Conference hydra::dejavu

>  -< Physic Reader Wanted >-
    
    No offense I hope, but I think you meant Psychic Reader, not 
    Physic Reader.  They are very different professions.
    
    		:-)
    
    		todd

    Hi Pauline - my long-time pal!!!
    
    I've heard some recommendations for a woman who lives near me in Nashua.
    A woman in my group found her to be very accurate.  I'll check on the 
    name and get back to you offline.
    
    Ro
    

    There was an excellent article in the Zetetic Scholar a few
    years back (1979 I believe) by Ray Hyman about the psychology,
    strategy, and tactics of psychic readers.  Hyman gave a pretty
    good lesson on how these people tend to operate, including
    instructions on how you, or anyone, can do a "cold reading"
    and get results.
    
    Suffice it to say that extreme care must be taken before
    placing your trust and confidence in a psychic.  If you
    are at all interested, I'll post the full citation of the
    article.  It is only one of many, of course, but the Hyman
    article is quite good.
    
    Be careful.
    
    Joel
    

    Hi Joel,
    
    I'd be interested in reading the report if you would like to enter it
    here or send it offline.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ro
    

RE: .3 (Joel)

    I'm not sure whether or not I've read this particular article on the
    subject -- Ray Hyman has written a number of similar articles.  What he
    has to say is certainly interesting and quite true with some caveats.
    A certain amount of skepticism about what he has to say.

    Dr. Hyman is a member of the militantly "antiparanormal" central
    committee of CSICOP.  Dr. Hyman's behavior is similar to that of 
    many "militant rationalists".  He appears to be strongly motivated to
    stamp out what he perceives as "irrationallity" (i.e., "wrong-
    thinking").  It seems like he tends to divide people into three
    categories "bad-guys" (i.e., psychics), "good-guys" (i.e., himself and
    those who agree with him), and "victims/potential-victims" (i.e.,
    everyone else).

    Dr. Hyman does describe the psychological tricks used by trained fake
    psychics (I have several "textbooks" at home recommending the same
    techniques).  In my opinion, most psychics are not deliberate fakes,
    and most of those who do use some trickery are not members of the
    community in which these techniques are taught.  Studies of actual
    fairly randomly selected psychic advisors show that they do not seem to
    use many of the tricks that Dr. Hyman seems to believe are virtually
    commonplace.

    Now this doesn't mean that "cold reading" techniques are not used.
    There *are* fakes out there who buy the same books I do, or have
    figured out the techniques themselves.  Also I believe that most
    sincere psychics derive their information from multiple sources
    including unconscious use of some of Hyman's cold reading techniques
    (but also possibly from paranormal sources).

    There are several things to keep in mind when seeing any psychic:

    1) There are conventional means by which a psychic can, consciously or
    unconsciously, come up with seemingly astonishingly accurate statements
    about you and your life.

    2) Even if a psychic is right about some things -- even things which
    really could only have been learned by paranormal means -- it does not
    mean that they are right about others.  The psychic channel -- whatever
    it is -- seems to hae a lot of noise on it.  It's just not a all or
    nothing thing.

    3) Even if a psychic is right on one day, they may be a complete dud
    others.

    4) There is frequently a lot of pressure on even sincere psychics to
    "help things along" and "instill confidence in their clients" by
    cheating a bit.  Many resist, some don't.  Of all the formal surveys
    I've seen of "belief in the paranormal", the group that recorded the
    highest level of belief was members of a "psychic entertainers"
    professional organization ("psychic entertainers" are magicians who do
    mentalism acts of one form or another; some of them are open that it's
    an act, and some are not).

					Topher

    re: .4
    
    The article is too long for me to type in, but I'll provide
    a reference and a [very much] shortened version if you'd
    like.
    
    re: .5
    
    Hyman is a critic of parapsychological claims, but his 
    position in re: psi phenomena fits pretty squarely within
    the 42% of the (recently polled) APA members who feel that
    PSI phenomena have not been scientifically demonstrated.
    He works closely with parapsychologists and has collaborated
    on papers and/or experiments on a number of occasions.
    
    In fact, Hyman has worked with APA members to help tighten
    experimental controls and try to establish standards more
    in line with comparable sciences of the mind/body.  Yes,
    he is a founding member of CSICOP, but CSICOP is not a
    monolithic body any more than any other body in the
    field.  Hyman's repeated pleas within the skeptical community
    are for objectivity and fairness.  He displays this in his
    work and this is why he is generally held in high esteem
    (though not always agreed with) by parapsychologists.
    
    As far as this particular ariticle goes, Hyman takes pains
    to point out the genesis of his interest.  Namely, that he
    was at one point in his career a palm reader.  He began
    the practice with no belief and simply to make money.
    But the "results" he got gradually convinced him that in
    fact palm reading gave valid insight.
    
    One of his acquaintances suggested that Hyman try an experiment:
    give his clients the opposite reading that was indicated on the
    client's palm.  To Hyman's surprise, his clients expressed just
    as much belief in the validity of the readings!
    
    This brought Hyman to the subject of the psychology of belief,
    which is what the article is really about.  The cold reading
    tips are sort of a hook to draw in otherwise bored students -
    sort of to give a little snap to a subject's presentation.
    (the material was originally developed in conjunction with
    courses he was teaching at Harvard.  Hyman is now at the
    University of Oregon.)
    
    The article does not state that all psychics are deliberate
    charlatans.  On the contrary, Hyman points out some ways
    that psychic/client can come to believe that the reading
    is valid.  Example: repeated testing have shown that if
    you convince someone that what you have told them about
    themselves has been personally validated, vague, generic
    statments are rated extremely highly as being accurate 
    descriptions of the person.  [I'll post one of the
    statements used.]  It doesn't matter whether you use
    tarot, astrology, palm reading - or a "scientific" personality
    test.  So long as the person believes that the statement has
    been developed for him/herself, the validation is extremely
    high.  Even though everyone is reading exactly the same
    statement.
    
    But of course some psychics are conscious charlatans and are
    only in it for money, personal power, ego gratification, whatever.
    This is true in most all walks of life, isn't it?  Hyman points
    out some of the techniques they use, the better for us to be
    on the lookout.
    
    Joel
    

    re: .0,.2
    
    If a "psychic" is *very* accurate, it may pay to take a very
    close look at his or her methods.
    
    I was once working at a lab in Worcester, MA when a local "psy-
    chic" appeared on the scene.  She had been brought to our atten-
    tion by one of the lab employees, who happened to live near her.
    People began visiting her at noontime, money in hand, to learn
    about their futures.  The "psychic" appeared to be phenomenal.
    She not only told one employee that she had a boyfriend who was
    writing to her from overseas..."She even knew his name!"
    
    - "She even knew his name?!  Did you say anything that could have
    helped her...?"
    - "No, nothing."
    - "Tell me what happened from the time you arrived."
    - "Well, we [there were 2 employees] went in and sat down and...
    oh, wait a minute, when we first got there we couldn't go in.
    She opened the door right away, but asked us to wait outside for
    a few minutes because she was cleaning.  She closed the door and
    returned in about five minutes."
    - "Are you sure she was cleaning?"
    - "Oh yes, she was cleaning all right!  She was wearing an apron,
    and she had a mop and a bucket."
    - "So she got a good look at you, and then she went away.  What if
    she went and looked at pictures of you?  What if there were write-
    ups that went along with the pictures?" 
    - "But - how could she have gotten our pictures?"
    - "Didn't we all have our lab I.D. pictures taken a while ago?"
               
                             . . . . . . .
    
    The midday business dwindled.  The lab employee no longer made
    recommendations.  The "psychic" no longer cleaned up.
    
    Virginia
    

    Leaving parapsychology alone, the value of any information that
    comes into my awareness is what I can do with it to bring
    more personal value into my life.  Two (of many) approaches are that I 
    might judge the source, or I might judge the information on
    its own merits and test its validity for myself.  I think
    if I rely on experts of any kind, in terms of personal advice, I am 
    allowing them too much control over me.  
    
    								todd

    
    I went with a group of about 5 people once to see a psychic.
    Before we got out of the car I asked everyone to be careful
    about what they said - I wanted to be sure the guy was "for
    real."  No one listened to me.  Everyone talked (except me)
    for about 10 or 15 minutes in the psychic's waiting room
    (or is that listening room?) while he "prepared himself."
    
    Everyone was impressed with their readings.  Many things were
    quite accurate, but open to lots of interpretation.
    
    At one point in my reading (the guy read some sort of cards with
    a different prayer on each card) the guy was getting so far off
    track that I had to stop him, explain things a bit and then he
    continued on from there.  I had successfully closed him off from
    an accurate reading until I gave enough details for him to make
    the proper inferences.
    
    One strange thing that he did that still puzzles me is that he
    shook everyone's hand - not just once, but 4, 5 even 6 times!
    But for some reason he would not shake hands with my wife.  He
    also gave her a very "mechanical" reading - I think she sort of
    closed him off also.
    
    When we were leaving he came out and shook all our hands - again,
    he did not shake hands with my wife.
    
    Anyone have any ideas about the hand-shaking?
    
    guy

    re: .9,
    
    I've never been to a psychic, but I have some feelings I'd like to
    share about the phenomena of psychic advisors in general (and 
    advisors in general).
    
    To me, accepting what an advisor says as absolute truth is foolish and 
    applying their advice without testing its meaning in our own life would
    be extremely irresponsible.  I apply that equally to both psychic advisors 
    and advisors that conform more closely to 'well tested consensus reality
    models.'  
    
    Possibly our expectations are unreasonable at times because we
    have an (unconscious?) vested interested in a certain outcome.
    
    Possibly the phenomena, however we model it, has at least a 
    psychological *aspect*, and feeds on the mental state or cooperation of 
    others.   Coming to a psychic reader out of curiosity, with suspicion, in 
    order to test their accuracy in our own terms seems to me akin to going 
    to a shrink and asking him/her to tell us about ourselves, and put a label
    on us on the basis of very sketchy information, or even falsely
    presented information.  Turns it from a cooperative form of hollistic,
    intuitive, or psychological life guidance into a meaningless party game.  
    Trying to establish a general purpose rule as to what sources might
    be useful, whereas in reality, every life situation is different.
    
    I think both the psychics and their customers sometimes fall for the
    marketing hype or what is expected, and lose the value of whatever is 
    really happening.
    
    The consensus reality model (and the psychic guides) will never provide 
    meaning for all individuals, there must always be some room for personal 
    flexibility in choice of belief.  Rationality is a useful tool, but you 
    don't have to choose to apply it from a basis of consensus models and 
    assumptions.   
    
    It seems to me we often put too much responsibility on psychics to fulfill 
    our own expectations of what 'psychic' means, rather than using the 
    talent or skill for the purpose they supposedly intend (market) it for; 
    life guidance.
    	
    								todd

    re: .4  (Ro)
    
    Follow-up...
    
    The article is in "The Zetetic 1 (Spring-Summer 1977),
    pp. 18-37.
    
    Following is a stock statement used by various researchers
    to test theories of personal validation.  The essence of
    the research indicates that if you simply hand someone the
    statement and ask them how well it applies to them (rated
    on a scale of 0=not like me at all, 5=perfect match) you get
    about average ratings.
    
    But if you do something that convinces them the statement is
    intended for them, personally, the ratings go through the
    roof, with averages between 4.0 and 4.3. 
    
    The statement:
    
    	Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.  At
    	times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other
    	times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.  You have
    	found it unwise to be too frank in revealing youself to
    	others.  You pride yourself on being an independent thinker
    	and do not accept others' opinions without satisfactory
    	proof.  You prefer a certain amount of change and variety,
    	and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions
    	and limitations.  At times you have serious doubts as to
    	whether you have made the right decision or done the right
    	thing.  Disiplined and controlled on the outside, you tend
    	to be worrisome and insecure on the inside.
    
    	Your sexual adjustment has presented some problems for you.
    	While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally
    	able to compensate for them.  You have a great deal of
    	unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage.
    	You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.  You have
    	a strong need for other people to like you and for them to
    	admire you.
    
    
    There you have it.  If you can convince people that you have
    done some sort of special analysis on their personality, and
    then give them the above statement as if it were generated 
    especially for them, you will, on the whole, find an extremely
    high level of acceptance of your skills.
    
    In fact, those who are convinced that you have given them a
    perfect fit, will also be convinced of the efficacy of the
    method you used.  
    
    Please note that I am specifically _not_ suggesting that all
    psychics are deliberately fleecing the public.  Nor am I 
    suggesting that the key to their success is simple use of
    time-tested "stock spiels."  The point is that personal validation
    is very, very strong.  If you have had an experience that you
    feel "proves" the validity of any kind of personal validator,
    paranormal or otherwise, think of the above...
    
    Joel
    	
    	
    	
    	
    	
    	
    	 
    	 
    	
    	
      

    
    re: .10 (Todd)
    
    I'm confused.  Your reply (.10) seems to be referring to my 
    reply (.9), but I can't see the connection to any question that
    I asked.
    
    I had already inferred most of what you wrote in .10 from what you
    wrote in .8 - which reflects my view on the subject very nicely.
    Of course, .10 fleshed things out into a clearer picture.
    
    I guess what I was really trying to ask was this:  Is there something
    about this hand-shaking phenomenon that would indicate any certain
    *psychological* technique was being employed by the "psychic"?  
    
