From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: When to call a crank a crank?  (was: Truzzi Lecture)
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:01:44 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: When one runs out of time.

-*----
Cross-posted and redirected to sci.philosophy.tech.

-*----
Again, quoting from a lecture by Marcello Truzzi, kindly posted in
part by Jon Noring:

> There are three broad approaches to anomaly studies.  The first 
> approach is usually called the Fortean approach. ...
>
> The second common approach is what critics usually call the debunkers'
> approach.  This is the main attitude of the orthodox scientific 
> community towards anomaly claims. ...
>
> The third approach, which I've tried to empower and legitimate, 
> is the zetetic. ...

The more I think about Truzzi's comments, the more I am convinced
that he is missing an important aspect of scientists' behavior
regarding these approaches to the anomalous.  In explaining why,
let me begin with an example. 

Many math departments are visited frequently by fellows (I have
never heard of woman doing this) who will share with any willing
-- or even unwilling -- graduate student or faculty member their
method for trisecting the angle, squaring the circle, or
calculating pi to its final decimal point.  Often it is the new
graduate student, full of good will and desire to be true to the
zetetic method, who lends her or his ear to the visitor.
Inevitably, it turns out that the visitor has little of benefit
to offer: he cannot point to flaws in traditional proofs that
what he desires to do is impossible, he is not able to explain
well his method, or he just plain misunderstands the problem of
concern.  The willing graduate student listens for an hour or two
or three, explains where the visitor has gone wrong, if the
visitor's work is clear enough to do this, or points to the murky
areas, otherwise.  The visitor goes on and the new graduate
student is convinced he has done his duty by the zetetic method.
Indeed, he is puzzled why the old graduate students and faculty
members treated the friendly, though misinformed, visitor so
abruptly. 

Until the next day, when the visitor returns to do the same
thing, but a little differently.  And the day after that.  And
the day after that.  The new graduate student soon realizes two
things.  First, that there is more to be learned reading Internet
news than practicing the zetetic method with the local crank.
Second, that if the graduate student does not severely limit his
time at both, he will have insufficient time to do worthwhile
mathematics.  Assuming discipline prevails, the new graduate
student becomes a new junior faculty member and at the new
location quickly recognizes the local crank and nimbly practices
the giving of a cold shoulder.  (Unfortunately, our new junior
faculty member failed to recognize the sociology professor who
observes this interaction and mutters under his breath about the
failure of the zetetic method.)

While different people have their own prejudices and personal
styles, my observation is that the behavior of many scientists
fits a rather different model from the one Truzzi offers.  Every
scientist is faced with many voices and research directions
demanding time, attention, and other resources that far exceed
the supply available.  The scientist makes decisions that attempt
to maximize the results from the expenditure of these resources.
There are some important characteristics of making such
decisions. 

  o  Such decisions are always made on the basis of *partial*
     information, because obtaining the relevant information is
     itself a costly process.  

  o  Some of these decisions can be viewed as abrogating the 
     zetetic method, but if scientists gave a full hearing to 
     every crank, they would have time for nothing else.  

  o  Every strategy will err, both in failing to pursue directions
     that should have been pursued and pursuing directions that 
     should not have been pursued.

I see little reason to think that our culture is erring greatly
by giving too little attention to fringe claims.  If anything, I
think we waste time, attention, and resources on those who pursue
paths that were clearly dead-ends long ago.  (As long as it is
other people's money, I will not complain.)

-*----
I also think that debunkers serve a useful purpose.  James Randi
is not qualified to criticize the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics or the claim that genes jump from chromosome to
chromosome.  But he seems quite good at detecting cheating and
other flaws in experiments and events involving human behavior.
His most useful work in parapsychology occurred when he was
allowed into laboratories and he was able to show what was
happening IN THE EXPERIMENT OF CONCERN.  Sometimes this was
simple, as when the parapsychology researcher was working with
children and was not watching them closely enough to catch their
"cheating," and sometimes it was subtle, as when the use of a
rotary phone dial to select a number resulted in an unconsious
training effect on the part of the subjects because it takes
longer to dial "9" than "1".  (In the former case, the
"telekinesis" was caught on film as tiny hands where they weren't
supposed to be; in the latter case, the "ESP" disappeared when
the numbers were randomized on the dials.  In neither case did
Randi question the integrity of the researcher.)  

If we can find that what is occuring fits well within our normal
understanding, there is no reason to appeal to the paranormal.  I
suspect that this is one reason that Randi is now so unwelcome in
such experiments.  But, then, how do the researchers control for
the kind of errors to which these experiments are prone and which
it takes someone such as a stage magician to catch?  A debunker
such as Randi may not be a scientist, but he serves as a good
control mechanism.  Without such a control, why should we think
any experiment in the paranormal reveals anything more than the
tendency for such experiments to fall prey to the same kind of
flaws they have shown in the past? 

Russell