fields. 

Surveys show that most scientists, skeptical or otherwise, base their
opinions on parapsychology on one or both of two sources: the popular press
and the critical literature.  It should be obvious that the popular press
(e.g., the National Inquirer) provides no more of an accurate view of
parapsychology than it does of medical research (somewhat less I would
say).  Unfortunately the critical literature is not very much more
accurate. The best of it is one sided and selective.  The worst of it is
misleading or completely incorrect. 

There is no adequate alternative to the parapsychological literature
itself. I have provided a brief guide to the technical literature in note
31.1 of conference DMATE2::DEJAVU (press KP7 etc.).  I will be glad to
answer questions or otherwise help anyone who is seriously interested in
investigating. 

The experiments termed "successful" above present evidence of one or more
anomalies.  These anomalies are classified on the basis of the experimental
procedure in which they manifest according to the categories implied by the
vocabulary I presented in .28. 

There is currently *no* adequate explanation, conventional or paranormal,
for these anomalies.  Chance can overwhelmingly be rejected. 

The picture that emerges from these experiments is of one or more related
phenomena.  These phenomena are rather erratic -- i.e., they vary in
apparent response to unknown and/or uncontrolled factors.  They also have
been found to correlate with some known factors.  These known factors
mostly concern the subject(s) of the experiment such as mood, personality,
and beliefs. 

A characteristic of virtually all experimental fields, especially those
dealing with humans or animals is the dependence of results on the
experimenter: some scientists are considered "good" experimentalists and
others find it expedient to stick to theoretical work.  This is an issue
only in parapsychology, where some dependence of success on the
experimenter has been demonstrated.  Most of this dependence seems to be a
matter of such factors as the experimenter's ability (or lack of it) to
inspire enthusiasm in subjects. 

Critics of the field have attempted for about a century to demonstrate that
the "unknown" factors which cause the apparent erraticness of psi phenomena
are simply gross weaknesses in the experiments: i.e., subject fraud,
statistical error, hidden conventional correlations, sensory contamination
or experimenter fraud.  They have consistently failed to do so.  Frequently
the most successful experiments are the most rigorous and the only evidence
of experimenter fraud is the success of the experiment. 

I would be fool to deny that the success of some individual
parapsychological experiments are due to experimental error or fraud (as I
would be a fool to deny that any scientific field is free from such
problems).  It is *highly* unlikely that this provides an adequate
explanation for the vast majority of the cases. 

It seems that there are three possibilities.  1) Gross experimental error.
2) Subtle, unknown, conventional explanations 3) Paranormal explanations --
i.e. explanations in terms of previously unknown physical mechanisms. 

The status of the first, it seems to me, is the same as for other fields. I
can with no more or less justice make the same claim for any field I
dispute: e.g., I could, if I wished, "wipe out" the evidence for evolution
this way.  Whether or not this is valid comes down to whether or not you
feel that it is valid to take success as sufficient proof of fraud or
incompetence in an experiment which appears to contradict your prior
philosophical (and I do not mean theoretical, since this presupposes some
evidence) assumptions.  The critics do not ask for evidence but for
*extraordinary* (their term) evidence.  To some extent I agree with this
(surprise!) but I feel that rational levels of doubt were exceeded sometime
in the forties. 

I cannot reject the second explanation (subtle conventional explanations).
It seems to me that it is very unlikely that any conventional explanation
can adequately explain some of the characteristics of the phenomena in
question (e.g., the apparent independence of the effect from distance or
physical barriers).  A final explanation in terms of either 2 or 3 would
seem to me to be a vindication for the field, and would have cataclysmic
effect on science. 

I think that parapsychological experiments can most usefully be viewed as
experiments designed to falsify a hypothesis/assumption.  Stated roughly
this assumption is that "human beings can be effectively isolated from
external physical systems."  With the experimenters and/or subjects taking
the role of "human being" this is one of the fundamental assumptions of all
experimental science, and by any reasonable criteria it has been thoroughly
falsified.  Just as an example, the famous non-locality experiments of Dr.
Aspect are almost classic PK experiments except for their sloppy (by
parapsychological standards) controls and the interpretation of their
results. 

Thanks for an excellent, level headed discussion.  I am only a skeptic,
not an "anti-".  I admit my ignorance.  I said the evidence I had seen did
not convince me.  I *do* know of some experiments that are hard to "explain
away", but most of these experiments seem only to demonstrate the
possibility of an effect rather than to elucidate mechanisms.
    
I am willing to believe, but I am troubled by
the absence of the kind of reproducible, incontrovertible evidence taken
for granted in the "hard" sciences.  I too have had personal experience
that seem to me to be unexplainable (e.g., last night, for the THIRD time
in the past 15 years, I was involved in an automobile accident wherein
my car slid sideways across four lanes of heavy traffic and I just happened
to be in the right place at the right time to just make it through a hole
in the traffic, without being creamed.  The fact that it's never been my fault
is irrelevant - I keep wondering when I'm going to run out of "luck").
But *somebody*'s gotta be out on the tails of the normal distribution,
and such things *do* happen by chance.

Look, I don't want to argue about this.  I'd love to see the paranormal
sciences on a solid footing.  It's clear to me that we understand just the
barest fraction of "reality", and there's more than enough room for
the paranormal given some of the wierd things we accept as true (e.g.,
particle physics).  Maybe we just aren't using the right tools?  I don't
know.  But that's all I can say, and all I am saying - I don't know.

Again, thanks for a level-headed exposition of the issues.
    
len.

The issue of replicability in science in general, and its specific
application to parapsychology is important, and (at least to me) interesting.

On the next page I give a moderately long (about 80 lines) discussion of
this issue.  Summarizing briefly:

	1) The type of replicability demanded by some critics of
	   parapsychology is not an evidential prerequisite in other
	   fields.  It is characteristic of a few and *is* very convenient
	   when it occurs.

	2) The type of replicability which is an evidential prerequisite
	   in other fields has been met for the basic phenomena of
	   parapsychology.

The strict, perfect replicability of a phenomena is a special treat for a
scientist.  This is the situation where you have a "recipe" for an
experiment which, if followed, will flawlessly produce the phenomena in
question.  The conditions under which this is possible are straight
forward.  All factors whose range of variations under "normal" conditions
have significant effect on the phenomena must be known and controlled.
These factors include the effects of experimenter and/or technician skills
as well as the more commonly mentioned physical factors.  (I am reminded of
the, perhaps apocryphal, story of the first proof that sharks are attracted
to the struggles of the prey rather than or in addition to smelling blood.
The first step in the experiment was to lasso a fish without damaging it).
Another condition is that all experimental apparatus must be nearly
perfectly reliable.  Finally, the statistical variation in the experiment
must be small enough that it is practical to get results far enough out on
the tail that "chance" failure can be neglected.  In effect the system
being studied must be simple and well behaved.