    I got the overall impression that the reader was trying to accent
    (by approval - the hand-shake struck me as akin to "back-slapping")
    and foster certain behavior from his clients whereby he could 
    obtain more information about them.  I'm curious if this is a "well-
    known" technique.
    
    I apologize for being unclear.
    
    guy

    Nah, it had nothing to do with your note, I was just on a soapbox
    this morning.   I agree with most of Joel's stuff, I just get a little
    tired of inferring when I read it that advisors have no value
    just because some panel of judges can't validate their theories of
    why it is helpful.  Maybe I should just stop inferring that, huh ?  :-)
    
    Yes, hand-shaking has been known to be used as part of
    psychological behavioral influence (not that I would know whether this 
    person was consciously or unconsciously using it as such).
    
    It is a unit of behavior that is so automatic that it can be linked to
    other behaviors, or subtly interrupted in the middle to create a momentary
    condition of altered suggestibility.
    
    The late master hypnotherapist Milton Erickson was famous for his use
    of handshaking behavior to alter suggestibility as part of induction
    for therapeutic purposes.
    
    							todd

    re: .13  (Todd)
    
    Quite right in not inferring that I belief advisors, psychic
    or otherwise, have no value whatsoever.  To the extent that
    any advisor is caring and supportive, value is added right
    there.  
    
    Advisors can be friends as well as business associates,
    and there is value to friendship, is their not?  ;^)
    
    Joel
    

Pauline,

Did you ever find a reader?

Beth

RE: .3, .11 (Joel)

    (in .3):
>    There was an excellent article in the Zetetic Scholar a few

    (in .11):
>    The article is in "The Zetetic 1 (Spring-Summer 1977,

    Just so no one is confused, The Zetetic and the "Zetetic Scholar" are
    two different, though related,  magazines.  The original co-founders of
    CSICOP were Paul Kurz (a philosopher) and Marcello Truzzi (a
    sociologist).  Originally the publication of CSICOP was entitled "The
    Zetetic" and was editted by Truzzi.

    Truzzi took the attitude that the proper way of championing
    rationallity and the scientific worldview, was to provide a forum where
    all sides of the question could present their evidence and arguments
    and the readership could judge for themselves.

    Kurz and most (all?) of the rest of the central committee felt that
    Truzzi was therefore "soft on psychics" (by the way, it seems like the
    surface bone of contention was not actually anyone supporting any
    paranormal claim, but Truzzi allowing a scientist who challenged some
    of Kurz's activities on the basis that scientists who were unfamiliar
    with specific evidence for/against specific claims could at best
    express personal beliefs, on the issue, not "scientific opinion").  As
    a result, Truzzi was pressured into leaving CSICOP, which he did.

    The Zetetic was given a new editor, and retitled, "The Skeptical
    Inquireer" and became pretty much the advocacy magazine it is today
    (although it has mellowed some of the years -- occasionally an opinion
    which is not wholly in suport of the basic philosophy can now be
    found).

    Truzzi founded the Zetetic Scholar.  Since he is no longer bound by
    being the organ of a social advocacy organization (which even Truzzi
    felt CSICOP should be: it was why it was founded after all.  Truzzi
    just felt that that advocacy was best and most honestly served by open
    debate), the Zetetic Scholar is more purely a forum for rational debate
    on what some feel are essentially irrational subjects.  Basically, if
    you cross the Zetetic Scholar with the Skeptical Inquirer you would get
    The Zetetic.

				    Topher

    Some thoughts...
    
    We all read other peoples' body language to a greater or lesser degree,
    sometimes not even aware that we do. I know there are some things my
    wife is better at picking up about people so I often watch her reaction
    to someone. I am amazed and amused at how accurate the feedback is at
    times.  
    
    A skilled body language reader could tell much about a person and with
    a bit of training could become a convincing "psychic" reader. Actual
    body contact ie shaking hands, conveys yet another level of transmitted
    signals. 
    
    With this in mind I can understand how a psychic reader who is really
    "tuned in" could tell us lots about ourselves that we are, in effect,
    telling them. Maybe some people are so skilled that these abilities
    transcend the norm ?
    
    A negative aspect though is when a reader goes so far as to predict the
    future, this could have the individual tying themselves to this and
    therefore realising a path that may have been otherwise ?
    
    	- Brian

    re: .9,.12.,.13
    
    I think that repetitive handshaking most closely resembles the
    motion of priming a pump.  Linguistically speaking, there's a
    definite connection between that motion and information.  As we
    say, "He pumped me for information."  Information, like water,
    "flows" or "trickles" or "gushes."  When you prime a pump con-
    nected to a well, there's a point when the handle grows heavy as
    it starts to lift the water.
    
    Perhaps a trained "psychic" could sense when a hand relaxes or
    grows heavy.  Perhaps the elbow drops.  Maybe this point takes
    four shakes in some people, six in others.  This relaxation 
    might indicate a client's readiness to provide (unconsciously)
    the clues that the "psychic" needs in order to appear psychic.
    
    Virginia
    
    

    Virginia,
    
    	That was a good explanation.  That's part of my understanding of what 
    	the hypnotherapist was doing as well when he induced 'trance' by 
    	means of handshaking.
    								todd

    
    
    Wow.  I get the feeling that very few people here consider *any* psychics
    to be valid.  I have had good readings and bad readings.  The
    information I received from one psychic was still valid some two years
    after the reading.  (Always tape your readings so that you can listen
    again at a later time).  I would think that one of the reasons a
    psychic would shake hands is to link in with your energy.  There is
    nothing wrong with this.  That is what a psychic reading is.  The
    psychic is reading your energy.
    
    Not all psychics are good and not all psychics are bad.  If you get a
    recommendation from someone whose opinion you trust, that's a good
    start.  Then be open to the reading but don't take in everything that
    is said 100%.  Validate it against your own experience.  Discard what
    isn't meaningful.
    
    IMO
    
    Carole

    
    Thanks for the ideas, Todd and Virginia.....
    
    guy

    what do folks think about Psychics who are used (hired) in police
    work?  Those that are successful of course.
    
                       

    re: .22
    
    Is there certain evidence that they have been successful?
    Beyond, that is, what can be explainable via more ordinary
    means?
    
    But this is one of those (for skeptics) ****** if you do,
    ****** if you don't situations.  If you take the position
    of people like physicists Milton Rothman and Victor Stenger,
    that such phenomena are, practically speaking, impossible,
    you're a dratted dogmatist, close-minded, etc.  (my own
    position is that I am not technically competetent to
    judge pro and con arguments relating to whether or not
    physics as we understand it allows for psychic phenomena,
    so I regard the reality of such phenomena as controversial,
    and hope some day there will be unambiguous proof one way
    or the other.)
    
    But if you take the position that each and every case must
    be investigated on its own merits, you run into the fact
    that there are always going to be more cases than there are
    investigators, and investigators representing opposing 
    viewpoints will examine the same evidence and come to
    differing conclusions.
    
    Thus, I do not think it altogether accurate to simply state
    that no psychics have ever helped police through paranormal
    means.  There's always the: well, what about the {whatever}
    case?
    
    In short, whether or not psychics have ever used parnormal
    means to aid police in their investigations is yet another
    controversial matter.  There are folks on both sides of the
    fence who are quite convinced that their view if the only
    proper and correct view.  The fact that there are serious
    opposing views says: controversial.
    
    Joel
    

    A frequent claim made by psychics is that they have aided the police in
    one way or another in some investigation.  In many such cases, closer
    investigation reveals that the claims are groundless.  In some cases
    the psychics are engaging in complete fabrication, in some they are
    exagerating, and in some they are genuinely confused about what they
    said (in detail, remember details are what are important), when they
    said it, when and if it were ever confirmed, and how clear, unambigous
    and unlikely to be guessed what they "discovered" was.  There is a core
    of cases which can only be explained by extraordinary coincidence or by
    psi.

    Unfortunately, extraordinary coincidences do occur, particularly with
    almost *every* well publicized missing person, etc. case produces
    many people -- both "professional" psychics and ordinary folk -- with
    hunches, visions, etc.

    I've been involved in only one case of psychic sleuthing.  I had some
    reason to believe that the psychic involved might actually be able to
    come up with something.  The results were tantalizing but negative.  A
    lot of essentially irrelevant details checked out amazingly well, but
    everything of any importance turned out dead wrong.  (The psychic was
    honestly surprised and upset by this.  They were used to lots of
    information coming through indistinctly and having to guess -- often
    incorrectly -- at what it meant, but felt that in the past whatever did
    come through clearly was almost always correct).

    The bottom line is, if you don't believe in psychic phenomena, there is
    little in "psychic detective work" to rationally convince you
    otherwise.  If you accept psychic phenomena as real on the basis of
    other evidence, than some psychic detective work being real is
    plausible and some cases which are probable examples can be found.

    Also, most claims of "having helped the police" psychically, even
    sincere ones, are not accurate.

					Topher

re: .24  (Topher)

>    The bottom line is, if you don't believe in psychic phenomena, there is
>    little in "psychic detective work" to rationally convince you
>    otherwise.  If you accept psychic phenomena as real on the basis of
>    other evidence, than some psychic detective work being real is
>    plausible and some cases which are probable examples can be found.


	As usual, Topher, excellent analysis.

	But what does the "skeptic's skeptic" do in evaluating
	the evidence?  Who to believe - the physicists who say
	that paranormal phenomena are impossible or the physicists
	who say paranormal _is_ possible?  How does the layman
	judge the competing claims?

	The question, I guess, is only semi-rhetorical.  Clearly,
	you believe not only that paranormal phenomena are possible,
	but that certain phenomena have been demonstrated
	conclusively.  Just as clearly, people looking at (perhaps)
	the same database come to differing conclusions.  And I,
	not being trained in parapsychological/psychological
	experimental design, statistics, physics, etc., etc., can
	only deal with secondary sources.  And, to my mind, can
	therefore only conclude that the whole field is controversial.
	That each side has "smoking guns" that "prove" their case.

	Is there any way out of this impasse?  Or will someone
	who (like myself) is skeptical not only of psychic
	phenomena but of psychic skeptics forever have to put
	the field into the category of `unknowable for sure'?

	Joel

RE: .22 (Joel)

>    If you take the position of people like physicists Milton Rothman and
>    Victor Stenger, that such phenomena are, practically speaking,
>    impossible, you're a dratted dogmatist, close-minded, etc.

    I think that accurately sums it up.  If you take the attitude, as many
    self professed "skeptics" do, that since the evidence contradicts the
    theory the evidence may be simply assumed wrong then you are a
    dogmatist.  Of course, they work hard at finding rationalizations for
    why their outright dogmatism should be considered good science.  When
    considered in isolation from the actual nature and extent of evidence
    these rationalizations seem quite plausible.

    The usual way makes use of the mantra "Extraordinary Claims Require
    Extraordinary Evidence".  Chanted loudly and often, this mantra (which
    I think is correct within rational bounds) allows one to dispose of
    *any* uncomfortable evidence.  One simply invents ad hoc any new
    evidential requirements needed, and, if anyone bothers to protest that
    this requirement is not normally applied, one chants ones mantra and
    throws some "irrationalist" or "pseudoscience" labels at the protester.

    So, for example, all the major critics (with the sole exception of Ray
    Hyman) claim that in parapsychology (and in parapsychology alone) that
    a positive outcome for a parapsychological experiment can be taken as
    evidence and even proof of experimenter fraud -- without any other
    evidence being necessary.  That is, there is an evidential standard
    (according to critics) for parapsychology that a parapsychological
    experiment must be proven not to be attributable by fraud on the part
    of the experimenter or a group of experimenters.  All the major critics
    (including Ray Hyman) accept a positive outcome as proof of gross
    incompetence.  All the major critics require implicitly a
    "extraordinary" kind of replicability: the experiment must be
    reproducable at will, by anyone, at any time, with a large unambiguous
    effect (none of this "statistics" stuff that is OK for ordinary
    hypotheses), regardless of skills, circumstance or opportunity.
    (Parapsychological experiments have been shown to be at least as
    consistent and reproduceable as such physical experiments as attempts
    to measure the mass of the muon).  Other requirements various critics
    have made at various times are that the experiment must be at least 35
    years old (I'm not kidding, that's from Ray Hyman), that the
    parapsychologist must be able not only to prove that no known
    explanation will suffice, but must be able to prove that no one will
    ever be able to think of an explanation (I think that one is Hyman
    again, but I wouldn't swear to it).  I could go on, and on.  Needless
    to say, these requirements are such that no experiment in any field
    could possibly meet them all.

    Needless to say, I have given a great deal of study and thought to the
    reconcilability of psi phenomena to with contemporary conventional
    physics.  I think that at least some new fundamental science will be
    needed to explain the findings but not as much as has been required in
    the past.  Certainly nothing as radical as the fundamental changes
    which are part of relativity and QM or which are being considered by
    such modern work as string theory or cosmological wormhole theory.

