Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 anomalies are just anomalies -- mere "puzzles" -- and nothing more. The more conservative parapsychologists tend to agree that nothing more than anomalies have been demonstrated; but they point out that the anomalies are structured statistically in very interesting ways, suggesting that something more significant is at work. Critics, in turn, counter that if a "successful" experiment has been cleanly run and the results are well above chance, then most scientists would agree that something truly puzzling has been manifested. That is why methodology and replicability are so important for parapsychology experiments. But, they conclude, it is not a puzzle that has high priority when viewed against the other questions facing scientists. They assume that the explanation for the puzzle, when found, will not be very interesting after.all. One reason (of several) for the critics' skepticism is the "experimenter effect," which is seen in the fact that certain investigators obtain consistently positive experimental results while others get only chance results. So pervasive is this phenomenon that it has been called "the only confirmed result of parapsychology. "25 The experimenter effect lends force to criticisms of parapsychology, seeming as it does almost to imply fraud -- or at least a lack of objectivity. Parapsychologists point out that the identity of the experimenter is also positively correlated with the placebo effect in clinical medicine. It may be, they suggest, a function of belief in the phenomenon under investigation. According to this view, some of those who believe in psi are somehow able to elicit the phenomenon in their subjects. But, if true, this presents a problem for the experiments, since the investigator can influence the experiment subjectively and perhaps involuntarily. In other words, it might demonstrate the existence of psi while making it even more difficult to prove sclentifically. Stringent requirements for proof are placed on parapsychology. The editor of Science has stated that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Some parapsychologists object that the burdens of proof in this field are unique, and unfairly so. In their view, the critics of the field have an arbitrarily high threshold for what constitutes scientifically acceptable evidence, and everything falling below that threshold is dismissed as insignificant. Indeed, the NRC committee recognized only two successful experiments over 15 years in all of parapsychology -- one in remote viewing27 and one using the random number generator -- as meeting "most of the minimal 25 Parker, A. A pilot study of the influence of experimenter expectancy on ESP scores. In J.D. Morris et al. (Eds.) Research in Parapsychology 1974. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975. 26 Abelson, P.H. "A stepchild of science starts to win friends." U.S, News & World Report, 31 July 1978. 27 Schlitz, M. & J.M. Haight. Remote viewing revisited: An intrasubject replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 48: 39-49. 28 May, E.C., B.S. Humphrey, & G.S. Hubbard. Electronic System Perturbation Techniques (Final Report). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1980. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 18 eriteria of scientific acceptability."29 30 In this connection, parapsychologists point to the unreasonableness of requiring extraordinary proofs and, when such proofs are provided, dismissing the results as a "mere puzzle." Critics, for their part, reply that the stringent requirements are warranted because the field itself is unique. One workshop participant listed several ways in which, in his view, parapsychology is different from other fields: , o It lacks boundary conditions specifying when psi phenomena should and should not be expected to be present. o Only the experimenter effect has been definitively established. o There is no easily replicable paradigm for experiments. o Debates are about primary phenomena (i.e., does psi exist or not) rather than about its "lawfulness." o The concept of demonstrating anomalies is different -- in parapsychology the "successful" results are not strikingly different from the baseline model. In general, then, from the perspective of critics the criticisms of the field and its results can be summarized as follows: (1) there has been no "conclusive" experiment; (2) there is no truly repeatable parapsychology experiment; (3) the "significant" results are isolated and disconnected observations of no obvious scientific interest; (4) the results are nonsensical in that they do not suggest any lawful relationships or progressive research programs; and (5) even if real, psi is too weak to be of any practical importance. Each of these points is countered by parapsychologists. Nevertheless, given that harsh assessment by the critics, it is relevant to ask them what would comprise acceptable proof of psi. WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE PROOF OF PSI? Parapsychologists often maintain that the critics have been unwilling or unable to specify detailed criteria that would lead them to accept the psi hypothesis. In their view, this enables the critics to continually shift their ground in generating criticism -- in effect, presenting a “moving target" that moves faster than parapsychologists can adjust their research protocols and aims. 29 National Research Council, op. cit., pp. 184, 190. 30 Some critics point to a third study as another example of a well-run, tightly controlled experiment giving significant results that are difficult to explain. (Schmidt, H., R.L. Morris, & L. Rudolph. Channeling evidence for a psychokinetic effect to independent observers. Journal of Parapsychology, 1986, 30: 1-6.) This study was favorably reviewed in a background paper prepared for the NRC committee, but was omitted from the report's conclusions. Parapsychologists claim that there are many other more recent studies, not reviewed by the committee, which would also satisfy any reasonable standard of acceptability. 31 Rao, R.K. & J. Palmer, op. cit., p. 541 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 19 Based on the list of differences above, one workshop participant presented a list of criteria that, in his view, would need to be satisfied before "proof" of psi could be achieved. These included both local criteria (i.e., those focused on the particular experiment) and global criteria (those that cut across experiments). Local criteria have to do with statistical significance and power, and with the experimental methodology and controls. In this critic's view, if a proof relies entirely on statistics, it is probably not science. (It was noted, however, that a full application of this position would eliminate several well-established fields of science, such as particle physics.) Global criteria are those which, taken together, present an overall pattern that the scientific community is forced to recognize and accept. They include replicability, lawfulness, consistency of effects, and cumulativeness across time. The latter idea -- that parapsychology represents a series of fits and starts over the long term, with each generation of researchers beginning anew -- generated considerable discussion. A number of the parapsychologists described how their work is built on the foundation of work that came before. For example, Charles Honorton's ganzfeld work evolved out of earlier research on ESP and altered states of consciousness such as dreaming and hypnosis. Robert Jahn's research is built on the earlier work of Schmidt (with random number generators) and Puthoff (in remote viewing). CONFLICTING ORIENTATIONS A major challenge that parapsychologists face is the insistence by many of their critics (particularly the psychologists among them) that all "normal" explanations -- those based on known science, such as neurological or psychological mechanisms, or those based on the charge of poor methodology -- for experimental results must first be considered and discarded before psi, the paranormal effect, can be entertained. In this view, psi is the residuum when all other possible explanations have been eliminated. This issue goes to the heart of the problem that skeptical scientists have with parapsychology, which is that, in their view, parapsychologists begin with a hypothesis in which they believe (viz., that there is interaction between consciousness and the physical world) and then run experiments until they get results that tend to confirm the hypothesis and the belief. Critics contend that, since the existence of psi has not been demonstrated, and since, indeed, there is not even an adequate theory that could support its existence, the presumption that psi explains any anomalous result cannot be supported. Yet, the parapsychologists insist, this tendency to believe in a certain explanation for the effect they are demonstrating through experiment does not disqualify the experiment. Indeed, such belief is quite common among scientists in every field. It is the interpretation of results that is open, they say, and it is not their job (nor are they qualified) to eliminate all possible physiological and other explanations outside their field of expertise. They have simply demonstrated an anomaly in which science ought to be interested. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8