In a few fields (many of which have the adjective "classical" prefixed to
their names) these conditions are the norm.  In some others, this is
approximated closely enough so that it can be used in the "public" image of
the field (e.g., it is considered acceptable to not report the "outliers"
produced on those annoying days when nothing works right for no apparent
reason).  For most fields, however, these conditions are rarely if ever
possible.

In any case "strict" replication is rarely done.  Conceptual replication is
much more common.  This is when an experiment roughly similar to the
original is done, with no real attempt to use exactly the same procedures.
Even conceptual replication is done for its own sake only in the case of
moderately or highly controversial experiments.  More commonly, conceptual
replication is a side effect of attempts to extend or refine the original
results.  Strict replication is attempted only if conceptual replication
repeatedly fails.

Generally for controversial results, two or three independent replications
are required before it is granted that it has been demonstrated that
"something" is there (what the something is may, of course, still be in
dispute).  If some failures to replicate are included, perhaps as many as
ten independent replications may be needed to convince everyone.

If replication is demonstrated but is erratic, the interpretation is that
there are factors which are not known and/or not controlled.  The
scientific response is to study the phenomena to learn what those factors
are.

The basic results of parapsychology have been independently conceptually
replicated not two or three or ten times, but, conservatively speaking,
hundreds of times under highly rigorous conditions.  Psychic phenomena are
the only phenomena I know of where repeated conceptual replication is
claimed to be inadequate and only perfect, strict replication is deemed
appropriate.

Most experiments in parapsychology are done to elucidate mechanism or
characteristics of psi phenomena.  Each experimental report (at least any
that are published in refereed journals) includes a statistical evaluation
(using tests selected before the experiment is done, of course) of the
probability that psi phenomena actually occurred during the experiment as
well as the results of the test of the hypothesis being studied.  The
reason for this is the complexity of interpreting a significant difference
in a score between two populations when you don't have a clear indication
that the overall score is significant.  (This isn't really the best forum
to discuss it, but parapsychologists tend to take a rather conservative
view of the matter).  It is the "overall" scores which tends to get
publicly discussed.  Its a bit like it would be in medicine if the only
thing ever publicly discussed about medical experiments was the fact that
there were placebo effects evident in the control groups.

Parapsychology, as has frequently been said by parapsychologists, is best
viewed as an *observational* science like astronomy, meteorology, geology
or much of high energy physics.  The last is the closest analogy.  In both
fields the "observations" occur in the laboratory where conditions have
been set up to (1) make conditions conducive to the occurrence of the
phenomena desired, and (2) allow confounding factors to be controlled.
Then the results of the observations are subjected to statistical analysis
to determine whether anything "really" happened.  The major difference is
that parapsychologists attempt to completely nullify all physical
confounding factors, leading only to chance variation, while in high energy
physics a small but calculable residue (from, for example, neutrino capture
or radioactivity of the apparatus) is allowed (as it has to be) and
calculated in.  In other words, the evidence for psychic phenomena is
similar in form to that for most of the exotic particles that are
announced.

			Topher

  Re: .36

   >In any case "strict" replication is rarely done.  Conceptual replication is
   >much more common.  

  Can we have some examples of these types of replications?  

   >Parapsychology, as has frequently been said by parapsychologists, is best
   >viewed as an *observational* science like astronomy, meteorology, geology
   >or much of high energy physics.  The last is the closest analogy.  

  One difference between high-energy physics experimentation and parapsychology
  experimentation is that in the former, it is pretty unlikely that the objects
  of study are trying to fool the researchers.  Some people claim that the
  duping of psi researchers by subjects happens all the time.

  JP

Re: .37

>   >In any case "strict" replication is rarely done.  Conceptual replication is
>   >much more common.
>
>  Can we have some examples of these types of replications?

You can as soon as I'm sure exactly what you are asking for.  The quoted lines
refer to the custom in "conventional" science.  Do you wish for examples
of conceptual replication there?  This is *very* easily provided since the
vast majority of published scientific experiments include conceptual
replications of previous work.

If, as I suspect, you wish conceptual replications of psi results, I still
need more information to give you a "good" answer.  The reason is that
that I have to understand what you would consider the same "concept."

If you consider "psi" to be a "single" concept than the entire literature
of experimental parapsychology consists of attempted conceptual replications.
Successful, published experimental reports in parapsychology number 3000+.
Because of the paucity of outlets for publication many more experiments,
successful and unsuccessful, are unpublished.  By various techniques, such
as complete surveys of the major labs involved with such work, the overall
estimate of one experiment out of three showing statistically significant
results is derived.

Or we can treat ESP as one phenomena and PK as another.  In which case
PK experiments do not provide conceptual replications for ESP experiments,
or vice versa.  We can further subdivide ESP, and PK into its various
categories.  Or we can get quite detailed about subject populations,
types of apparatus used, statistical methods etc.

I can answer at almost any level of detail, but I need to know what you
want.  I'm just trying to avoid the whole process of my giving you an answer,
then you stating that it wasn't what you meant, my trying again, etc.

			Topher

Re: .37

>   >Parapsychology, as has frequently been said by parapsychologists, is best
>   >viewed as an *observational* science like astronomy, meteorology, geology
>   >or much of high energy physics.  The last is the closest analogy.
>
>  One difference between high-energy physics experimentation and parapsychology
>  experimentation is that in the former, it is pretty unlikely that the objects
>  of study are trying to fool the researchers.  Some people claim that the
>  duping of psi researchers by subjects happens all the time.

The body of evidence for psi phenomena consists of experiments done under
rigorous, laboratory conditions using predetermined experimental protocols
which include precautions against subject fraud.  The subjects for these
experiments include:

    1) Group experiments with various "general populations" such as students.

    2) The experimenter as subject.

    3) Subjects screened from a general population as scoring well in
       preliminary trials.

Under these conditions, the motivation for fraud is quite small (consisting
of the desire to get away with a prank), the opportunities are small and
the effect of a single fraudulent subject is negligible on overall results.

Given the size of the experimental literature, I would be rather surprised
if there were not a few experiments whose positive results were not due
to subject fraud, but I do not think that there are likely to be enough
to have much bearing on the interpretation of the complete corpus.