    What makes psi results seem so impossible is that they appear to
    challenge some strong philosophical beliefs (most importantly
    materialistic monism), though I don't think that they actually
    contradict them.  They also are in conflict with some long held
    assumptions, on a number of levels, that have proven useful in the
    past.  The most physical is that precognition and retroactive PK are in
    clear contradiction to the "Causality Principle" (i.e., the cause always
    precedes the effect).  Despite the beating that the causality principle
    has received of late (or perhaps because of it), some have sought to
    claim that the Causality Principle is a fundamental logical rule, that
    no coherent universe could exist without it, and that therefore no
    observations could possibly exist which are inconsistent with it (this
    is rather muddled thinking, to say the least).

    Even more gut level, but even less justified, is long standing belief
    -- in many ways an essential belief for the founding of experimental
    science -- that completely isolated systems (most importantly, from an
    experimenter) are obtainable by taking rather simple precautions.
    At the most fundamental level, parapsychological experiments (most
    directly PK experiments) can be viewed as tests of this assumption,
    which has by non-extraordinary scientific standards been overwhelmingly
    falsified.

				Topher

    Joel,
    	It might be of some use to at some time consider whether beliefs serve 
    a much more significant place in the psyche than simply giving a basis 
    for rational decision making.  It is my contention that every living
    person has some areas of unshakable faith that hold together their
    conscious identity and cannot be questioned without profound anxiety,
    or even stark terror (no pun intended).
    
    	In deciding what to believe at the malleable level of rational
    learnings, we sometimes forget that there are deeply held beliefs
    imprinted on us very early, which may not even be conscious.
    
    	In trying to determine whether a defined class of phenomena
    is 'true' or not, we run into the problem that some part or implication
    of that defined class of phenomena may be in disagreement with a deep
    imprint.  This creates a bias that causes us to want to either
    completely accept or completely reject entire categories of evidence.
    
    	If your aim is to discover 'what is true' at the deepest level
    of reality, at least as far as your nervous system can perceive, you would 
    need not only to test evidence about classes of phenomena, but also
    systematically test the previous conscious and unconscious assumptions
    formed arbitrarily throughout life.  
    
    	For most people, I think the aim is more akin to finding out what
    kinds of general rules apply to reality that seem to agree with their
    previously established imprints and conditioning (cultural, linguistic,
    etc.).  In that sense, you may be in an untenable position, since some
    of the category of psychic phenomena may well be in violation of your
    unconscious imprints about reality, and some of it may be acceptable
    to you rationally, and you may never be able to reconcile the two
    aspects.  Processes that occur in reality are not neccessarily
    constrained to behave in the categories we have defined for them with
    our culture and language.   Those structures mainly provide a way
    to get a consistent view of things to help us survive in some ways,
    like the way we form personality mask to help us get along in
    various aspects of life.
    
    								todd
    

    I've been to a psychic in Lowell who is excellent!  Her name is 
    Donna Lambert.  Her phone number is 459-9140.
    
    Gale
    

RE: .24  (Topher)

I must say that your note seems to me to illustrate the old saw
that enemies eventually come to resemble one another - though I
hope the word "enemies" is too strong for the dispute between
the parapsychologists and their critics.

I will respond in two ways.  First, I will respond as a
"self professed "skeptic"" might, to illustrate my point
above.  The parallel charges of both sides are to me
quite striking.  Not just in your note of course (I'm not
trying to personalize this and single you out) but in the
literature as a whole.  Secondly, I will present the approach
that I favor for the study of anamolous phenomena.

Now you say: "If you take the attitude, as many self professed
"skeptics" do, that since the evidence contradicts the theory
the evidence may be simply assumed wrong then you are a dogmatist."
etc.  Skeptical critics say things like: The physical evidence
in favor of the impossibility of psi is so overwhelmingly verified
experimentally that self professed "parapsychologists" deny this
evidence only because of their dogmatism.  

Both sides, by my lights, overuse the word `dogmatic.'  I believe
that dogmatism can be charged to those critics who use physicists'
arguments without proper understanding of the basis of those
arguments.  If I, for instance, were to take the view that 
psi is impossible, I would clearly be taking a dogmatic position.
Because I am not trained in physics.  

But when a guy like Stenger takes that view, I see no reason to
call him a dogmatist.  Stenger et. al. very simply believe that the
evidence indicates that psi cannot happen.  They talk of "laws of
denial" and point out that without such laws we would still 
require the patent bureau to investigate every perpetual motion
machine they run across - sans working model.  And by the same
token, it isn't dogmatism for someone like Evan Harris Walker to
insist that psi phenomena _do_ come within the umbrella of the
possibility.

And you say, for instance, that "all the major critics (with
the sole exception of Ray Hyman) claim that in parapsychology
(and in parapsychology alone) that a positive outcome for a
parapsychological experiment can be taken as evidence and even
proof of experimenter fraud -- without any other evidence being
necessary."  etc.  Some critics might say things like: All the
major parapsychologists with the sole exception of {fill in a
name} are practicing pseudoscience.  They have a non-falsifiable
quarry, and the process of trying to catch it is not science.

Both positions, to this interested layman, seem to me to be
caricatures of reality.  In reality, there are many critics
who take approaches similar to Hyman's - Eric Dingwall, Hansel,
and Persi Diaconis come immediately to mind.  Let's not forget
Susan Blackmore, and we won't, as I will speak of her below.

But this note would be getting long, longer, longest if I
look at every one of your statements that seem to me to be
mirror images of the skeptics you decry.  Suffice it to say
that we could go down the line(s) [;^)] and point out how
closely your view of the skeptics parallels the views many
skeptics have of parapsychologists.  My original question
still stands: how is the interested non-professional to choose?
Whose absolutely-so-firm-evidence-that-only-a-dogmatist-can-doubt
should one choose?

I endorse the Susan Blackmore approach.

I'm sure you know about Blackmore, but for the benefit of those
who are already starting to nod off at this note, let me offer
a brief precis of her evolution from parapsychologist to skeptic
to somewhere in between.

Blackmore spent ten years, at the Oxford University Society for
Psychical Research and at Surrey University, doing various experiments
in and around ESP.  To make a very long story very short, in ten
years of research she found no evidence for psi.  She began a
period of - I guess you could call it an inner crisis - several
years in which she tried out various intellectual positions,
including that of the "hostile" skeptic.  

Her current position (unless she has recently changed yet again)
is that we should be studying a science of the anamolous.  She
would suggest that we study anamolous phenomena with a view towards
understanding the phenomena, including the mechanisms.  So long as
the focus is on psi, you will continue to get the emotionally
charged debate that you see in the literature.

The point is to avoid saying that this, that, or the other
result is evidence for or against psi.  Forget about psi.
Talk anamolous and see where it leads.

Imagine that - a way to (possibly) defang both sides and
arm them with more light, less heat.

Joel

    re: .27  (Todd)
    
    An interesting and thoughful note.  
    
    Perhaps my last note, in response to Topher's .24, helps
    clarify my position.  I can say that I regard the prospect
    of paranormal phenomena being ultimately "proved true"
    with perfect equanimity.  That is, if such phenomena come
    to be demonstrated and understood to a very high degree
    of precision - if the controversy is finally resolved in
    favor of the paranormal - well, that's fine with me.
    
    But what you say about unconscious imprints is no doubt
    true.  There is also a genetic factor involved as well.
    I know of at least one "twin theory" researcher who 
    (very tentatively) believes that belief in religion may
    have a genetic origin.  If this is true, then skepticism
    could be accounted for in a similar manner.  This theory
    is quite tentative and I wouldn't put it forward as 
    provable, or even necessarily likely.  I bring it up only
    to point out one of the many possible ways to look at
    this subject.
    
    But there is also a large element that has nothing to do 
    with overall belief systems, conscious or otherwise.  
    We know, for instance, that you really cannot saw a woman
    in half and put her back together again as she smiles through
    the process.  We know it is a conjuring trick, and we could
    probably go to the local magic store and buy a book that 
    explains just how it is done.  But, failing that, and not
    having that knowledge, we somehow know that we are seeing
    a trick.  We know that is isn't really possible to saw
    someone in half without killing that person.  Even if we
    don't know exactly how it's done.
    
    So where does something like that fit in?  How about belief
    in gravity?  Is that controversial?  Does it depend upon
    one's a priori belief systems?  I suspect in a way it does.
    We are not raised to regard gravity as controversial, though
    various aspects of this piece of the universe may be debated
    for years to come.  
    
    Thus, I see all this as points upon a (closed) continuum.
    At each end are beliefs that are virtually without controversy,
    as either being unquestionably true or unquestionably false.
    (gravity/sawing woman in half)  As we get closer to the
    center, naturally, we get fuzzier and fuzzier, more and more
    controversial.
    
    It is in this region that belief systems tied into one's
    personal identity start getting bad vibes about being wrong.
    And if blind spots are involved, then by definition we will
    all be in this respect relatively more open to each other
    than to ourselves...
    
    Joel
    

	>      Note 1440.30 
        >      RIPPLE::GRANT_JO 

>    An interesting and thoughful note.  
    
    	You flatterer, you.  :-)
    	Thanks.
    
>    Perhaps my last note, in response to Topher's .24, helps
>    clarify my position.  I can say that I regard the prospect
    
    Yes, I like that idea of getting away from strict polarization
    of positions into existing categories by dedicating a science
    of the anomalous.   Sort of a formallized mechanism for
    paradigm shifting ?

    My main point was that the 'consensus model of objective truth,'
    while a useful basis for building tools, is not neccessarily
    the best basis for personal decision making in people's lives.

    It's the idea of using the best tool for the job at hand.
    If you want to have 30 people work together and build a
    barn or something, they should share a single map of what
    they are doing for best efficiency within that context.  But for each 
    of them to make the personal decision of whether they want to contribute, 
    or what part they want to play, they are best guided by subjective 
    considerations, not consensus models of truth.  One might be better 
    guided by a psychic, in line with their own reality, another might
    look to their Bible, another meditate, another draw a Franklin chart
    of pros and cons, etc..

    If everyone believed in a single objective truth in all areas
    of life, we would all be doing the same things in the same way,
    and we would be a mechanical species rather than a living, evolving
    one.   That's why in my opinion it is very important for people to
    retain and treasure their personal freedom of belief, and continually
    make finer and finer distinctions for themselves, not turn it over
    to the arbitrary standard of consensus truth for grand generallizations
    (like 'does telepathy work', etc.) that is the current popular model of 
    how something works.  It is amazing how often and how easily people 
    accept consensus truths as their own, out of convenience.

    There are innumerable possibilities for establishing meaningful
    personal rules as to reality processes, we don't have to accept
    the definitions and rules in textbooks, except for specific contexts
    of working together.
    
>    But there is also a large element that has nothing to do 
>    with overall belief systems, conscious or otherwise.  
    
    	That's where we differ.  I think we limit our
    	mental flexibility in solving the problems of our own lives
    	by assuming that any truth exists outside of ourselves that someone 
    	else can tell us about and doesn't need to be verified in our
    	own subjective framework.
    
>    We know, for instance, that you really cannot saw a woman
>    in half and put her back together again as she smiles through
>    the process.  We know it is a conjuring trick, and we could
    
    	Great example.  You have a great motivation for not believing
    	that such a thing is possible and not verifying it for yourself.
    	You don't want to get swindled, right ?  A five year old might
    	have a good reason for accepting it, at least stepping into the
    	fantasy for a moment.  He wants to enjoy himself
    	and be entertained.  You might not later become a stage 
    	magician because you see it from the view of deceit.  The child
    	might later become one because he sees the magic.  And magic
    	is real, at least for the nervous system of the person experiencing 
    	it.  And that's as real as anything can get.  Everyone who
    	buys a ticket knows that what they are seeing contains 
    	elements of deliberately devised illusion.
    
    	The only difference between an illusionists show and the one
    	we live out every day is that we don't admit to ourselves that
    	the latter is an illusion.   We live within its apparent rules
    	because they *work* on a statistical basis.  We reject the
    	errant data points.   A lot of parapsychological phenomena
    	exists as errant data points, and is a matter of personal 
    	reality mapping and testing at this level of technology.
    
    							todd

    Re .31 (Todd):

    >If everyone believed in a single objective truth in all areas
    >of life, we would all be doing the same things in the same way,
    >and we would be a mechanical species rather than a living, evolving
    >one.

    I have to demur, gently, on this one.  Even if we all believe in a
    "single objective truth"; each of us has a different personality, so
    how one applies that "truth" would vary from individual to individual.

    > ...  That's why in my opinion it is very important for people to
    >retain and treasure their personal freedom of belief, and continually
    >make finer and finer distinctions for themselves, not turn it over
    >to the arbitrary standard of consensus truth for grand generalizations
    >(like 'does telepathy work', etc.) that is the current popular model of 
    >how something works.  It is amazing how often and how easily people 
    >accept consensus truths as their own, out of convenience.
    
    Whoops!  Is it a generalization to explain "how television works"? 
    Does it require some sort of "consensus truth" to determine such things
    as modulation, signal polarization, heterodyning, and the like?  Are
    concepts such as inductance, capacitance, and impedance just a "popular
    model" of how something works?

    Assume telepathy works [please don't argue with an assumption].  If it
    does, its mechanism would _not_ be a matter of agreement, but might be
    arrived at by appropriate research [paraneurology???].  This is not to
    say that a theoretical model might not be built that would account for
    the effect, but which might not be "true" [an analogous example would
    be the geocentric (Ptolemaec) theory of planetary motion -- it was
    incorrect, but from an observer's standpoint, it gave correct
    results].

