Approved For Release 2001/03/26
:
(junt on working in this area- perhaps more has been done in
the
last
twenty-two
years
than
in
any
comparable
period
before— it
still seems to me that the general evidential
situa-
tion
is
just
the same.
We do not know yet whether Targ and Puthoff will be making
similar laments
at some future date.
Russell Targ
(left) and Harold Puthoff (right) at SRI
M
eanwhile, however, they have already encountered the
inevitable frustrations that confront every researcher
in
this field They have become the target for attacks from what
they call the "Loyal Opposition." The specific members of the
Loyal Opposition that they deal with are The Amazing Ranch,
Martin Gardner, Joe Hanlon, George Lawrence, and myselT In
a chapter entitled "The Loyal Opposition -What Are They
Loyal To?" Targ and Puthoff deal with their critics in an inter-
esting manner.
.
The authors imply that they are aware that resistance to
new and radical ideas plays a positive role ip the development
of science. But they have obviously been stung at the
per-
sonal
level. They describe what frorp
their viewpoint con-
stitutes a series of unethical and malicious misrepresentations
of their work by the Loyal Opposition. And
I am indicted for a
breach of ethics in allegedly "leaking" information about my
confidential
visit to SRI
to Time magazine.
Obviously, Targ and Puthoff are puzzled by what they take
as fanatic and unfair criticism. So they try to account for
it.
"At first, we spun paranoid theories with Cold War overtones.
Perhaps there really was a developing ESP gap, as implied by
the Ostrander-Schroeder book Psychic Discoveries Behind the
Iron Curtain. PeVhaps United States efforts in the study of the
paranormal were the target of a deliberate program of disin-
formation, with the press the unwitting accomplice.
After
planting
this
suggestion
of
a communist
conspiracy
the
authors dismiss
it on the grounds that "the deep-rooted dis-
CIA-RDP96-0078*F000200080037-4
irusl
of the apparent paranormal
functioning
precedes
th<-
Cold War struggle by at least a c entury."
(I read this lust ai
tin-
time
that NBC
put on
its movie on
the
late
Senator
Joe
Instead, they graciously grant their critics good
faith.
1 hi
difficulty lies in the fact that the Loyal Opposition consists ot
individuals who cannot face up to the possibility
that
their
world views may be wrong. Targ and Puthoff supply a psy-
"The authors may not yet have found the mag-
ic formula for the repeatable ESP experiment.
The history of the
field
is against them. And
enough
questions can be
raised
about
their
current work to raise doubts, at least for mem-
bers of the Loyal Opposition."
chological analysis of how the Loyal Opposition employs ever
more extreme defenses to protect themselves from having to
admit evidence that challenges the premises of their world
view They also point out that precognition and other psychic
phenomena are compatible with current notions in quantum
physics. This means,
in their logic, that the burden of proof
now lies with the critic who wants to deny such phenomena.
All
this
is unfortunate. By dismissing their
critics as mis-
guided fanatics, Targ and Puthoff miss the legitimate reasons
for suspecting their work.
If they were not so blinded by the
search for psychological blocks in their opposition, the author
might better see how they have supplied the critics with much
of their ammunition. My own criticisms of their work cannot
be simply dismissed as another case of someone who cannot
tolerate challenges to his world view. As far back as Decem-
ber 1957
I committed to print my opinion that
if EbP were
proved to be a reality
it would not provide a serious threat to
science or other accepted views (in a review of Experiments in
Telepathy , by S. C. Soal and F. Bateman, in the Journal of the
American Statistical Association); and in his recent book, me
Search
for Superman, John Wilhelm writes of my position:
"He has a personal belief structure that seemingly would suf-
fer least
if psychic phenomena became accepted as a scien-
tific reality."
I want to make this clear to emphasize that there
are grounds other than dogmatic fanaticism to raise serious
questions about the credibility of the evidence that Targ and
Puthoff have offered
us.
In challenging the validity of their findings,
I also want to
emphasize that
I am not necessarily claiming that they are
more vulnerable to error than other scientists plunging into
this tricky area. But they are vulnerable. And what seems to
be a serious problem
is their unwillingness or inability to ad
mit that they are vulnerable. Neither expertise in laser physics
nor training in conjuring nor sincere desire to make their ex-
periments
error-free and
fraud-proof
suffices
to immunize
them from mistakes, misinterpretations, and deception.
In-
deed, their very insistence that they are free from such defects
may actually enhance
their vulnerability.
In a given specialty like laser physics, one which has a well-
developed history and accepted standards of instrumentation,
measurement,
experimental
paradigms,
and
other
agreed-
upon procedures, a scientist's colleagues know what
is meant
when he states that he gathered his data under controlled and
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
cih<Jlunuinist
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
:
rigorous conditions. But when the same scientist transfers his
efforts to a new field, especially one
in yvhich scientific de-
velopment is in its initial stages,
it no longer
is obvious what
constitutes
an
adequately
"controlled"
experiment.
Even
in standard areas of science it takes a long shake-down period
before a new problem or phenomenon can be safely studied
without fear of generating artifacts or overlooking important
sources
of
variance.