In psychology experiments the "prank" motivation is almost as strong and
precautions against subject fraud are not even considered.  Furthermore
the evidence for a given effect frequently rests on one or only a few
experiments.  If we reject the evidence for psi effects on this basis, then
we must, to be consistent, reject virtually all psychological (and for
that matter medical) experiments involving human subjects as meaningless
wastes of time.  This would apply, for example, to the human factors
experiments now so in vogue at DEC.

Sometimes parapsychologists investigate the claims of "professional" psychics
or investigate various claims of "spontaneous" case reports.  The results
of most such investigations are "self-deception", "indeterminable" or "fraud".
(The indeterminable category represents situations where the conditions did
not allow major opportunities for fraud or self-deception).  A small
residue of "possibles" remain.  A few of these have withstood very rigorous
testing.

Most parapsychologists, however, feel that, because of the intrinsically
looser controls and the very much increased motivations for cheating, that
these cases count for little or nothing to the evidence for the existence
of psi.  Their value is as an indication of the nature of psi in more or
less "natural" conditions once it is concluded  that it exists on the basis
of more reliable evidence.  Any hypotheses generated in this way must, of
course, be tested under rigorous laboratory conditions before much credence
may be placed in it.

Unfortunately many newcomers and complete outsiders to the field are attracted
to this kind of investigation.  Typically, some scientist or technical
person from some other field, hears about some local psychic, poltergeist,
haunting, or whatever.  They decide that "it is time this whole thing be
put on a proper scientific footing", where "proper scientific footing" means
the application of some of the methods of whatever field they are involved
in.  Generally they conduct experiments which are grossly insufficient for
detecting subject fraud or self-deception.  If they manage to get their
results published (in an outlet outside the parapsychological community's
scientific review process, of course) it is the "critics" turn.

The critic, frequently citing without attribution explanatory mechanisms
and/or investigative standards first promulgated by parapsychologists,
quickly demonstrates the inadequacy of the investigation.  Generally,
this is converted into a supposed proof of fraud (i.e., that seeming
psychic phenomena occurred and that some possibility "x" was not checked
against is somehow considered proof that "x" was used by the psychic).
Through accident, excessive zeal or ignorance the critic then frequently
implies or asserts that the event is representative of the quality of
evidence for psi phenomena.

The best known instance of this sequence of events is, of course, the
laboratory investigation of Uri Geller by the physicists Putoff and Targ,
which was published in Nature.

IN SUMMARY: There is not a trace of evidence for subject fraud being a
significant confounding factor in the body of scientific evidence for
psi phenomena, and considerable reason to believe that it is not, but you
are, of course, welcome to take it as a matter of faith if you wish.

				Topher

No, I don't think I'm ready for conceptual replication in the Psi world.
All I'm looking for is examples of various types of replication in 
"conventional" science, as you call it, so that I can try to figure out
what you're talking about.

As far as subject fraud goes, it seems to me that it would be a much
better prank to convince a researcher that you could read minds than to
convince a human factors researcher that, say, the space bar should be
underneath an LK201 instead of near the alpha keypad.  First off, you
would need a conspiracy of many to convince a researcher of the latter,
while you would perhaps need only one nogoodnik to convince a researcher
of the former.  So to say that questioning the motives of Psi research
subjects invalidates all psychological and medical research seems a bit
extreme to me. 

In any case, what I had in mind when I brought up fraud was the memory of
a $10,000 prize offered to anyone who could demonstrate any Psi ability.
(I think I read about it in OMNI a couple of years ago -- anyone recall
the details?)  The offerers of this prize claimed that some Psi researchers
wanted to believe that their subjects had some Psi ability and had in fact
fallen for some very old "mentalist act" tricks.

As far as I know, the money is still unclaimed.  Granted, that is not
scientific proof either, but human nature being what it is, I find it
pretty convincing.  Maybe I'll be unconvinced when you explain those
different varieties of replication.

JP

    go ahead, call me a grouch, but this does not answer the question
    "how would esp work?" What you are discussing properly belongs in
    DEJA_VU. I do not believe that the intent of .0 was to ask for proof
    of the reality of esp, but instead to speculate on some mechanism
    of how esp might work. To discuss the validity of psychic experiments
    was not, I believe, included.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE: .40
    
    I believe the offer was made by "The Amazing Kreskin," and still
    stands. No one has collected thus far.
    
    Fred

    re .42:
    
    The Amazing Randi has $10,000 in escrow waiting for evidence of
    a psychic phenomenon. It has been there several years now.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .42, .43:
    
    Randi it was.  Check "Who is the Great Randini" for more details.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    _Now_ can we get back to the subject??? :-)
    
    SK
    

RE: .43
    
    I wouldn't take Randi's Challenge to seriously.  On the surface
    it seems reasonable, but a more careful reading of its terms (which
    anyone who accepts the challenge must sign in advance) shows that
    what it boils down to:
    
    1) You agree in advance to a protocol, which Randi may (reasonably)
    veto.
    
    2) The test is conducted.
    
    3) Randi is the sole judge of whether or not you get the money,
    there is nothing in the conditions which says that he is actually
    bound by the agreed upon protocol.
    
    4) You have agreed in writing that if Randi says that you have not
    passed the test, that you are a fraud.
    
    5) You have waived any recourse to the courts if you disagree with
    Randi's decision or any public descriptions of the precedings he
    wishes to make.
    
    6) You have waived any right to make public statements about the
    conditions and circumstances of the test.  You have agreed that
    all details or records of the test are Randi's personal property
    and that public discussion of the details would be theft of that
    property.
    
    Needless to say this test relies heavily on Randi's good will, which
    a number of people claim a personal knowledge of its lack.  You
    may, of course, choose to believe in Randi's benevolence, on the
    basis that he is on the side of TRUTH and therefore must be on the
    side of JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.  Personally, the only real
    difference between Randi and Geller that I see is that Randi has a much
    better patter.
    
    				Topher

    Re .45:
    
    There's one case I've mentioned elsewhere that sticks out anent
    Randi's "test."
    
    Seems there was this fellow who could tell by looking at them whether
    a record contained classical music (that is, wiothout either reading
    the labels or playing them).  He diodn't know how he knew, anmd
    Randi let him take the test.
    
    He identified records correctly, including a "ringer."  That is,
    whatever mechanism worked for him, he delivered what he said he
    would.
    
    Randi, who had set up what _he_ considered proper precautions,
    indicated that the record-reader was doing what he said, and that
    he (Randi) hadn't the slightest idea how he (reader) was doing it.
    
    Nevertheless, he refused to award the check.  [Possibly on the basis
    that whatever was going on was "not paranormal," but if that was
    the case, why agree to the test in the first place?]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

In .41 and .44, folk asked for speculative mechanisms for ESP.  Here is one 
that I used when making up the rules for psychic powers in an SF role-playing 
game.