        >That's where we differ.  I think we limit our
    	>mental flexibility in solving the problems of our own lives
    	>by assuming that any truth exists outside of ourselves that someone 
    	>else can tell us about and doesn't need to be verified in our
    	>own subjective framework.
        
    "Problems of our own lives" is an inherently subjective stance; if a
    _problem_ presents itself (e.g.: "I have a fence 75 feet long and 6
    feet high that I want to paint.  How much paint do I need?"), you need
    outside data (e.g., how many square feet of fence surface is involved
    [in this case, 900 square feet, if we paint both sides], how many
    square feet are covered by the content of a can [varies with paint type
    and manufacturer], and how many coats are needed) to get the problem
    "solved."  

>>    We know, for instance, that you really cannot saw a woman
>>    in half and put her back together again as she smiles through
>>    the process.  We know it is a conjuring trick, and we could
 
     The reason we _know_ it's a conjuring trick is that it's presented  
     as one.  A staged (or televised) "magic act" is meant to be presented
     as no more than a series of clever stunts. 

        >Great example.  You have a great motivation for not believing
    	>that such a thing is possible and not verifying it for yourself.
    	>You don't want to get swindled, right ?  A five year old might
    	>have a good reason for accepting it, at least stepping into the
    	>fantasy for a moment.  He wants to enjoy himself
    	>and be entertained.

    Another reason for "not believing such a thing is possible" is that,
    like the five-year-old, Joel wants to be entertained.  There are, in
    some books on prestidigitation, several explanations presented on how to do
    the trick.  The operative of the [usual, modern] adult is, "How did the
    magician _do_ that?"

    However, from a standpoint of discussing a paranormal phenomenon, it's
    an extraordinarily poor choice simply because it's using something
    inarguably _not_ paranormal to make a case about the value of
    paranormal investigations.  This is _not_ to cast aspersions at Joel;
    rather, it's to lay the groundwork for the following:

    There are two _main_ views on paranormal demos/phenomena. 

    1) They are "real"; meaning, whatever's going on is genuine (although
       possibly misinterpreted).

    2) They are fraudulent.

    Muddying the waters is that _some_ things paranormal have been exposed
    as being fraudulent (e.g., the Fox Sisters' seances).  Some extend this
    to a general principle that all _must be_ fraudulent, since they don't
    fit into scientific knowledge as we know it.  If fraud cannot be
    shown, the person believing implicitly that fraud is involved just
    indicates that the method of fraud hasn't been worked out sufficiently.
    That it would be _shown_ as fraud is merely a matter of time.

    Do "anomalous" conditions manifest themselves?  I believe so.  Can I
    prove this conclusively?  Not yet.  Would I want to?  Maybe [If, say, the
    only telepathy-related device I could make would cause instant insanity
    to anyone within 50 feet of the device, I'd think carefully before even
    letting people know anything of the sort was possible].

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .32
    
    As always, excellent points.
    
    I would agree that my `impossible' example from conjuring 
    arts was ill-chosen, simply because it seems like an
    equation of paranormal=fraud.  Let me re-start with a
    different example and try to make my point more explicitly.
    For what I was trying to deal with was the rhetorical
    structure of the paranormal debate.  The rhetorical structure
    reminds me of such debates as abortion, gun control, etc.
    
    Some things are, quite simply, physically impossible.  They
    are so clearly physically impossible that you can say so 
    without fear of being labeled a dogmatist.  You won't be
    stepping on too many people's fundamental philosophical
    beliefs about the nature of the universe.
    
    There are other things which are so certainly true that you
    may confidently represent them as such without having to
    worry about skeptics stepping in and demanding that you
    prove your assertion.  
    
    So, rhetorically, let us place on one end those things which
    are unarguably impossible and let us place on the other end
    those things which are unarguably certain.  As we move closer
    to the middle we move closer to controversy.  Rhetorical gridlock
    occurs when controversial matters are argued as if they were
    not controversial at all.  This doesn't mean that one or the
    other side isn't "right" in what they argue; their argument is
    that (in effect) we should move the topic to one or the other
    end of the scale.
    
    The gun fancier and the pro gun controller would both argue
    that the issue of gun control should not be controversial.
    They are both absolutely correct and the other side is 
    absolutely wrong.  There should be no debate about a woman's
    right to control her own body; and there should be no debate
    about the vicious baby killers called abortionists.  All
    parpsychologists are crackpots or frauds; all skeptics are
    close-minded dogmatists.
    
    You get the idea.  Virtual consensus exists on many subjects.
    If you think that a human being can consume a 50' by 50' cube
    of platinum in thirty seconds - you're wrong.  But no one I
    know is making that claim.  It's not a controversial topic.
    
    The treatment of controversy as if it were a settled matter
    is not altogether a bad thing.  It can be entertaining and
    instructive and who knows what else?  Sometimes, truth can
    emerge from such fires.  My general experience, though, is
    that this kind of rhetorical polarization tends to freeze
    (no pun intended ;^) ) positions in place rather than
    facilitate movement towards truth.
    
    Joel
     

    re: .32 (Steve),
    
    	Thanks for your reply !  I don't know if you find these issues of
        'true model' and 'personality' worth discussing, since that is 
    	where we differ, and it's something of a sideline.
    	
    	I think I have a *totally* different view of human perception.
    	
    	If you want to discuss this philosophy/psychology with me 
    	[perhaps out of some deep massochistic tendency on your part] 
    	I'll add my remarks after the <FF>.
    
    
    
>    I have to demur, gently, on this one.  Even if we all believe in a
>    "single objective truth"; each of us has a different personality, so
>    how one applies that "truth" would vary from individual to individual.
    
    	Where do you think most of personality comes from ?  Directly
    	from genetic programmed responses to specific physical stimulii ?
    	Maybe somewhat for a reptile, not for us.  No, it comes largely from 
    	information, our beliefs about what is true.
    
    	The next time you respond in a certain characteristic way to 
    	something, think about why you do that, and what you might
    	believe that causes it.  To verify that beliefs directly 
    	influence behavior, try assuming something other than what
    	you really believe, and see if you don't think it would make
    	you behave differently.  If this seems confusing, I can give
    	some examples.  What you think is truth determines most of
    	how you interact with your environment, *unless* you are
    	an unusually highly evolved individual.
    
    	Having momentarily made the assumption, that belief 
    	determines behavior to a significant extent, I'll describe why this is 
    	important.  In particular, I'll describe the reason why I reject the 
    	term 'true model,' as a potentially very insidious psychological error.
    
    	What you described in each case was the usefulness of consensus
    	models, which I never denied.  What I deny is that they are any
    	more 'true' than Ptolemy's model.   They are more elegant and more
    	useful.  This isn't just nit-picking over the philosophy of truth,
    	it can also have some important personal implications.
    	
>    arrived at by appropriate research [paraneurology???].  This is not to
>    say that a theoretical model might not be built that would account for
>    the effect, but which might not be "true" [an analogous example would
>    be the geocentric (Ptolemaec) theory of planetary motion -- it was
>    incorrect, but from an observer's standpoint, it gave correct
>    results].
    
    	To talk about true models, as opposed to useful ones, you may 
    	[possibly] not be familiar with (or have rejected) some of the 
    	discoveries about human perception made in the field of Cognitive 
    	Psychology in the recent past.  Cybernetic principles and the general 
    	theory of systems were applied to the modelling of human behavior
    	and the study of how we use language to communicate.  
    	Cross-cultural research by a number of anthropologists,
    	psychologists,and linguists was accumlated to validate 
    	various theories of how language affects and limits perception, 
    	and how mental constructs are expressed in language terms.
    	
    	It was determined that a very powerful theory of human behavior
    	could be built around the notion that human thought processes 
    	operate on an internal model of reality that is built by the nervous 
    	system.   The premise is that we behaviorally operate on this model, 
    	not directly on reality, rather like a robot operating on programming 
    	and an internal database, rather than simply responding to 
    	environmental stimulii in a pre-programmed way.  
    	
    	The first detailed study of this modelling 
    	process was done by the linguist Count Alfred Korzybski in the early 
    	1900's.  Korzybski's work, along with Noam Chomsky and others, served 
    	as the basis for a number of psychological technologies that are
    	currently in widespread use.  
    
    	The significance of this theory of the internal neurological
    	model and its practical verification by so many people, is that 
    	it implies that we have no direct knowledge of reality processes,
    	we deduce the rules from what we observe.  Any given data point
    	is always interpreted in terms of the current model.  By selecting an 
    	appropriate interpretation of Quantum Physics and Relativity,
    	we can always *assume* that there is a single, unchanging reality
    	with a single set of unchanging rules (though it cannot yet be
    	proven) but there is nothing inherent even in that assumption that 
    	implies that we can ever know all the rules.  There is no way 
    	to know whether there is yet another sneaky reality process
    	that we haven't modelled yet, or a deeper level or understanding 
    	of space-time fabric that we haven't discovered yet.
    
    	It provokes tremendous anxiety in the scientist to think of such
    	things, just as it would provoke tremendous anxiety in the
    	religionist to be forced to question a crucial matter of creed.
    	But the scientist, ever searching for what is 'true' is forced
    	to face his dogma sometimes, when he researches things on the edge.
    	Many quantum physicists have crumbled under the pressure.
    
    	I'm not trying to support any spooky alternate reality theories,
    	I'm just using this as an example of why you can never be sure,
    	and why there must always be tolerance for and in fact
    	encouragement of alternate beliefs from the consensus,
    	and allowance for re-definition of our terms and concepts.
    	
    								todd

    re .34 (Todd):

        >Thanks for your reply !  I don't know if you find these issues of
        >'true model' and 'personality' worth discussing, since that is 
    	>where we differ, and it's something of a sideline.
       
        >If you want to discuss this philosophy/psychology with me 
    	>[perhaps out of some deep masochistic tendency on your part] 
    	>I'll add my remarks after the <FF>.
        
    Not to worry, though, given my workload, I'll be brief.

        >Where do you think most of personality comes from ?  Directly
    	>from genetic programmed responses to specific physical stimuli ?
    	>Maybe somewhat for a reptile, not for us.  No, it comes largely from 
    	>information, our beliefs about what is true.
        
    Some and some.  Some, I believe, is environmental; some is genetic.  I
    can see differences, FWIW, in the personalities of different reptiles 
    raised in effectively identical circumstances (when I was younger, I
    had a thing for turtles.  I still like 'em, and I also enjoy lizards,
    crocodilians, and iguanas).  Reptilian psychology is much more stark,
    and it _can_ be modified by environment (as can icthyoid -- and try to
    find much of a brain in, say, a tunny), so the genetic versus
    environment discussion will go on for eons, if left to its own devices.

        > ................ To verify that beliefs directly 
    	>influence behavior, try assuming something other than what
    	>you really believe, and see if you don't think it would make
    	>you behave differently. 

    Sure.  I can assume "Fire is not dangerous."  Then I wouldn't worry
    about being burned, and wouldn't bother to evacuate from a burning
    building.

        >What you described in each case was the usefulness of consensus
    	>models, which I never denied.  What I deny is that they are any
    	>more 'true' than Ptolemy's model.   They are more elegant and more
    	>useful.  This isn't just nit-picking over the philosophy of truth,
    	>it can also have some important personal implications.
    	
    Well, the heliocentric model encompasses more than the geocentric (that
    is, it tracks more easily at finer stages of granularity: try to
    establish a geocentric model that also includes the -- oh, for
    simplicity, _just_ the actions of the Galilean moons).  While it is
    theoretically possible to develop a construct wherein the proper
    motions would fit -- probably through some form of Fourier operation --
    that alone wouldn't _operationally_ place it on a par with the simpler
    Keplerian model (yes, I'm aware that Copernicus retained the
    deferent/epicycle model). 

        >The first detailed study of this modeling 
    	>process was done by the linguist Count Alfred Korzybski in the early 
    	>1900's.  Korzybski's work, along with Noam Chomsky and others, served 
    	>as the basis for a number of psychological technologies that are
    	>currently in widespread use.  
        
    I'm familiar with Count Alfred.  General Semantics is a good "sanity
    check," if you will, and even can be said to be an extension of some
    principles expounded by Descartes.

        >The significance of this theory of the internal neurological
    	>model and its practical verification by so many people, is that 
    	>it implies that we have no direct knowledge of reality processes,
    	>we deduce the rules from what we observe.  Any given data point
    	>is always interpreted in terms of the current model.  By selecting an 
    	>appropriate interpretation of Quantum Physics and Relativity,
    	>we can always *assume* that there is a single, unchanging reality
    	>with a single set of unchanging rules (though it cannot yet be
    	>proven) but there is nothing inherent even in that assumption that 
    	>implies that we can ever know all the rules.

    Nor, for that matter, would any physical scientist, if pressed to the
    wall, admit that any discipline will produce all the answers: the goal
    is to try to develop a model [note the word] that will encompass as
    many of the perceived rules as possible.

    We have even a more basic assumption: that what follows will _ever_
    work as it has.  Every physical "law" so far discovered, from a
    philosophical perspective, could change overnight: that they don't is
    an article of faith.

        >It provokes tremendous anxiety in the scientist to think of such
    	>things, just as it would provoke tremendous anxiety in the
    	>religionist to be forced to question a crucial matter of creed.
    	