In
the
area
of
psychical
research,
especially
in
such
unchartered
areas
of
dealing
with
a
flamboyant psychic who claims to bend metals or in remote
viewing, we have no accepted and standardized procedures,
no specialized instrumentation, no agreed-upon dimensions
and units, no well-developed paradigms, and no accumula-
tion
of
experience
to
inform
us
unambiguously
of what
sources of error most need attention.
[
I n a visit to SRI on December 8, 1972,
I saw little to increase
[
I my confidence in the authors' ability to conduct psychic in-
|
vestigations. Targ and Puthoff, on more than one occasion,
have insisted that what
I witnessed that day was irrelevant for
evaluating their research on Uri Geller.
In this book, they in-
sist that
I have only myself to blame
if what
I saw was uncon-
trolled and unscientific.
It was my fault that
I
let Uri get away
with what they call his standard coffee-table demonstrations.
All this baffles me greatly. As far as
I knew,
I was part of a visit-
ing team to ascertain
if Targ and Puthoff had
sufficient evi-
dence and an adequate case to justify the
'Pn^^fS^lc^^ranSSng their research on Uri Geller. Under
the circumstances,
I assumed that they would present to us
the best case possible for Uri's powers and their competence
to harness them. Just what did Targ and Puthoff have to gain
by sitting back and letting Uri devote an entire day and their
resources to a display of useless parlor tricks? Did they think
that what they regarded as unscientific entertainments would
nevertheless be
sufficient
to
convince
us
to recommend
financial support.
But this
is not the place to go into differences about the
visit. The point
I want to make
is how the authors and
I differ
on what
is a "controlled" experiment. Targ and Puthoff say
that the only controlled experiment that occurred during our
visit to SRI was the one in which Uri Geller apparently dupli-
cated a drawing that Robert Van de Castle had earlier sealed
in an envelope. Here
is what
I observed, based upon the de-
tailed notes
I made at the time
it occurred.
Van de Castle had brought a
picture
with
him
that he
wanted Uri to duplicate by psychic means. When Uri learned
that the picture had been clipped from a magazine, he was
hesitant. He said that
it would be better
if
it were something
that Van de Castle had drawn himself. Van de Castle offered
to draw a version of the picture from memory. Uri reluctantly
agreed. Uri did not feel confident, but said he would give
it a
try. Van de Castle sealed his drawing in one opaque envelope
and
the
magazine
picture
in
another.
Each was
marked
outside
to
identify
it.
Uri
sent everyone out
of
the room
except George Lawrence and myself. He had George place his
hands on each envelope. Uri tried to get an impression. But
nothing, he said, came through. He asked George to retain the
envelopes and he would
try
later, maybe at lunch or
after.
After lunch, while
all alone with George, Uri
tried
again.
Again nothing happened. Then Uri decided to try with Van de
!
Castle, who, of course, knew what the drawings were. They
went alone into a room. After a
half-hour,
Uri and Van de
!
Castle emerged. They were obviously flushed with victory —
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
;
May/June 1977
CIA-RDP96-0078ZB000200080037-4
A new book on humanism
and the good
life.
.
fEXUBERANCE
^EXUBERANCE
(EXUBERANCE
fEXUBERANCE
A Philosophy of Happiness
.
by Paul Kurtz
Editor, The Humanist
In marked contrast to the mood of
despair that
often
pervades contem-
porary
society EXUBERANCE
pre-
sents an affirmative philosophy of life.
“I believe that it is possible for many or
most human beings to find some happiness
in the active life.
It’s chief excellences are
courage,
the
willingness
to
dare,
self-
power, resourcefulness, audacity,
creativ-
ity,
intelligence ...”
178 pages, cloth $8.95
FB Prometheus Books
1203 Kensington Avenue
^Buffalo, New York 14215
Approved For Rele^g^ 2001/03/26
:
they announced
success,
or
at
least
partial
success
1 he
envelopes had been opened before they emerged! Van de
Castle
explained
this
obvious
breach
of
protocol
on
the
ground that Uri was impatient to know how well he had done.
So Van de Castle and Uri opened the envelopes immediately
to check out the drawings.
It was not clear which one of them
had opened the envelopes.
We asked what had taken place during the half-hour in the
room. We were told that Van de Castle asked
Uri how he
could be of help. Uri suggested that Van de Castle keep
his
eyes closed and keep his hands over his eyes to better visual-
ize what he wanted to project. Van de Castle claimed that
during this long time with his eyes closed he had control of
the envelopes. This meant, as elicited by further questioning,
that Van de Castle had his elbow upon the envelope with his
drawing in
it. He freely admitted at that point, and again later,
that the second envelope could have been out of his posses-
sion. As someone pointed
out,
Uri's drawing was
a
better
match to the magazine picture than to Van de Castle's draw-
ing. Targ commented that this was a perfect experiment.