In some theories of quantum mechanics, there are "hidden variables," physical 
quantities we don't know about yet, but which the theorists posit as the 
underlying cause of some odd quantum phenomena. These hidden variables are 
"non-local," meaning they do not operate in a continuous manner across space 
and time and that they are not subject to relativistic limitations.  That 
obviously makes them good psi-fodder.

Animal neurological activity is so delicate a process, it is subject to 
"quantum noise," static on our internal lines arising from "random" quantum 
processes.  In my model, ESP works by developing the ability to extract 
information out of the quantum "noise."  The "noise" is really a babble of 
overlapping signals and the main trick is to (1) stop ignoring it and 
(2) pluck out the data you want.  The process is rather like following one 
conversation in a noisy crowd.

Since other brains put out hidden-variable signals very like our own, many 
people find telepathy the easiest form of ESP.  Other people make correlations 
between external objects and their hidden-variable signals, and so develop 
clairvoyance.  (This might mean that telepathy tend to be introverts, 
clairvoyants, extroverts.)  Since hidden variables are non-local, the effects 
are not limited by distance (which seems to be the case with ESP) or by
intervening time (hence haunt sensitivity and precognition).

Psychokinesis is rather like ESP in reverse.  You learn to feed the right 
singals INTO the data stream of "quantum noise" so as to produce the 
macroscopic effect desired.

In the SF game, a detailed understanding of the physical basis of psi had two 
large-scale social effects:  psi talents became about as teachable and
wide-spread as musical talents, and people began building machines based on 
psionic principles (e.g. telekinetic motors to replace the antiquated gravity 
drives, and telemetry by mechanical clairvoyance; human-to-machine telepathy 
was a much later development except in the case of psi-talented AIs).

Earl Wajenberg
                      

    re .47:
    
    The only problem with "hidden variable" psi mechanism is the "hidden".
    This is not "hidden" in the sense of "hide-and-seek" but is much
    more fundamental. The speed of light is still the absolute
    speed limit on the tranfer of information. The non-local "connections"
    of Quantum Mechanics do not carry any information. Information can
    only be extracted later by correlating two apparently random strings.
    
    The information is not in the string itself, it is "virtual"
    information.  Even in the Bell experiment, the correlation between
    the two received signals shows that there is some sort of "non-local
    connection" between the particles, I don't see how any useful
    information could be encoded even in that.
    
    If one lets psi be limited to the speed of light, then one might
    have something...
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE: .40

>All I'm looking for is examples of various types of replication in 
>"conventional" science, as you call it, so that I can try to figure out
>what you're talking about.

Nothing easier -- here's an example which is part of a current controversy
in physics (NOTE: I am not taking sides on this controversy, there is no
point in "proving me wrong" by arguing one side or the other -- which is
correct is irrelevant to the point being made here). 

In 1922 Eoetvoes (I'm using the convention from German of representing an
umlauted "o" by oe) published an experiment generally interpreted as
demonstrating the independence of gravitational attraction and the
particular substance used [R. v. Eoetvoes, D. Peka'r, and E. Fekete, Ann.
Phys. (Leipzig) Vol 68, #11].  Two experiments are generally considered
replications of the Eoetvoes results [P.G. Roppl, R. Krotkov and R.H.
Dicke, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) Vol 26, 442 (1964)][V.B. Braginskii and V.I.
Panov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. Vol 61, 873 (1971);{Sov. Phys. JETP Vol 34, 463
(1972)}]. 

Recently, a group lead by Ephraim Fishbach [ E. Fishbach, D. Sudarsky, A.
Szafer, C. Talmadge, and S.H. Aronson, Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol 56, 3 (1986)]
drew together a number of experimental lines of evidence for the existence
of a relatively weak, medium range (distances of meters), repulsive force
acting on ordinary matter which acts differentially on different
substances.  Among the experiments looked at in this paper (the one drawing
the most attention) was the Eoetvoes experiment (I lifted all the citations
in the previous paragraph from this paper). 

Fishbach et. al. claimed that what was traditionally interpreted as
unsystematic error actually fit the pattern predicted by a medium range
"baryonic" fifth force quite well.  Fishbach et. al. [Fishbach et. al.,
Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol 57, 1959 (1986)] agree that other systematic errors
(e.g., [S.Y. Chu and R.H. Dicke, ibid. 1823]) might produce the same
pattern but that very specific incidental conditions would have to just
happen to be present in the laboratory. 

So, to resolve the question, we need only look at the results of the
replications to see if the pattern carries through, right? -- Wrong. 

The reason those experiments cannot be used to resolve the question
demonstrates the difference between a "conceptual replication" and an
"exact replication" (which can never really be done, but is occasionally
approximated). 

The purpose of the Eoetvoes experiment was to demonstrate any difference in
the strength of gravitational attraction for different substances.  The
later experiments were designed to confirm the result that there was none.
Although the method used in the later experiments was similar in many ways
to the original, changes were made to make them more sensitive.  Indeed, if
the origin of the systematic biases now known about in the Eoetvoes
experiment had been due to differential gravitational (long-range)
attraction rather than to the supposed differential baryonic (medium-range)
attraction the pattern would have been glaringly obvious in the
replications. 

The replications attempted to eliminate both systematic and unsystematic
errors due to the types of local, laboratory conditions cited by Chu and
Dicke (note that Dicke was one of the authors of one of the replications).
Such errors, of course, decrease the sensitivity of an experiment.  They
eliminated such errors by designing the experiment to cancel out all local
effects and to use any differential attraction of the sun at different
times of day.  This has as a side effect the canceling out of any local
effects due to the supposed medium range force. 

While the later experiments were indeed successful replications of the
original *result*, they were not really replications of the original
*experimental procedure*.  They demonstrated that the "concept" inferred
from the original experiment was correct (even though it now seems that
perhaps the inference should not have been made on the basis of the actual
data). 

This is the norm in science.  If any kind of "replication" is done, it is
rather free form -- either it is a "refinement" or it is modified for on
the basis of available equipment and expertise or to make it fit as the
"control" condition for a larger experiment.  It is only when the
conceptual replications fail, or questions are raised otherwise, that
attempts are made to follow the original experiment's procedures in detail
(as is now apparently being done with the Eoetvoes experiment by a number
of different experimenters). 