    Why?  If the scientist is really trying to get at the bottom of
    things, any new data that would enable him or her to build a better
    model should be welcome.

        >But the scientist, ever searching for what is 'true' is forced
    	>to face his dogma sometimes, when he researches things on the edge.
    	>Many quantum physicists have crumbled under the pressure.
        
    I guess that they don't make scientists the way they used to.  <sigh.>

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .32 (Steve)

>    Muddying the waters is that _some_ things paranormal have been exposed
>    as being fraudulent (e.g., the Fox Sisters' seances).

    Actually, its a considerable overstatement to say that the Fox Sisters
    have been exposed as fraudulent.  There is quite a bit of question
    about the case against them.  The major piece of evidence is a public
    confession by (I think, I always get them confused) Katie -- a
    confession not objected to at the time by her sister (Margaretta or
    Maggie).  The circumstances of the confession were highly questionable,
    however.  Katie (I'll assume it was Katie) was in rather bad financial
    straits.  She was offered a substantial sum of money to make a public
    confession and to reveal her methods.  She took up the offer and
    revealed that she had used a method (cracking her toe joints to produce
    rapping sounds) which had been speculated as to being their "secret".
    It was a plausible explanation for some but far from all of their feats
    (not to mention feet :-).  For example, at one time, under pretty tight
    conditions, a skeptical investigater scooped out of a dish a handful of
    small shells; holding them in his hands without counting them.  Raps
    (cracks?) identified precisely the number of shells.  This was repeated
    a second time.

    Katie immediately afterward retracted her confession, saying that she
    had made it in order to get the money.  Under fairly similar
    circumstances (but without the retraction), skeptics discount the
    confession of one of Houdini's assistants about having helped Houdini
    "frame" the medium Margery when he was unable to get unambiguous
    "goods" against her.  (There was later, however, pretty concrete
    evidence found for her fraud). Discounting prior doubt (which is not
    evidence) the case is weak.

				    Topher

    re: .36  (Topher)
    
    Actually, I have to side with Steve on this one.  I have some
    fairly extensive documentation on the Fox sisters (it was
    Margaret Fox Kane who confessed) and there is far more
    than her written confession and her repeated demonstrations
    to indicate they were conscious charlatans.  The confessions
    and demonstrations were really the icing on the cake.
    
    If you or anyone is interested I'd be glad (though it might
    take 'til Wednesday or so) to put in a detailed account of
    the Fox sisters.  It's kind of an interesting story.
    
    The very short version: they began their deceptions as a
    sort of joke/trick against their mother.  She was completely
    taken in (for understandable reasons, I believe) and the
    exposure started to widen.  Their older sister, who lived
    in another town, got involved, got the sisters to tell her
    how they did the tricks and started to promote them.  The
    rest is history.
    
    One final note, about the recantation - she did under direct
    threat from several psychics to have her (i.e., Margaret
    Fox Kane) committed to an institution and have her children
    taken away.  There are sordid aspects to the affair...
    
    Joel
    

    Please change the title of the Base note, since all of your discussions
    although fascinating, have nothing to do with the original request.

    Re .38:
    
    Done.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .35, (Steve):
    
    	The inherent problem with getting too involved in the nature/nurture 
    	arguments is that no matter *which* side you take, or both, you are 
    	still arguing for mechanically determined behavior, don't you see ?  
    
    	Not just in the sense of the free will/determinism dialectic, but
    	also in the sense of being able to predict another person's behavior 
    	from known finite factors.  Such things are done statistically
    	in psychology.  
    
    	That's one reason why we have violent criminals running around whom 
    	psychological models would predict to be harmless, and people locked 
    	up because other people can't seem to predict or control their 
    	behavior, even though it isn't criminal per se.   
    
    	I did some work in psychology a while back.
    	I saw numerous people who had been put in institutions simply because 
    	their psychiatrist (and often parents) couldn't understand or why 
    	they did or perceived the things they did.  Simply because they were 
    	eccentric, unpredictable in some controlled ways, and mainly because 
    	they saw things very differently.  None of these people I'm referring 
    	to had ever done anything even remotely harmful to themselves
    	or others.  Some of them brilliant, eccentric people who might
    	have contributed ground breaking views in some field.
    	
    	This kind of person is an errant data point in psychology,
    	as are many Magi, Psychics, and Mystics errant data points
    	in the consensus reality models.   
    
    	G. I. Gurdjieff and others have mumbled for ages all about how people 
    	are asleep and going through their mechanical lives and always
    	think they are alive but aren't.  Well, now with the mechanistic
    	models linking phenotype and genotype in biology and giving the
    	rest of our soul away to environmental influences, we can see
    	why someone might get that impression.  Because it's now provably
    	true  --  Statistically.  Except for a few people that for one reason
    	or other break free of that model and see things in a novel way
    	or behave in a way that others cannot predict or control.
    
    	That's the experience and reasoning behind my view of why we
    	can't afford to have 'one objective truth' enforced for all.  
    	Why we need to value freedom of belief and personal subjective 
    	thinking above mass education in consensus reality models.
    	Why we need to provide more thinking tools and less 'facts.'
    
    	Because you kill the very soul of humanity, every truly emergent 
    	property they may be capable of.
    
    							todd

    Re .40 (Todd):

        >The inherent problem with getting too involved in the nature/nurture 
    	>arguments is that no matter *which* side you take, or both, you are 
    	>still arguing for mechanically determined behavior, don't you see ?  
        
    Only if you wish to view it that way.

        >Not just in the sense of the free will/determinism dialectic, but
    	>also in the sense of being able to predict another person's behavior 
    	>from known finite factors.  Such things are done statistically
    	>in psychology.  
        
    1) "Predict[ing] another person's behavior from known finite
       factors," though, is squeezing a person into a model (from B.F.
       Skinner on up or down), and/or extrapolating into very tenuous
       territory.  The beauty of statistics is that the discipline works
       well for large numbers of data; however, for an individual datum,
       it becomes questionable.  [A story I love to tell is the
       experimenter who wanted to know which was a stronger urge -- hunger
       or sex.  So he made a Y-shaped wooden trough: in one side of the Y,
       he put food; in the other, he put a female rat in heat.  At the
       base, he put an adult male rat, and closed the little door.  Which
       did the rat choose?  He gnawed through the side of the trough and
       escaped.]

    2) Predicting an individual's behavior from a model implicitly answers,
       as far as the researcher's opinion is concerned, whether there's
       free will or strict determinism: a model is inherently
       deterministic.  

        >That's one reason why we have violent criminals running around whom 
    	>psychological models would predict to be harmless, and people locked 
    	>up because other people can't seem to predict or control their 
    	>behavior, even though it isn't criminal per se.   
        
    Hey!  That's the flaw in trying to use a "hard science" technique on
    something that's still a soft science.

        >This kind of person is an errant data point in psychology,
    	>as are many Magi, Psychics, and Mystics errant data points
    	>in the consensus reality models.   
        
    However, what's going on here is that because a discipline (that's
    hardly on a par with something like, say, biochemistry) sets up an
    overly restrictive model, there's an extrapolation to whatever might be
    construed as a "true model" in any other field.  Philosophically, we're
    not talking about Absolute Truth, but models that are closer and closer
    approximations of "truth."  One of my examples of a _consciously
    erroneous_ model that works just fine is that of Celestial Navigation,
    which mariners have used for centuries (though with refinements, as
    better equipment and/or chronometers have become available).  The
    assumption is that the stars are fixed pinpoints surrounding the Earth
    on the surface of a shell (just like some Medieval models of the
    Cosmos).  The model is completely erroneous, but it works just fine.

        >G. I. Gurdjieff and others have mumbled for ages all about how people 
    	>are asleep and going through their mechanical lives and always
    	>think they are alive but aren't.  Well, now with the mechanistic
    	>models linking phenotype and genotype in biology and giving the
    	>rest of our soul away to environmental influences, we can see
    	>why someone might get that impression.
     
    Who's doing that?  Not me.  One could likewise argue that Gurdjieff, et
    al., _think_ they're "more alive" than the ones they consider "asleep";
    but in fact, they're not perceiving some of what the others are. 
    Perspective can be a tricky thing.  If "you" wish to take the thought
    that because you cannot understand, say, the joys of "simple living,"
    as in seeming to be more "unaware," then "you" might be blinding
    "yourself" to an aspect of life "you" cannot comprehend.

	>That's the experience and reasoning behind my view of why we
    	>can't afford to have 'one objective truth' enforced for all.  
    	>Why we need to value freedom of belief and personal subjective 
    	>thinking above mass education in consensus reality models.
    	>Why we need to provide more thinking tools and less 'facts.'
        
    Who's "enforcing" anything?  In point of fact, there are many who
    neither know nor care about anything we might want to look at as an
    "objective truth."  Indeed, in a science quiz not too many years ago, 
    a significant number of people didn't know whether the Earth orbited
    the Sun, or vice versa.

        >Because you kill the very soul of humanity, every truly emergent 
    	>property they may be capable of.
        
    Humanity can manage to do a good job on itself without the help (or
    hindrance) of Seekers After Absolute Truth.  

    Getting back to basics for a moment: it's one thing to say something
    like, "I believe that the human potential is generally illusory."
    It's quite another to say, "I believe I can swim naked in molten iron
    for 20 minutes and emerge unharmed."  Whatever the ultimate "truth"
    about iron in the liquefied state ultimately is, it's more than a
    matter of pure opinion as to what would happen to an unclothed person
    who's dropped into it.

    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .41 (Steve)

>    2) Predicting an individual's behavior from a model implicitly answers,
>       as far as the researcher's opinion is concerned, whether there's
>       free will or strict determinism: a model is inherently
>       deterministic.

    Of course the dominant opinion among scientists is that there is
    neither determinism (at this point, a well supported scientific theory)
    nor free will (this is more a matter of philosophy than of science --
    a partially supported belief that free will is unnecessary to explain
    any known phenomenon, a principle of "rationality" that says that a
    hypothesis which explains nothing is unsupported by any evidence, and
    a philosophical principal that says that if there is no evidence for
    the existence of something it should be considered to not exist until
    such time as evidence is found).

					Topher

    re: .41, Steve,
    	My desperately argumentative mind can find nothing of
    	consequence in your statements to argue with.   
    
    	How do you do that to me, anyway ?  Hypnosis ?  ;-)
    
    	The only thing I can add to that excellent analysis is ...
    
    	associated stuff.   :-)
    
    								todd

RE:     <<< Note 1440.37 by RIPPLE::GRANT_JO "lifted waters walk and leap" >>>

>    One final note, about the recantation - she did under direct
>    threat from several psychics to have her (i.e., Margaret
>    Fox Kane) committed to an institution and have her children
>    taken away.  There are sordid aspects to the affair...
    
Joel,

    I've read a lot about the Fox sisters also, and from what I have read it
seems that no one knows for sure what went on.  A lot of people think that
she "admitted to being a fraud" due to her husband/in-laws/social-pressures
etc.   I have never heard that she re-canted her admission of being fradulent
due to psychics threatening to have her committed (which makes absolutely NO
sense what-so-ever due to only a family member can commit a person to an
institution.....).

Linda

>    a partially supported belief that free will is unnecessary to explain
>    any known phenomenon, a principle of "rationality" that says that a
>    hypothesis which explains nothing is unsupported by any evidence, and
>    a philosophical principal that says that if there is no evidence for
>    the existence of something it should be considered to not exist until
>    such time as evidence is found).
    
    	Free will is not important within a consensus model describing
    	mechanisms of behavior.  Their purpose is different from that 
    	of an individual trying to make decisions.  Free Will is *crucial* 
    	for the subjective model used in an individual's personal 
    	development.  Many things like this that cannot be proven are useful 
    	or neccessary to believe in, whether they can be proven to exist or not.
    
    	What does well supported scientific theory tell you about why
    	you were born, Topher ?   About why you should try to contribute
    	to the knowledge of your peers, about why you should behave in
    	an ethical manner ?  The personal for subjective truth is at least as 
    	important as the search to approach absolute truth.
    
    							todd

RE: .37 (Joel)

    Joel, I'm glad to see that you are more "up" on the Fox Sisters than I
    am.  It's been many years since I last looked into the case.  I do sort
    of remember something about that sort of extreme pressure being put on
    Margeretta (bowing to your fresher memory as to which sister was which)
    to confess, but I remember it as an allegation or accusation rather
    than as proven fact.

    At least until you present your documentation, I'm going to stick by my
    guns though.  There is certainly evidence against the Fox Sisters, but
    it is not a closed case.  The confession, usually presented as more
    than "the icing on the cake" but rather as "the final proof", is very
    weak as evidence given the financial incentive to fabricate a
    confession.  If the "commitment" story is true, then the confession is
    completely worthless -- zero evidence for or against.

    As I remember it there were two other substantial pieces of "evidence"
    against the Fox's.  First there was a relative (a cousin?) who claimed
    that one of the sisters had shown her how to produce the raps by
    cracking her joints.  As I remember she was angry at them when she
    explained this.  I would class this as an accusation rather than
    evidence.

    That leaves some medical evidence, whose details escape me.  When I
    read it, it struck me as establishing that they *could* have produced
    raps by means of joint cracking, and raised legitimate suspicions even
    in a neutral observer, that they *might* have, but was not sufficient
    to *prove* that the technique was used.