This, then,
is the experiment that Targ and Puthoff claim
was done under controlled conditions. From my viewpoint,
this
fails at being a controlled experiment on a number of
grounds:
(1) Uri was alone with just one man and the enve-
lopes for a half-hour; (2) Van de Castle had his eyes shut during
this entire period; (3) Van de Castle was sure only that he had
control of one envelope; (4) The envelopes had been opened
prior to their emerging from the room (thereby destroying any
evidence of possible tampering);
(5) Uri's drawing was a bet-
ter match to the picture that was
in the envelope that Van
de Castle admitted could have been out of
his possession.
This
is just one example of why we cannot be satisfied by the
simple declaration
that the conditions were "controlled."
It
is unfortunate that Uri Geller happened to Targ and Put-
Ifioff.
Ironically, one of the reasons they
give
for not
al-
lowing me to see their regular experiments with
Uri
is that
at that time they suspected that Uri might have been sent to
test their competence. They hinted that
I
might have
col-
laborated with Uri to trick them and then use
this success-
ful
deception
to
discredit them
as
psychic
investigators.
Whether he was sent to SRI for this purpose or not, Targ and
Puthoff will have a hard time convincing even some believers
that Geller did not swindle them. They themselves, in trying
to show how
^
ey
tn^hndf^d^d^tnght:m
Knowing
full well
that Uri was
willing to trick them, they went ahead with their research pro-
gram, fully confident that they could separate out the trickery
from the real thing. More cautious investigators would have
either immediately sent Uri back to his sponsor or treated
all
subsequent miracles with suspicion.
\
Because of the Geller affair, perhaps, the remote-viewing
experiments become even more suspect than otherwise.
In a
sense, they are too good. Without question they are several
orders of magnitude superior as experiments than the ones re-
ported with Uri Geller. The protocols are described
in much
more detail, and we are given rather detailed descriptions of
precautions taken against deception, inadvertent cuing, edit-
ing, and selection of cases. And the ultimate criterion of suc-
cess
is based upon
a sophisticated
statistical procedure.
So what is wrong? Without being on the scene
it
is hard to
say, but there are some disturbing aspects. The authors go
CIA-RDP96-0078^000200080037-4
into nrc.it detail about how the subjec
t generates his dost rip
Hon, how the target site
is selected, and how the team
is sent
to
It.
I hey describe the lodging procedure, but
in mu< h
less
detail. In fact,
it
is just
in this detail that problems arise
The
statistics
and
judging procedure assume
independence
of
descriptions for each target site. But this
is obviously violated
by the experimental procedure. Immediately after the subject
generates his description, he
is taken to the target site to be
given feedback on how well he has done. Although the reason
for doing this may be understandable,
it makes
his next de-
scription no longer independent of the first target site. To give
one example of how this might generate
false
hits, assume
that the first site
is a municipal swimming pool. The next day
the subject will probably avoid describing features
that ob-
viously belong to a swimming pool.
If the second site, say,
is
a
marina, the
subject,
in
the
third
protocol, would
avoid
describing things that obviously belong to a swimming pool
or a marina, and so on. Such a situation,
in principle, could
suffice to give a judge sufficient information to make perfect
matches at each
site from the descriptions. We, of course,
do not know
if,
in
fact, such an
artifact did
actually
pro-
duce their results. But the very fact that the assumption of
independence was violated destroys the validity of their sta-
tistical computations. In future experiments, they will have to
find a way to ensure independence (such as using only one
target per subject and having the judge match a set of de-
scriptions generated by different subjects).
Possibly just as serious
is the lack of any description of pre-
cautions to ensure post-description
security. After each de-
scription, the subject and the team of investigators all go to the
target site and openly discuss how well the description fits the
site. Good,
or
apparently good,
descriptions
will become
topics of animated discussion. What precautions were taken
to make
sure
that
none
of
this
gossip
trickled
back
to
potential
judges?
Similar comments could be made about
security of the protocols, recording judges' ratings, randomiz-
ing protocols to give to judges, the order in which judges visit
sites, and so on.
The authors make the strong claim that everyone whom
they have run through their protocol has succeeded to
satis-
faction." This
is certainly not completely the case.
I
have
talked with two individuals who went through this procedure
who were definitely not convinced that they had succeeded
beyond simple chance matching. And
I know someone who
has talked with another individual who also felt
it did not
work for him. Targ and Puthoff further claim that the remote-
viewing experiment has been successfully replicated
in sev-
eral independent
laboratories.
But they mention
only one
other study by name of investigators and laboratory. In a foot-
note, they mention the study and say
it consisted of a lengthy
series.
In a report put out by
these
authors,
the
"lengthy
series" consists of eight trials, two of which they admit were
defective.
I
know
of one
attempt
to
faithfully
replicate
the remote-viewing experiment as they described
it
in
an
article published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers'
journal;
the
results were competely negative.
All this suggests that the authors may not yet have found
the magic formula
for the repeatable ESP experiment.
The.
- history of the field
is against them. And enough questions can
;
be raised about their current work to raise doubts, at least for
members of the Loyal Opposition.
But, as always, time will
tell. And
if it turns out that they are correct after all, then
I am
ready to resign my membership in the Loyal Opposition.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
q-tfo/Iumanist