				Topher

This is a controversial topic in modern physics.  Not all physicists agree on 
whether or not the hidden variables are even there, much less whether they 
transfer information.  When I last read about this argument, a few months ago, 
it was a theoretician who was insisting that the hidden variables couldn't 
"really" transfer information, even if they did transfer causal influence, and 
an experimentalist who was rebutting him.

You can argue that the theoretician is a stick-in-the-mud trying to assimilate 
revolutionary new information into his outworn system, or that the 
experimentalist is an ignorant, grease-monkey who doesn't know what he's 
talking about.

For my purposes, it does not matter.  The modern hidden variables are just the 
hints of these futuristic whatever-they-are's in a new physical theory that 
supercedes Einstein just as Einstein supercedes Newton.  Rather the way 19th 
century physics and 20th century physics both have light waves in them, but 
our understanding of light waves (which have the same velocity in all frames 
of references and are particles at the same time they're waves) is very 
different from the 19th century understanding (in which the waves are 
transverse vibrations in an impalpable ether).

Earl Wajenberg

RE: .40

>As far as subject fraud goes, it seems to me that it would be a much
>better prank to convince a researcher that you could read minds than to
>convince a human factors researcher that, say, the space bar should be
>underneath an LK201 instead of near the alpha keypad.  First off, you
>would need a conspiracy of many to convince a researcher of the latter,
>while you would perhaps need only one nogoodnik to convince a researcher
>of the former.  So to say that questioning the motives of Psi research
>subjects invalidates all psychological and medical research seems a bit
>extreme to me.

    A minor point first -- the prank motive in the human factors research
    would not be to generate a specific wrong result, but to simply see if
    they could screw things up by acting unnaturally.  By being so specific
    you present an unnaturally unlikely picture.  In any case ... 

    I *said* that the motivation was higher, but I question that it is
    enough higher to be significant.   Let's try to quantify our subjective
    feelings about this.  Here's a thought experiment to try to roughly
    quantify things (based on a technique standardly used in Bayesian
    Decision Theory).  Ask yourself (and try to be objective as possible in
    answering -- try to avoid producing the results which support whatever
    side you take in this argument) how much money you would have to pay
    the subject of the human factors experiment to have the same level of
    motivation to "fake the results" as in the parapsychology experiment.
    I would say typically perhaps $10, perhaps a little more.  (This is a
    thought experiment for each interested reader to use to help
    objectively examine their own thoughts, unless you can justify with
    hard arguments a much higher figure don't bother to disagree with me
    here). 

    When designing a psi experiment (as opposed to designing tests of the
    claims of psychics) it is quite easy to include excellent safeguards.
    Of course, these safeguards can be overcome -- it would "simply"
    involve hidden bugs, undetected breaking and entering, scaling walls,
    bribes, rigged duplication or modification of equipment, accurate
    forging of records, etc.  Such techniques presuppose high levels of
    both motivation and skill. 

    When a professional psychic is being tested high levels of motivation
    to cheat can be assumed (as a sadder but wiser Russel Targ said at a
    recent meeting of the Parapsychological Association (I'm paraphrasing)
    "One cannot overestimate the lengths that a fraudulent psychic will go
    to to pull off a seemingly casual and minor effect.").  Furthermore,
    because it is *their* claims being investigated they potentially have a
    great deal of control of the conditions (up to the point where the
    investigator feels that the controls are so weak that it is not worth
    their effort to continue). And, of course, one can assume high average
    levels of skill in the various arts of deception. 

    Yet, despite many times as many "general subjects" a year being tested
    than professional psychics, I *frequently* hear about (in the
    literature and by personal contact) some promising psychic being caught
    cheating by some parapsychologist and have *never* heard of a general
    subject being caught in anything more than a grossly ineffective,
    casual effort to cheat. 

    As far as your "one nogoodnik" theory goes, it simply doesn't match the
    facts.  Most of the positive results do not depend on one or a few good
    subjects.  When the subject pool is small enough or the method of
    analysis is such that that is a possibility, a robustness analysis is
    done to check for it.  This is done for reasons independent of any
    question of subject fraud.  Virtually all parapsychological experiments
    are designed to test some hypothesis or measure some quantity.  A
    result which depended on a single subject can generally be given only
    low credence since it is all too likely to represent the idiosyncrasies
    of that subject, rather than some general principle. 

    Perhaps my statement of the total invalidation of psychology and
    medicine is a bit of an hyperbole, but not much of one.  First off, it
    was not conditional on "questioning the motives of psi research
    subjects" (I question their motives) but the very high significance
    placed on a negative evaluation.  I am speaking quite conservatively
    when I estimate that it would require "hundreds of dollars" worth of
    motivation, and *very* high levels of skill in at least five percent of
    the general populations being tested to produce the results observed.
    To so conclude and yet to then fail to question the "few dollars" worth
    of motivation needed to distort finding on most other tests involving
    human subjects seems to me grossly inconsistent. 

				Topher

  You seem to be saying that researchers often do not repeat an experiment
  -- instead they refine the experiment in such a way as to replicate the
  original results (if possible) and in addition they refine the
  hypothesis being tested.  Is that what you are saying?  

  To me, that's just another way of saying that researchers experiment,
  hypothesize about the results, then design another experiment to test
  the new hypothesis.  

  Where do the different types of replication come in?  My point is that
  in non-ESP science, experiments *can* always be precisely replicated --
  whether or not they ever *are* precisely replicated.  If another
  researcher distrusts the results of an experiment, he or she tries to
  reproduce it exactly.  Thus the results of an experiment are never in
  question -- they can either be replicated or they cannot. Once the
  results have been replicated, the discussion about the interpretation
  can begin. 

  So what *is* the story with ESP experiments?  Do they purport to find
  ESP abilities in some constant percentage of the general population?
  Or do they purport to find ESP abilities in a particular individual?
  If the former, then I don't see why the experimental results can't
  be replicated "precisely."  If the latter, then we're back to "This
  individual shows no ESP ability in *my* experiment."  And I think we're
  back to square one in this discussion.

  JP

RE: .52

> My point is in non-ESP science, experiments *can* always be precisely
> replicated -- ...

Sorry, this is simply incorrect.  Experiments can always be precisely
replicated only in a few narrow fields.  Generally, one is not so lucky. As
I said before, this occurs when the system being experimented on is simple
and fairly deterministic, when the available measuring instruments are
accurate and reliable, and (most importantly) when you know about and can
precisely control all relevant factors. 

A certain percentage of experiments which meet parapsychological
communities criteria for a good psi experiment show evidence for those
anomalies referred to a "psi phenomena."  The actual percentage seems to be
about 1/3.  These are experiments which look for evidence of psi abilities
in more or less general populations.  (Certain relatively new experimental
procedures seem to show a higher success rate, about 1/2, but standards for
these procedures have not yet been settled on so general conclusions are
hard to make.  The apparent higher rate may be illusional.  We shall see). 