    This has to be set against some counter-evidence, such as the shell
    test, and the testimony of witnesses that attempts to reproduce the
    raps by means of joint cracking were grossly inadequate as to volume
    and frequency (although contextual elements of perception have to be
    kept in mind, here too).

    Whether or not you believe that the evidence is enough to "convict" the
    Fox Sisters depends on your level of "prior doubt".  Personally, I have
    enough prior doubt about them to say that they almost *certainly* could
    produce convincing effects fraudulently, very probably used fraudulent
    methods sometimes, and probably used fraudulent methods all the time.
    This is not the same as almost certainly using fraudulent methods most
    or all of the time, however.  The case against them just isn't that
    overwhelming.

    (By the way, the reason that skeptics and historians consider the Fox
    Sisters of such interest against so many 19th century mediums -- many
    of whom produced much more spectatcular effects than mysterious
    rappings -- is that the Fox Sisters were, for all intents and purposes
    the first.  The Spiritualist movement  can be traced quite unambigously
    from their performances, most other early mediums openly imitated
    the Fox Sisters, and many discovered their mediumship after attending a
    Fox seance).

					Topher

        Todd, I agree with your impassioned position.  No one
    in here could argue with a brief synopsis of what you guys
    said:  that being that as a part of a set, we cannot fully
    appreciate the set.  Since we are *in* the set, it is difficult
    (and probably impossible) to view the entire set.
        I had an initial "argument" with Steve at the beginnings of
    358 (re: what is "truth"...)  I, too, agree that if one is left
    to ponder reality strictly as a basis of science, that the
    real *human* joys will get lost in the process...that people become
    rapidly roboticized, binary and lost to the potential magic of
    what I believe is a real and far, far greater unknown.  
        To espouse the "belief precedes experience" model that you
    mention adds far grander possibilities, lifts the spirit and
    becomes far more accessible to all the humans in my reality.
        Steve, the problem with your "dropping naked humans into
    molten iron" argument is one of core...CORE...beliefs.  There is
    not a human presently on this planet that I am aware of that is
    not deeply rooted in the beliefs that it took him or her to be
    here in the first place...those beliefs not only produced the
    entire physical universe but all the other 5 billion present 
    inhabitants.  Now, then, in the face of such overwhelming "odds"
    ...that is, since this original belief (pre-birth) results in
    this kind of reality, how can someone arbitrarily toss it aside
    to take a Saturday evening bath in molten ferrous objects?  
    Can it be done?  I believe it can, but it would require *transcendant*
    powers of belief.  Most of us are not tuned in to our basic
    beliefs.  Most of us have a hard time believing that we can change
    annoying rock music sounds from the apartment below us, so how
    are we about to challenge liquified cast iron?  
        You aren't being either open enough, Steve, nor "fair."
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    RE: The Fox Sisters and .46
    
    Yes, Topher you are correct.  The events with the Fox Sisters is
    said to be the beginning of the Modern Spiritualist movement.
    
    As far as raps and even table tilting go, I personally have been
    involved in experiments and can guarantee that no fraudulent means
    were used to produce the phenomena that occurred.  Whether the
    phenomena was caused by 'spirits', or whether by telekinesis from
    the 'incarnate' participants is still open to question, however.
    
    Carole

    Rep .47 (Fredrick):

    >    Steve, the problem with your "dropping naked humans into
    >molten iron" argument is one of core...CORE...beliefs.  There is
    >not a human presently on this planet that I am aware of that is
    >not deeply rooted in the beliefs that it took him or her to be
    >here in the first place...those beliefs not only produced the
    >entire physical universe but all the other 5 billion present 
    >inhabitants.  Now, then, in the face of such overwhelming "odds"
    >...that is, since this original belief (pre-birth) results in
    >this kind of reality, how can someone arbitrarily toss it aside
    >to take a Saturday evening bath in molten ferrous objects?  
    >Can it be done?  I believe it can, but it would require *transcendent*
    >powers of belief. ...

    However, if we accept _that_ model, an individual might be able to take
    a molten_metal bath, but to the perception/"reality" of the rest of us,
    that person would likely vanish, due to the unreconcilable dichotomy.
    Such a person might be in his or her own (possibly "created" continuum,
    but that would be another matter.

    >    You aren't being either open enough, Steve, nor "fair."
    
    I believe the possibility of creating a whole 'nother cosmos is being
    pretty "open."

    The difficulty is, though, that with _your_ model, the "core beliefs"
    you suggest are inbred/inherent, would block the perception of the
    event.

    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

RE: .45 (todd)

    First, my main point was that free-will/determinisim is a false
    dichotomy and that stances off the dichotomy are not mere intellectual
    exercises but are, in fact, the dominant "scientific" viewpoint.

    Second, I was describing that dominant viewpoint, not claiming it as my
    own.  Personally I believe in free will, as well as believing in
    indeterminism.  I don't think that either classic (mechanical)
    determinism or indeterminism are in conflict with free-will.  They only
    conflict when an attempt is made to apply the concept inappropriately
    -- specifically when they make what is called in systems theory a
    "level error".  Free will, IMHO, is a valid, useful construct for
    describing cognitive behavior at a particular level of abstraction.
    There is no more conflict between free will (or goals, desires, beliefs
    or the other concepts at that level) than there is between the concept
    of "gas pressure" of a bulk gas and the concept of "balistic
    trajectories" of the individual gas molecules.

    I believe that free will is a valid, useful scientific concept.  I just
    don't think that it is directly relevant to physics.  (Many, perhaps
    most of my colleages in parapsychology, I might add, disagree with me:
    dualism, of one form or another, is the dominant viewpoint of most
    parapsychologists, and it a belief that psi implies dualism which is
    behind at least part of the rejection of parapsychology.  But
    materialistic monism is a philosophical stance, not a strictly
    scientific one).

					Topher

    re: .44 (Linda) and .46 (Topher)
    
    Since there seems to be some interest I'll dig out what I have
    over the weekend and type it in.  I'll put in a (relatively)
    brief account and we can go from there, adding detail,
    clarifying, getting other accounts, etc.
    
    The reason why she was seriously threatened with committment
    if she didn't recant was due to the fact that she had a 
    "drinking problem."  In modern terms, she seems to have been
    an alcoholic.
    
    As for the finances, she and her sisters were actually doing
    very well as spiritualists.  Plus, Margaret married into
    a certain amount of money.  At the time of her initial
    confession (1888 if I recall) she was doing rather well
    financially.  Her recantation took place just about a year
    later.  She found (not surprisingly) that people who paid
    to see psychic phenomena would not pay to see non-psychic
    phenomena.  And I'm not being a wise-guy here, only stating
    the financial facts.
    
    She and her sisters had virtually circled the US and Europe
    giving spiritualist demonstrations, for which they were well
    compensated.  Margaret attempted to earn a living "debunking"
    the psychic movement - which several have correctly pointed
    out effectively started with the Fox sisters - but ran into
    financial difficulties doing so.
    
    It was at this point, a year after her confession, that she
    finally gave in to the pressure and recanted.  When I say
    it is a sordid tale, I mean there is guilt enough for all
    to go around.  While they had the endorsement of quite a
    few "prominent" citizens and scientists, they also had a
    horde of - you guessed it! - skeptics on their trail.  
    If you guys think Randi et. al. are rude, well, you should
    check out a nineteenth century skeptic!
    
    But, rude or not, various individuals investigated the
    Fox Sisters and were able to determine how they did what
    they did and duplicate their behavior.  Though I don't
    have the book (and it is by now out of print) I have the
    citation and some notes from a book written c. 1888-1889
    that gives a very complete picture of exactly what they
    did.  The author worked with the Fox sisters, who both provided
    intros to the book.
    
    Of course the other sister, Kate, recanted her endorsement
    of Margaret's confession before Margaret did, and they became
    virtual enemies.  Another sad aspect to the tale.
    
    But this is becoming too long, and I'm relying on my faulty
    memory.  (Topher already caught my memory lapse on Zetetic
    Scholar/Zetetic)  So I will close this one by stating my
    overall opinion: Margaret and Kate were essentially good-hearted
    folks, who really didn't mean any harm.  But their sister
    Leah - she was a greedy sort.
    
    And - oh yes - Topher's right, a sister-in-law (Mom and Dad
    Fox also had a boy) did learn about their tricks from the
    sisters, and after some practice was also able to
    duplicate their effects.  
    
    It's a complex situation, I think we might all agree on that...
    
    Joel
    

    re: .50, (Topher)
    	Thanks for your comments.  Apparently, I'm not arguing with
    anyone, though not for lack of trying.  Can't get an argument in 
    here this week for love or money.  Grumble grumble.  Gotta take my ideas
    to someplace less open-minded, I guess, to find a good outlet for
    my passions about belief systems.  
    
    		todd

    re: .52 (Paul)
    
          Good questions, Paul.  Where *do* core beliefs come from?
    Well, I believe beliefs are generated from emotions...tangential
    on backwards towards "core emotions."  That is, emotions which
    produce thought which produce beliefs.  
          Do you believe that if infants were able to observe humans
    walking through walls that they'd be able to also?  I believe
    so.  Do you believe that the Indians (Aztecs?) that Magellan
    encountered couldn't see Magellan's ships on the horizon until
    taught to see them by the shamans among them?  I believe so.
    Much, if not most, of our beliefs come to us as a product of our
    human/Earth experience.  These beliefs become central to us, at least
    until such time as they become replaced (although not without a
    great deal of difficulty, often.)  Often they are there "by default"
    or by "understanding."  That is, one belief impinges on other beliefs
    and other events to the point that we may observe the "tangential"
    event and *not* the original event and consequently form a core or
    closely held belief not based on the original event but rather on
    the tangential one...but finding support in our world for the beliefs
    anyway.  So if I ask you if you believe eating Sugar Pops causes your
    teeth to rot, you'd say yes because your mom told you so, even though
    you might be unaware that she believes it because Sugar Pops contains
    sugar and she believes sugar causes teeth to rot.  That is, you 
    observe the secondary event, not the original event, form your beliefs
    without an awareness of the deeper "truth" but if you *really*
    look you can find it.
         To this end, if we believe that asbestos causes cancer, because
    we hear that it does, we *Could* search our belief system and ferret out 
    much deeper beliefs...that cancer is caused by extraneous events,
    that extraneous events are caused by "God", that we are helpless
    to undo our destiny, etc., etc.   But only by taking hold of the 
    reality and really, really looking at the beliefs will we discover
    them to be either valid or invalid.  Irregardless, our reality will
    reflect whatever beliefs we have...based on the amount of solidity
    they have for us (by this I mean that core beliefs form the crux
    of our reality...as the beliefs filter on down, the basis for them
    to "hold" in our reality lessens...thus, if we believe that we
    can win the lottery, because some mathematician says we can, we
    *still* won't win it, because a much closer held belief says that
    we don't *deserve* to win the lottery, that the lottery is for
    *others* to win, etc., etc.
    
          Anyway, enough for now.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .51 (Joel)

    I did some quick skimming and dipping on the subject this weekend
    (mostly "skeptical" sources, by the way).

    First off, a minor point which may, however, save some confusion later:
    "Maggies" full first name was "Margaretta" rather than "Margaret".  The
    reason that this may cause some confusion is that there *was* a
    Margaret Fox involved in the affair -- the girls' mother.

    My sources indicate that by this time -- 40 years after their initial
    discovery -- Maggie and Kate were in bad straits.  Their older sister
    Leah (much older -- almost old enough to be their mother), who had
    originally acted as their manager -- both in and out of the seance room
    -- had suddenly gained powers of her own, and set up seances on her
    own.  She was one of the most popular mediums of the period, holding
    seances for the social elite from her posh New York apartment once a
    week.  Without her management, and their own increasing psychological
    problems (of which alchaholism was more likely a symptom than a cause),
    the younger sisters didn't do so well.

    As for Maggie's inheritance -- she didn't get very much of it.  You see
    she was "married" to Kane without benefit of any formal authority,
    religious or secular.  Kane continued to be, apparently, cowed by his
    family (strict Calvinists, who would rather that he marry someone who
    practiced human sacrifice than a spiritualist) and so did not put her
    in his will.  Instead, he set up a trust fund for her under the care of
    one of his relatives (his brother I think).  The executer refused to
    pay her her annuity.  Since Kane was a world famous explorer, Maggie
    decided to earn some money by publishing his letters to her.  This was
    unacceptable to his family (presumably since it showed that there he had
    real passion for her and did consider her his wife), and so they agreed
    to pay her part of what was coming to her if she would turn the letters
    over to a lawyer to hold secure.  After a few payments, they started
    defaulting, and after she got tired of taking them to court, she
    retrieved the correspondence and published it.

    Speculations about Maggie's reasons for recanting her confession are
    just that.  If you believe that the confession was accurate, then
    it is reasonable to suppose that the retraction was in order to take up
    the racket again.  If you don't take this as necessarily true, than
    other reasons may seem reasonable (of course, even if the confession
    was a fabrication, the retraction may have been to allow her to take
    up her old trade again).