There is no really adequate explanation for these anomalies.  They occur
too frequently (by many times) to be due to simple statistical fluctuation.
The statistics used are elementary and have been validated over and over
again by statisticians (the first such major validation was R.A. Fisher's
(of F-test fame) validation of Rhine's statistical procedures, the
statistics have improved considerably since that time).  "Conventional"
explanations (subject fraud, experimenter fraud, sensory leakage) fit the
actual data very poorly (for example, ignoring the unpublishable extreme,
there is no apparent inverse correlation between experimental rigor and
scoring).  After 50 years of vigorous attack the critics have only
succeeded in proving that in parapsychology, as in other fields, a few
experiments have flaws in them (something they could have learned quite
easily by reading the criticisms of other parapsychologists in the
parapsychological journals). They have failed to show that those occasional
flaws have any relationship to the anomalies found. 

What we have is *very* strong evidence for the existence of one or more
phenomena, whose nature is unknown, and which is sensitive to a number of
factors which are not, in practice controllable at the present time.  Some
of those factors are known about and have been measured.  They include
aspects of the personality, mood, beliefs, motivation, enthusiasm, and
state of relaxation of the subject.  Well established (at least for ESP,
its not so clear for PK) is the strong correlation between a state of
"relaxed enthusiasm" and significant scoring.  An ability on the part of an
experimenter to inspire and sustain such a state in subjects over a long
series of repetitive (i.e., boring) trials, implies specialized, difficult
to quantify, experimenter skills as a significant factor in experimental
"success".  There are some recent hints of possible environmental factors
(such as, the amount of global, *not local*, geomagnetic activity) but
these require much more experimental validation before much credence can be
given them. 

There does not currently exist any adequately tested *paranormal* theory
for these anomalies either (although there exists at least one theory which
seems plausible, and has had some preliminary success against attempted
falsification.  I plan on writing a note about it, to be posted here). 

Now, you be the judge.  Which is the "correct scientific" response to a
large body of evidence with these characteristics? 

    1) To find reasons to ignore or "explain away" the results which don't
       fit your previous assumptions?  To denigrate and ostracize any
       scientists who publicly support further investigation?  To call
       any scientist who gets such results a bungler and/or a fraud?
       To call any scientist who takes those results seriously a fool?
       To organize initiatives to block those scientists from sources
       of funds, publication, opportunities to teach, and professional
       affiliation?

    2) To attempt to do systematic scientific investigation of the
       phenomena, as parapsychologists have?  To speculate, hypothesize,
       criticize, test, measure, publish and refine methods?

(Gee, I wonder if you can tell which I think is the right response.:-)

			    Topher

>> My point is in non-ESP science, experiments *can* always be precisely
>> replicated -- [whether or not they actually *are* precisely replicated.]...

>Sorry, this is simply incorrect.  Experiments can always be precisely
>replicated only in a few narrow fields.  

You keep saying that but, in my opinion, you have not demonstrated it.
Now it's entirely possible that my brain became fatigued while exercising
my naivet� as I read your 80-line, low-information-density replies --
maybe I just missed it.  Can you tell me in, say, 50 words or fewer, 
why the results of esp experiments cannot be replicated?  And why we
should not expect that the results could be replicated (you can use
another 50 words for that)?

Now I have a specific question about the results you report in .53.  If,
as you say, 33% of experimental groups showed anomalies referred to
as psi phenomenon, what happens if you take that 33% and run the test
on them again?  Does the incidence approach 100%?

I'd also like to agree with the noter who said that he would be delighted
if it turned out that esp existed -- me too.  However, I don't think that
anticipated delight is a good enough reason to accept the results of an
experiment that cannot be replicated.  I'm with the guy (Lord Rayleigh?)
who said, "If you can't measure it, it is not science."

What I'm getting at is that I don't understand what these experiments
claim to be measuring.  If what you are saying is that, "These experiments
prove that something is going on which we know nothing about," I can
easily accept that.  But we already knew that through a couple of
century's worth of anecdotal evidence.

Of course I don't move in the circles that would allow me to be guilty of
the sins you enumerate in "1)" and I hope that I wouldn't do those things
if I did move in those circles.  I also don't have any problem with this:

>    2) To attempt to do systematic scientific investigation of the
>       phenomena, as parapsychologists have?  To speculate, hypothesize,
>       criticize, test, measure, publish and refine methods?

What I object to is the equation of "attempt" with success.

JP

RE: .54

>Now it's entirely possible that my brain became fatigued while exercising
>my naivet� as I read your 80-line, low-information-density replies --
>maybe I just missed it.  Can you tell me in, say, 50 words or fewer, 
>why the results of esp experiments cannot be replicated?  And why we
>should not expect that the results could be replicated (you can use
>another 50 words for that)?

(I'm sorry if you took insult at my use of the term "naive" in the title of
 370.53. I was attempting to describe the *view* of one aspect of scientific
 practice as expressed by you.  I have no way of knowing if you are,
 yourself, naive, and would not presume to guess on the basis of so little
 information.)

Gee, and I've been worrying that I've been throwing too much information
in. :-) 

It's true that I haven't responded with what you seem to want to hear, but
if you insist on asking "Do you still beat your wife?" type questions you
shouldn't expect yes/no answers. 

OK, we'll do it your way.  Those who wish to understand what I mean can
refer to my previous notes, where I allowed myself to take the room I felt
necessary to explain the misconceptions implicit in the questions. Please
note that the best I could do was brief *responses* to your questions.
There are *no* correct way to give direct answers.

50 word or less response #1 (actual word count = 14) -- The results of ESP
experiments *can* be replicated, and have been thousands of times. 

50 word or less response #2 (actual word count = 41) -- We cannot replicate
ESP experiments *at*will* because we are neither omniscient nor omnipotent;
which is also why science is worth doing.  This is an area complex enough
so our limitations are particularly noticeable; which is why it is
especially interesting. 

				Topher

RE: .54

>>> My point is in non-ESP science, experiments *can* always be precisely
>>> replicated -- [whether or not they actually *are* precisely replicated.]...
>
>>Sorry, this is simply incorrect.  Experiments can always be precisely
>>replicated only in a few narrow fields.  
>
>You keep saying that but, in my opinion, you have not demonstrated it.

Let's see if I have this straight.  It is your contention that one cannot
consider there to be any "scientific" evidence for a phenomena until it can
be produced, in practice, at will with a reliability "approaching 100%."
Furthermore, although no attempt is normally made at precise replication,
we can feel confident that in "non-ESP science" such replication would
always succeed. 

And it is up to *me* to prove such extraordinary statements are incorrect!? 

OK, once again, we'll play by your rules. 

I'm going to present descriptions of three experiments.  None are "always
precisely replicatable".  All can be (and are), nevertheless, accepted as
valid.  Although they are rather diverse, they all fail to be replicatable
on the same basis: through ignorance or powerlessness not all factors
relevant to success can be guaranteed to exist at every replication. 

These experiments *are* simple examples.  Space and effort limitations
forbid a more complex presentation.  None of these are directly comparable
to the corpus of parapsychological experimental evidence.  They are only
intended to illustrate the lack of validity of the necessity for precise
replicability. (Although they all represent falsification by
counter-example of hypothesis, just like parapsychology.) 

If you wish to know more about how conclusions can be drawn from a not
completely consistent body of experimental evidence, I recommend
_Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis_.  It is by Larry V. Hedges and
Ingram Otkin and was published in 1985 by Academic Press.  Some knowledge
of mathematical statistics is required (not a whole lot) and there is nary
a word about parapsychology. 

				Topher

EXPERIMENT 1 -- A thought experiment involving a familiar phenomena.

The experiment itself is quite simple.  Rub your feet on the carpet and
touch a grounded piece of metal.  The phenomena under study is a spark
which will jump from finger to ground -- except sometimes it won't.  The
"thought" part is to imagine that you don't know that the humidity of the
air is what makes the difference.  Therefore, sometimes the experiment
succeeds, and sometimes it fails.  Some scientists never get the result,
for others it seems to have somewhat of a seasonal component, and for
others the results are erratic with no trace of seasonality (from our
omniscient viewpoint we know that this is the result of the climate and
HVAC conditions at the various labs). 

According to the perfect replicability requirement for experimental
evidence, a conclusion that "sparks can leap from peoples fingertips" is
scientifically unjustified (probably due to the understandable but
irrational and unscientific desire to have the power to shoot lightning
from the hands :-).  A hypothesis that "rubbing the feet on carpet seems to
be one possible cause, though neither necessary nor sufficient" is pure
unsupported speculation.  The observation that "the size of the spark is
roughly proportional to the amount of rubbing of the feet done, up to a
limit which varies radically from experimental series to experimental
series" is (according to the perfect replicability requirement) pure
fantasy cubed. 

EXPERIMENT 2 -- The experiment from which many writers date the birth of
	modern astronomy.

In 1572 Tycho Brahe was doing "naked-eye" observations of the stars (a
systematic course of observations is the most conceptually simple type of
scientific experiment, though it is frequently one of the most difficult in
execution). 

He observed a "new star" (De Nova Stella) where there had been none the
last time he had looked.  He undertook a followup series of experiment in
which he established, by means of precise measurements made with giant
versions of navigational instruments, that the "Nova" (actually a
supernova) was at the "same" great distance as the fixed stars.  This was
the first "scientific" proof that the heavens were not basically immutable.
I am only concerned here with the first experiment, however. 

According to the perfect replicability requirement for experimental
evidence, if Tycho's results are valid then anyone with the proper
equipment should be able to replicate his results.  Thus, anyone with the
proper equipment (normal eyesight) should be able to see a "new star" by
spending some time looking at the stars under good viewing conditions (out
in the country somewhere). 

If such observations cannot be reliably made (as, I assume, you all realize
they cannot) then the perfect replicability requirement forces us to
conclude that there was *no* valid scientific evidence of the mutability of
the "sphere of the fixed stars" until large telescopes and sensitive,
modern photographic techniques allowed reliable systematic surveys of
distant galaxies.  Even now the belief that novas can occur in this galaxy
would have to be viewed as a reasonable inference but without any
supporting evidence at all. 

The belief in the the mutability of the heavens before the advent of modern
instrumentation can be attributed to the understandable but irrational
desire to project human fallibility on the universe, I guess. :-) 

EXPERIMENT 3 -- A bit of current events.

Several weeks ago the surgeon-general announced that the evidence is clear
that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful to the health of bystanders.
Dr. Everett Koop based this conclusion on thirteen studies of which eleven
showed an effect.  Elementary statistics allow us to conclude that we can
be roughly 95% sure that at least 55% (though definitely less than 100%) of
experiments conducted like those thirteen will show a correlation between
environmental smoke and negative health effects. 

According to the perfect replicability requirement, the claims of the
American Tobacco Institute that there is no evidence of any effects from
environmental tobacco smoke, good bad or neutral, are justified.  Their
claims that the Surgeon-General's report is a political attack without
scientific merit would then have to be taken as plausible. 

RE: .54

>Now I have a specific question about the results you report in .53.  If,
>as you say, 33% of experimental groups showed anomalies referred to
>as psi phenomenon, what happens if you take that 33% and run the test
>on them again?  Does the incidence approach 100%?

First off, that's not quite what I said.  What I said is that approximately
33% of parapsychological *experiments* are show statistically significant
anomalies.  Since this population of experiments includes a large amount of
overlapping subject populations and many of them include screening
procedures of various sorts, one cannot infer from this, without a great
deal of complex analysis, an accurate estimate of variability with subject
population. 

In any case, the answer is no.  This would be the case only if the major
source of variability in parapsychological experiments was differences in
stable talent between subjects.  This does not seem to be the case. 

Although stable is not the only important factor in success in psi
experiments it is a factor (at least when stability is measured over a
period of months) For this reason, it is a common procedure to first
"screen" subjects and select "high scorers" on the basis of preliminary
tests.  Whether or not to do this is for a particular experiment is a
complex judgment call. Screening increases the cost of the experiment, the
amount of time it takes to complete the experiment, decreases the number of
subjects used, and, since it increases the number of trials for each
subject, tends to make it harder to maintain subject enthusiasm.  On the
other hand, subjects who do better on early trials tend to do better on
later trials. 

Even if all external factors were the same in all experiments, we would
still not necessarily expect a success rate of 100% due to statistical
fluctuation.  For example, imagine that I have a pile of coins, all of
which are slightly weighted so that they come up heads 75% of all tosses.
If an experiment consists of taking a coin, flipping it 10 times, then
checking the number of heads using a simple chi-square test with a p-value
of .95; then 2/3 of the tests would result in "false negatives", i.e., 2/3
of the experiments would fail to show "significant" results, even though
the coins are actually badly biased.  Using the same coin in every
experiment would not improve the number of successful experiments at all
under these conditions. 