    I have seen too many "debunking magicians" do painfully poor and
    incomplete counterfeits of some "psychic"'s feats, while claiming that
    they had duplicated the phenomena, while self proclaimed "skeptics"
    lapped it up uncritically (including cases where I think that the
    "psychic" has very low credibility), to have too much confidence in
    those who claimed to duplicate Fox rappings.  There is enough explicit
    reason to doubt the accuracy of these duplications to leave the
    question open.  Of course, no one was able, in Joel's words, "to
    determine how they did what they did."  What people did was come up
    with plausible *hypotheses* -- but those hypotheses have not been
    thoroughly tested.

    It certainly seems likely that Maggie could produce loud popping noises
    with her toes.  She apparently demonstrated this at her confession (of
    course, we must take account of the possability that the toe-cracking
    demonstrations were, in fact, faked -- a kind of suggestion of which
    tends to upset "skeptics", that's not the kind of thing that you're
    supposed to hold in doubt) and later.  The question is whether she
    used this technique, or used it on all occasions, at her seances.

    Once again, I think that if you were looking for some examples of
    mediums which make a strong case for genuine phenomena, I would pass
    the Fox sisters by.  But I also think that if you are looking for a
    good example of well-debunked mediums, I would do the same.  The
    evidence against them is 1) A claimed confession to the relative when
    they were young; 2) The manifestations stopping (as they did not
    infrequently for various apparent reasons and no apparent reasons
    at all) after the children's feet were placed on pillows by some
    doctors, 3) a forced confession, and 4) some debatable duplications
    of *some* of the witnessed phenomena -- including by Maggie.  There
    was no unquestionable unforced confession, and no instance reported
    in the (skeptical, remember) sources I looked through of an actual
    detection of fraud during any of their performances.

					Topher

In re: the Fox sisters - I'll try to be fairly brief.

First, my faulty memory did it to me again.  I had said
that Margaret's opponents were trying to have her committed
and were trying to have her children taken away from her.
In fact, I find that only the latter is true.  On the (technical)
basis of her alcoholism, she was threatened with being declared
incompetent.  So, I retract the committment part.

A little historical perspective might be called for here.  As
several have noted, the Fox sisters were the first true
spiritualisitic mediums (media? :^)  ) in this country.  Their
first experience was on March 31, 1848.  Only seven years later,
one observer (George Templeton Strong) estimated that there were
approximately 30,000 active spiritualists then practicing in the
country.  The Fox sisters were very, very big news.  And because
they started the spiritualist movement, their supporters and their
critics placed a very heavy importance on the veracity of their
powers.

Hindsight indicates that both sides overestimated the effect upon
spiritualism that unmasking the Fox sisters would have.  At the
time, though, the stakes seemed to be the very future of 
spiritualism itself.

Now why did they become so prominent? Theirs was very much a
progressive widening of popularity.  At first, their effects
were displayed only for family and immediate friends.  Fairly
soon thereafter, and at the urging/guidance of their sister
Leah, Margaret and Kate Fox began to actually hold public
demonstration.  Hundreds, then thousands of people flocked to
see them.

Their "big break" came when Horace Greeley became interested in
them.  He was a believer, either in spiritualism or expanded
newspaper sales, or both, and began to publicize them regularly.
They embarked upon tours of the United States, and moved on to
Europe and Asia, meeting some of the greatest celebrities of the
day, including various Crowned Heads of Europe.

As I say, they were a major, major sensation.  

During the course of their 40+ year career, they gathered
testimonials about the validity of their powers by many,
many people, including Judge Edmonds of the NY Supreme
Court, James Fenimore Cooper, George Bancroft, William Cullen
Bryant, Governor Tallmadge of Wisconsin, and many others.
Sir William Crookes (writing about the rapping sounds they
produced) said: "With a full knowledge of the numerous theories
which have been started, chiefly in America [Crookes was English]
to explain these sounds, I have tested them in every way that I
could devise, until there has been no escape from the conviction
that they were true objective occurrrences not produced by trickery
or mechanical means."

Numerous skeptics investigated the Fox sisters and proclaimed
that they were producing the sounds by means of rapping their
feet and/or cracking joints.  Some of the research teams included
scientists from the Smithsonian Institution, University of
Pennsylvania, and Harvard University.  The Reverend Charles Barr
wrote a book called "Knocks for the Knocking" in which he maintained
that he could produce seventeen variations on the sounds, by
cracking various joints in various ways, and detailed how the
reader, with practice, could do the same.  We have already touched
briefly upon Mrs. Norman Culver, their sister-in-law, to whom
the sisters revealed their secrets.

A (to me) particularly revealing investigation was conducted by
three doctors from the University of Buffalo. (Austin Flint, Charles
A. Lee, and C.B. Coventry)  The 3 investigators actually checked
out Margaret and Leah, Leah being the older, and more entrepreneurial
of the clan.  They observed the sisters making noises, and they
observed that the noises always emanated from objects in which
they were in contact.  Their conclusion as to cause was the same as the
other critics.  However, they went a step further and asked the
sisters to sit on a couch and extend their legs so that their
heels rested on cushions.  Where before the sounds had been
freely flowing, the placement of the cushions caused the sounds
to immediately cease.  When the cushions were removed and the
sisters' feet were once again in contact with the floor, tables,
whatever, the sounds began again.

The investigators considered this confirmation of their theory.
Leah Fox said that it was due to "the harsh conditions imposed
by [their] persecutors."  Note that the "persecution" was in
evidence only when the cushions were there.  Otherwise, the
persecution was apparently not taking place.  

As Topher has noted, "spirit rapping" [that's what they
called it] wasn't their only effect.  Leah started to demonstrate
other phenomena, such as levitation, mysteriously played musical
instruments, floating spirit manifestations, etc.  Reuben
Davenport's book "The Death Blow to Spiritualism: The True
Story of the Fox Sisters" (New York, 1888) contained a preface
written by the Fox sisters which specifically authorized and
endorsed the findings in the book.  The book basically explains
how all of their effects were done.

That's all for now; I've typed a few lines here and ther over
the course of the day and I can't take much more time.  If
this note generates more questions than answers for you, fire
away!  But I do think the evidence on the Fox sisters is pretty
clear - they were what they said their were.  Deliberate charlatans,
motivated by fame and fortune.

Worse things have been done for less reward!

Joel

    re: .55 (Topher)
    
    My own .56 was of course originally a little VMS file - I saw
    your .55 before I entered it, but entered my own as it was
    due to time constraints.  Some of it speaks directly to
    some of your own.
    
    Perhaps tomorrow we can critique .55 and .56?
    
    For now - back to work!
    
    Joel
    

    To those of you who are interested in more information on the Fox
    Sisters. You might want to try to obtain a copy of :
       Hydesville In History
    Which contains some interesting information on the sisters and
    the phenomenon. I have a copy in my collection. Small book, gold
    print on cover. Published by Cadwalender(?) press. If interested
    will bring in and post some info directly from book. When I get
    a chance. Will get the proper spelling of publisher and the exact
    date of print. Contains some photos of sisters and house.

re: .55 (Topher)

On the name, yes, she was born Margaretta, but is almost always
referred to as Margaret; whether she actually changed her name
or simply used a nickname is unclear.  She is addressed
as `Maggie' in Elisha Kane's love letters.  Since she signed
her first public confession: Margaret Fox Kane, I use that
version.  She claimed, by the way, that she and Kane had
been secretly married, though I'm not sure we would put
much stock in that one.

Your summary of Leah's situation, on her own and vis a vis her
sisters is very good, and you provide a very good summary of
their tangled finances.  Margaret's published "New York World"
confession alludes to part of it.

This is the sort of thing I was referring to in an earlier note
when I suggested that there were plenty of sordid aspects to the
whole affair.  It reads like a soap opera in some ways, does it
not?

I think what it finally boils down to is whether or not the
observations of their critics, combined with the evidence taken
from their various confessions and demonstrations, and their
work with Reuben Davenport, etc., constitute decisive evidence that
the Fox sisters were charlatans.  I believe the evidence in this
case is quite decisive.

We should also throw in the love letters.  It is clear from
these letters that the people close to "Maggie" understood
quite well that the Fox sisters, all three, were frauds.
Kane lectures her at one point, warning that unless she makes
a clean breast of it all, she will wind up like Leah - "hardened."

We have a number of people who observed the sisters
in action and noticed that the sounds they produced only
emanated from objects in which they were in physical contact.
The sisters themselves at one point submitted to a controlled
test in order to gain a Randi-like $500.  They did not get the
money.  As for their non-rapping behavior, they of course never
allowed these things to be observed in the light of day.  But
they didn't seem to be doing much beyond the typical medium's
stock-in-trade tricks, what with the musical instruments and
floating spirits and such.

We have their detailed, and repeated confessions and demonstrations.
We have their written endorsement of the information in the
Davenport book.  Their sister-in-law's testimony was legally
deposed.  We have the Buffalo University doctors who observe:
a. feet are in contact with floor, noises are heard.
b. feet are placed on cushions, noise stops.
c. feet are placed back on the floor, noises start again.

As for Leah, she was in on it from the beginning.  Her ability
to make these sounds was developed early on.  There was nothing
sudden about the appearance of any powers.  At some point she
decided to strike out on her own and abandon her sisters to
their fate.  Nothing special about her, either.

All things considered, I should think that someone like D.D. Home,
who was never (technically) caught in the act, would provide a
more fertile field for speculation.  (?)  Stephen Kallis, Jr.,
in my opinion was quite accurate in his assessment of the Fox
Sisters.  

I say - someone should hire Spielberg to make a movie about
them!


Joel

RE: .59 (Joel)

    Let me say at the outset that I am relying principally on a book
    entitled "The Spiritualists".  Other sources which I had at home, for
    the most part agree with that one (making allowances for viewpoint) and
    are less complete.  The author (I think her name is Ruth Branden, I'll
    include a correction tomorrow if that's not right) is an historian. 
    She is extremely skeptical and the apparent historical question the
    book sets out to answer, though she doesn't say so explicitly, is
    something like "how could people have been taken in by this utter
    nonesense?"

    "The Spiritualists" takes her "marriage" at face value -- apparently on
    the basis of Kane's letters.  It was, however, as I said, done
    privately without clergy or public official.  Kane was, I believe, from
    Philadelphia, and I happen to know (since I was once married in that
    state) that PA law says that a marriage is "established by two people
    speaking words in the present tense meant to establish a marriage" (or
    words very similar to that, with qualifications against bigamy, etc.).
    In PA officials *register* a marriage rather than creating it.  (This
    law was set up this way for the sake of religious groups such as
    Friends (Quakers), Amish etc.)  If their private ceremony took place in
    PA it would be completely legal (in other states it might or might have
    "second class" legality as "common law", but in PA it would be as legal
    as any other marriage).

    As for Kane's letters, "The Spiritualists" makes it clear that he did
    not approve of Maggie's activities, but it is apparently never
    explicitly stated that he considered what she did outright fraud.
    His objections were to the public displays, the undignified nature of
    being "publicly for hire", etc.  Remember, in the circles he was
    brought up in, there was little to distinguish, for example, an actress
    from a prostitute.

    His comments about Leah are in character, of course, since there was
    an active tug-of-war going on between Kane and Leah over Maggie.  Both
    missed no chance to bad-mouth the other.  Kane wished to sever Leah's
    control of Maggie -- which was the main thing that was keeping her
    doing what she apparently didn't much like doing, and Leah wanted to
    keep him from succeeding.

    According to Maggie's confessions, Leah, having started late in life
    never developed the facility in toe cracking that her sisters had.
    Although she would at times help things along her main role during
    seances was to stage manage.  This is consistent with the reports of
    witnesses who generally reported that the "focus" was the two younger
    girls/women -- that it was to them that the spirits responded.

    An important thing to keep in mind in evaluating historical evidence
    like this (something frequently neglected by those who try to make
    points for both sides of the mediumship issue) is that it is very easy
    to treat non-independent evidence as if it were independent.  What
    is or what may be the same evidence then gets "counted" multiple times,
    and a stronger case gets made than in fact exists.

    The first clearly independent piece of evidence comes from the
    sister-in-law who claimed to have been told that they produced the
    effects by cracking their toes.  All subsequent skeptical investigators
    *started* with that as their premise.  They did not reach that
    conclusion independently, but only need to fail to find something
    grossly in conflict with it to make their decisions.  Critics are ready
    to dismiss any eyewitness reports on the basis that "people see what
    they are prepared to see," but seem to take the attitude that hostile
    investigators are immune to the effect.

    Note that at a large public demonstration early in their careers
    audience members held the sister's feet during the demonstrations and
    felt nothing.  (This was dealt with in Maggie's confession, however.
    She said that they anticipated this and for this demonstration they had
    someone under the stage banging on it with a stick to produce the
    raps).  Also note that the Baltimore doctors concluded that they did
    *not* produce the raps with their toes -- they opted for manipulation
    of the knee joints instead.

    As for the Doctor's investigation, are you sure about step 3?  Their
    conclusion (which I have read) seems to imply it, but the discussions
    of the actual investigation I've seen makes it more ambiguous.  Keep in
    mind that a hostile writer might well interpret ambiguity, without
    conscious desire to deceive, in the way which best makes their case.
    It seems surprising that the sisters who had previously been so clever
    at playing their deceptive games, were suddenly so transparent as to
    start cracking their toes again as soon as the pillow was returned.

    With or without this last point, however, I consider this investigation
    to be the single really good piece of evidence against the Fox's.