					Topher

RE: .54

>I'd also like to agree with the noter who said that he would be delighted
>if it turned out that esp existed -- me too.  However, I don't think that
>anticipated delight is a good enough reason to accept the results of an
>experiment that cannot be replicated.  I'm with the guy (Lord Rayleigh?)
>who said, "If you can't measure it, it is not science."

I suspect that many people reading this will choose to disbelieve this but,
I on the other hand wish that psi (including ESP), whatever it is, did
*not* exist.  It seems to be contrary to my essentially materialist
world-view, and the universe would be "tidier" without it.  However, I
don't think that any set of untested assumptions, however convenient and
well-established they are, are sufficient justification to reject the
existence of phenomena which have been observed under carefully controlled
conditions thousands of times. 

Perhaps we are both overcompensating. :-? 

It is ironic that you quote Lord Rayleigh (if indeed it is Lord Rayleigh --
it does sound like something he would say).  Lord Rayleigh was an active
and enthusiastic member of the Society for Psychical Research, and became
its president in 1919, the year of his death (no, he was president only
*before* he died :-).  He is considered by modern parapsychologists as one
of the founders of the field, though, as with other famous scientists
involved positively with parapsychology and psychical research, his
biographers prefer to downplay or ignore completely this single
"aberration".  (Of course, that the man quoted would have disagreed with
your application of his sentiment says little for or against the
appropriateness of its use). 

			Topher

RE: .54

>What I'm getting at is that I don't understand what these experiments
>claim to be measuring.

In the broadest terms: they measure consistent dependence of the outcome of
experiments on the desires/expectations of subjects (percipients or agents)
under conditions which would seem to strongly rule out conventional
explanations of such a dependence.  Experiments involving highly labial
("random") apparatus with the subjects desire/expectation deterministically
set (e.g., "try for a 3 this time") are referred to as PK experiments.
Experiments involving deterministic apparatus and free choice of outcome
for each trial (e.g., "Which card is next?") are referred to as ESP
experiments. Not all experiments are clearly classifiable, and most
intermediate experiments are arbitrarily classified as ESP experiments
(under the sometimes questionable assumption that the percipient is more
labial than the apparatus). 

There is no *rational* argument with this "claim" -- this *is* what is
being measured.  Where there is some room for argument is whether or not
the "conditions which would seem to strongly rule out conventional
explanations" actually do so.  That is, whether they are strict enough to
allow at least a tentative conclusion that a novel mechanism is required to
explain the measured results. 

>			 If what you are saying is that, "These experiments
>prove that something is going on which we know nothing about," I can
>easily accept that.  But we already knew that through a couple of
>century's worth of anecdotal evidence. 

Many people, myself included, feel that the anecdotal evidence is
insufficient to draw such a conclusion.  At best it is "suggestive" that
"something is going on which we know nothing about."  The circumstances of
anecdotal evidence do not allow us to rule out "conventional" explanations
-- fraud, hallucination, coincidence, cryptonesia, subtle sensory cues,
memory distortions, etc. 

If accepted, the results of parapsychological experiments are very
difficult to reconcile with our current concepts of physics.  For example,
modern physics says that there is no way to predict or influence the
outcome of quantum mechanical phenomena such as radioactive decay, but
direct (parapsychological) experiments seem to contradict this. 

			Topher

RE: .54

>				  I also don't have any problem with this:
>
>>    2) To attempt to do systematic scientific investigation of the
>>       phenomena, as parapsychologists have?  To speculate, hypothesize,
>>       criticize, test, measure, publish and refine methods?
>
>What I object to is the equation of "attempt" with success.

And, of course, I make no such equation.  Parapsychology is
methodologically and philosophically a very complex field -- perhaps the
most complex field under experimental study.  The research has been
conducted by a handful of researchers under extremely difficult conditions
described previously.  In *no* scientific field worthy of the name do
successes outnumber failures. Nevertheless there have been many successes
in parapsychology. 

What *I* object to is the absolute equation of "success" with "fraud and/or
incompetence" and this is the cornerstone of the "case" against
parapsychology.  Or the equation of slow progress with failure.

				Topher

  Re: .55:

  >(I'm sorry if you took insult at my use of the term "naive" in the title of
  > 370.53. 

  For just a second there, I thought this was an apology...

  Re: .later stuff:

  Gee, and here I thought that your argument was that esp experiments
  are somehow special and need not be reproducible, for example:

    >>Sorry, this is simply incorrect.  Experiments can always be precisely
    >>replicated only in a few narrow fields.  

  And then in .55 you say:

    >The results of ESP
    >experiments *can* be replicated, and have been thousands of times. 

  Which is it?


  I think I see one area of confusion, though -- the difference between
  research, an experiment and an observation.  All I can suggest is that
  you open a dictionary. 

  None of the examples you list in .56 are well-designed experiments.
  Only the first (static electricity) is an experiment at all.  The fact
  that its results are not reproducible is evidence that it was done with
  extreme sloppiness.  And if a scientist ever published the results of
  such a sloppy experiment, he or she would be laughed at by the
  scientific community precisely because the stated results could not be
  reproduced. 

  Your second example (Tycho Brahe spotting a nova) is an observation and
  clearly not part of any experiment.

  Your third example isn't an experiment, either.  Studies were done to collect
  data.  The data were reduced by statistical methods.  The conclusions are
  indeed reproducible -- other researchers are free to examine the data and
  the statistical methods used.  If either the data or the methods are found
  to be invalid, then the conclusions are discredited.


  >It is your contention that one cannot
  >consider there to be any "scientific" evidence for a phenomena until it can
  >be produced, in practice, at will with a reliability "approaching 100%."
  >Furthermore, although no attempt is normally made at precise replication,
  >we can feel confident that in "non-ESP science" such replication would
  >always succeed. 

  Not at all.  What I said was that, if you design an experiment, your results
  must be reproducible.  That says nothing about observations outside of
  experiments.

  I would say this:  parapsychology experments have turned up useful data
  to the extent that these experiments are reproducible.  The only conclusion
  we can draw from the data is that something is going on which we do not
  understand.  Does that mean that esp exists?  Too early to tell.

  Let's draw analogy between esp and UFOs.  Observations (data) tell us
  that there is a small residue of sightings that cannot be explained
  away.  Does that mean that there is something going on which we do not
  understand?  I think so.  Does that mean that earth has been visited by
  alien creatures?  No.  Is is possible that earth has been visited by
  alien creatures?  Of course. 

  Topher, I think you've been blowing smoke at me.  I have no desire to
  breathe any more of it, so I'm finished with this subject.  Bye...

  JP