    The pattern of sound appearing only from objects with which one of the
    sisters was in contact with is consistent with the joint cracking
    hypothesis.  It is *not*, however, inconsistent with paranormal
    alternatives (it's a minor strain for "spirit" theories, and no problem
    at all for PK theories).  It is a starting point for any  attempt to
    "explain" the phenomena (whether conventionally or paranormally) and
    may be used to throw out some theories, but it is not really very good
    evidence.

    Surely I need not point out that failure to meet a prize-challenge only
    proves that the phenomena could not be produced all the time under all
    circumstances.  The Fox Sisters's frequently failed to produce results
    under circumstances which could not be always be attributed to controls
    (of couse, they might have been due to cold feet, and I mean that in
    the literal rather than the common figurative sense).

    There is *one* unverified, claimed confession and what amounts to one
    other confession made under duress -- though that confession was
    maintained publically for some time.  The Davenport book is one
    record/version of that confession.

    Objectivity is hard to come by here.  Its very hard to set aside our
    prejudgements, and *just* look at the evidence.  One trick I use is to
    try to imagine the whole thing in another context.  We have to set
    aside both our preconceptions as to the a priori liklihood of the
    claimed phenomenon itself, and our knowledge of a high rate of fakery
    among 19 century mediums.  Try to imagine the whole thing as involving
    claims of memory and lightning calculation, with claims being made that
    the performances were faked. To reproduce some of the with hunt
    mentality and motivations of the detractors, imagine that the "girls"
    were black and that many contemporaries were outraged by claims that
    anyone of that race could have such mental acuity.  Reproduce the rest
    as closely as possible.

    Do you think that *this* case is quite so "decisive?"  Or is merely a
    good but not unquestionable case -- the kind of case where you wouldn't
    be sure what a fair jury trying to determine "beyond a reasonable
    doubt" would come back with?

    If we were looking for an example of a good case for a genuine medium,
    I would certainly nominate D.D. Home (that's pronounced lik "Hume" by
    the way).  I don't know what you mean by "technically" -- no worthwhile
    evidence of fraud was ever offered against him.  He never accepted
    direct payment for his demonstrations.  Unlike most of his
    contemporaries, he worked in full light, and was almost always highly
    cooperative for investigators.  And, his effects were spectacular to
    say the least.  His specialty was levitation  -- of objects in an
    apparently unprepared room, of himself and of witnesses.  You have to
    give it to a prestidigitator (if prestidigitator he was) who can, in
    good light and in front of a skeptical, hostile witness, levitate out
    one window of an appartment and in another.  (The skeptic produced a
    stuned positive report, and then soon afterward, retracted it saying
    that it was "obviously" mass hypnosis).  Less spectacularly, I would
    also put up Lenora Piper -- perhaps the best studied medium in history.

    I certainly would not put up the Fox sisters.

    But that wasn't what we were looking for.  We were looking for an
    unquestionable example of proven fraud -- and there are many much
    better examples than the Fox sisters.

    I agree that their life would make an interesting movie -- taken from
    either viewpoint.  I would not suggest Spielberg for the job, though,
    if he were to do it right it would be a *radical* change of pace for
    him.  That's not a put-down of Spielberg -- this just isn't his kind of
    movie.  Here the drama is all in the sitting room.  The only Spielberg-
    esque element happens off-stage when Kane goes off to explore the
    arctic leaving Maggie behind.

				    Topher

    re: .60  (Topher)
    
    Interesting you should mention the Brandon book, for it was
    that book I had in mind when I said that Home had not been
    technically caught cheating.  I seem to recall an account
    by Robert Browning of a Home seance, and Browning was not
    impressed.  He guess that Home produced the spirit music
    by - I forget - a concealed confederate or music box.  Small
    mouth organs, such as can be placed inside the mouth,
    were found in his effects after his death.
    
    Which is why I would agree that Home was never technically
    caught cheating.  A possible method was surmised, based upon
    personal observation, and the means to accomplish that method
    were found in his personal effects.  One can draw their own
    conclusions.
    
    Just a few points on the Fox sisters -
    
    Yes, I do believe the Buffalo doctors did step three.  Certainly,
    Leah's reaction would be consistent with that.
    
    As for the initial confession, well, it was published in the
    New York World, so unless there is a legitimate question about
    whether or not she in fact authored the piece, I don't think
    that confession should be considered controversial.  You can
    still get microfiche of papers from the era, and it's still
    there for all to see.
    
    We may have a semantic difficulty around the word `confession'
    here.  She gave numerous demonstrations of how she did her effects,
    before audiences large and small.  She typically explained that
    she and her sisters had spent forty years deceiving the public,
    and now she was going to show everyone present how it was really
    done.  To me, that sounds very much like a confession, combined
    with a demonstration.
    
    As for the Kane letters, I believe in the Brandon book one such
    letter is quoted with words to the effect: there will come a
    time when you become as hardened as Mrs. Fish, gathering around
    you victims of a delusion.  I assume the delusion he refers to
    is the same delusion Maggie confessed to.  (?)  Since you have
    the book, you could perhaps find the exact quote?  I make no
    claims for the omniscience of my memory!
    
    Anyway, I guess we'll have to disagree, Topher.  I regard a psychic
    who confesses to fraud, demonstrates how it's done, demonstrations
    which track with previous investigations, to be about as firm as
    you get.  Who is more clearly fraudulent than the Fox sisters? 
    Eusapia Palladino?  But she also has her supporters, still.
    
    As for Home, (I really should dig up the Brandon book again) some
    of your statements are at odds with statements made by Brandon.
    (e.g., major effects taking place in daylight)  Not that Brandon
    is the sine qua non of Homeism, of course, but I assume you
    have other, conflicting sources, in which you place more weight?
    
    Didn't Houdini himself consider Home a charlatan?  And wasn't
    Home at one point actually convicted, in a court of law, of
    defrauding, through bogus spirit messages, a woman of a small
    fortune?  He might not have taken cash from all the people
    who sat with him, but he more than made up for it by sponging
    from and conning wealthy women.
    
    We do at least agree on this: D.D. Home is a better subject
    for discussion!
    
    Joel
    

Just a brief note on the book "The Spiritualists" by Ruth Brandon.....

The book is definitely NOT objective.  From what I have seen and read about
Ruth Brandon, she has always been anti-Spiritualist, and it is my understanding
that her intention of this book was to "blow the cover off of this fraud".
In my opinion she had a tendency to report only things which she felt supported
her viewpoint.  She never reported any scientific investigations (which do
exist) that would contradict her anti-Spiritualist stance....

Linda

RE: .61 (Joel)

    I read what Brandon had to say about Home last night.  Before getting
    to that, though, I thought I would address your most recent comments
    about Maggie Fox.

>    We may have a semantic difficulty around the word `confession'
>    here.  She gave numerous demonstrations of how she did her effects,
>    before audiences large and small.  She typically explained that
>    she and her sisters had spent forty years deceiving the public,
>    and now she was going to show everyone present how it was really
>    done.  To me, that sounds very much like a confession, combined
>    with a demonstration.

    No, there is no semantic confusion -- at least about that.  The
    question has to do with what evidentiary weight we give to a
    confession.

    You apparently give it great weight, whatever the circumstances.  I
    consider a forced confession to be practically worthless as evidence.
    That she carried on with the "confession" for some time following and
    repeated it multiple times  doesn't add much to it -- it may have
    seemed like her only choice. Under the circumstances, it is plausible
    that her actions were consistent with an honest (but emotionally
    fragile) person who felt compelled to play a cynical game of "I was
    lost, but now am saved." Once again, I don't think that is what
    happened, and it may even be somewhat less plausible than that the
    confession was real, but it is not so implausible, IMHO, as to treat it
    as absolute and final proof.

    The demonstrations proved that she knew *how* at least some of the
    phenomena which occured *could* have been faked.  It did not in any way
    go to show that she faked them -- nor that she actually know how to
    fake *all* of the phenomena.  But she would have had to have been
    rather stupid -- which she clearly was not -- to *not* know the methods
    of fake mediums after 40 years of association with many more
    unquestionably fake mediums -- plus a constant rain of speculation as
    to how she "faked" what occured in her presence.

    Are we to take it that since they knew *how* to fraudulently produce
    mediumistic phenomena, and demonstrated those methods, that the various
    public lecturers who have toured with exposure shows over the last
    centry and a half had all necessarily engaged in phony mediumship? (Of
    course some, such as Houdini and, apparently,  Martin Gardner have, but
    that's not the issue).

    The possiblity that she *could* have faked the bulk of the phenomena
    she and her sister produced is not in question by any contemporary
    investigator that I know of -- even the more creduous ones.  Clearly
    the Fox sisters provide little concrete evidence of the existence of
    paranormal phenomena.  But that is not the question.  We are asking
    whether we can prove that they *did* cheat rather than prove that they
    could not have.

    << The Kane Letters. >>

    My impression from Brandon (I haven't gone back and looked yet) was
    that from the outset Kane felt that his love's work was disreputable,
    mercinary, and preyed on the credulous.  What seems to be unclear is
    whether he thought that it was outright fraudulent.  Given his
    religious background he may well have thought that these were indeed
    spirits -- but evil, lying, spirits pretending to be the ghosts of
    loved ones, and giving ficticious accounts of the "other side".
    Brandon, herself at least hints (i.e., this is the impression I got)
    that there is ambiguity about his position and laments the lack of the
    corresponding letters to him from Maggie which might have clarified
    matters.  Even if Kane *was* convinced that Maggie was involved in
    outright fraud, this does not mean that she had given him any direct
    reason to believe so, nor that his attitude was typical of those close
    to her.

				Topher

    re: .63  (Topher)
    
    I am curious to know why you feel so certain that their confessions
    were "forced"?  I assume you use "gun-to-the-head" metaphorically,
    but where is the evidence that the sisters (remember, it wasn't
    just Margaret, it was Kate as well) were compelled by something
    other than their own conscience?  
    
    Remember also that their confessions detailed not only how
    they achieved their more publicized effects, but they began
    at the beginning, in their own home, using an apple on a
    string to bewilder their mother.  Given the thousands and
    thousands of shows they did over a forty year period, is
    it surprising that they do not detail each and every illusion
    they ever performed?
    
    But - and here we get into the old story, eh? - on whom is the
    burden of proof?  I don't hear you saying that you have totally
    compelling evidence that they in fact had psychic powers.  If
    we do not have such evidence, and do have perfectly ordinary
    explanations for what they did - what is the point of calling
    in something as amazing as spirits at the beck and call of 
    mortal beings?
    
    You know, I tend to agree with your (previously) stated complaint
    about the skeptical extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence
    mantra.  It is chanted thoughtlessly, and I'm not even sure it
    is relevant.  What, for instance, is an extraordinary claim?
    If you believe that psychic phenomena do not violate firmly
    established natural law, then the psychic hypothesis really isn't
    all that extraordinary.  (in the literal sense of the word)  If
    you do believe that such phenomena violate natural law then yes,
    such claims are extraordinary.
    
    So what sort of evidence do you need to establish any claim,
    "ordinary" or "extraordinary?"  I should think that, barring
    certain claims for universal law in the natural sciences, ordinary
    evidence should suffice.  In the case of Home, the Fox sisters, or
    anyone else making claims of such gross (as in large) psychic
    effects, Just Doing It would suffice.  But there's the rub.
    
    If nothing else, extraordinary claims engender extraordinary interest.
    This means that extraordinary interest will be taken in the sort
    of controls that are used to determine whether or not an ordinary
    demonstration of the claim has taken place.  The rub, as I say.
    
    As you know perfectly well, the fact that a person or persons 
    maintain that all possible precautions were taken to ensure against
    fraud does not in and of itself guarantee that fraud did not take
    place.  I suspect we could both put in a zillion examples, including
    those duped by Randi's Alpha Project (yes, I know, it was a
    dirty trick) and by Uri Geller's spoon-bending et. al.  Self-deception
    also enters in, as witness Faraday's investigation of table-turning.
    
    So how do we know if all possible precautions have been taken to
    eliminate other than paranormal explanations?  I doubt we can, for
    sure, in historical cases.  Though we should keep in mind that their
    are an infinite number of ways to "not see" something, but only
    a very few ways to see something.  Like conjuring tricks.
    
    Anyway, as much as I enjoy discussions like this, and hope to
    continue them, is it perhaps appropriate to discuss the a priori
    assumptions here?  That is - what evidence do we have that
    paranormal phenomena such as levitation *can* exist?  
    
    You see I definitely distinguish between the science done in
    parapsychological studies and the claims of such as Fox sisters,
    Palladino, etc.  The effects claimed are on a very much higher
    order of magnitude than we see demonstrated when reasonable
    controls are placed.  And the physical difficulties of, say,
    levitating a grown man off the ground, out a window, and back
    in, are rather difficult.  Tough to swallow for a lot of people,
    including myself.
    
    May I suggest, then, that before we go back to the case-by-case
    analysis, we take the time to set the stage for the evidence?
    
    Joel
     

    A girlfriend has bought an old farm (about 200 years old) up in
    Maine.  We are having feelings that there is a presence in the
    house.  We would like to bring someone in (a psychic?) to see
    if we can find more out about this presence.  Does anyone know who
    we can talk to to help us?  Thanks.  deb