rigorous conditions. But when the same scientist transfers his efforts to a new field, especially one in which 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. Ir a visit to SRI on December 8, 1972, | saw little to increase my confidence in the authors’ ability to conduct psychic in- vestigations. Targ and Puthoff, on more than one occasion, have insisted that what | witnessed that day was irrelevant for evaluating their research on Uri Geller. In this book, they in- sist that | have only myself to blame if what | saw was uncon- trolled and unscientific. It was my fault that | let Uri get away with what they call his standard coffee-table demonstrations. All this baffles me greatly. As far as | knew, | was part of a visit- ing team to ascertain if Targ and Puthoff had sufficient evi- dence and an adequate case to justify the Advanced:Researc ls pene Keer Tang their research on Uri Geller. Under the circumstances, | 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 | want to make is how the authors and | 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 | observed, based upon the de- tailed notes | 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 — A new book on humanism and the good life... 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 Fe Prometheus Books 1203 Kensington Avenue _Buffalo, New York 14215 Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4 May/June 1977 19
Approved For Releage 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00784R000200080037-4 they announced success, or at least. partial success. The 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 éxperiment 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- hoff. 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 | 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 knowledgeable they are about magicians’ meks, describe howe SODE cetieainiyen acon apuned 2 ears mndtatd-strickrormthem. 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 20 - history of the field is against them. And enough questions can Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4 inte preat detail about how the subject generates his descrip tion, how the target site is selec ted, and how the team ts sent toit. They describe the judging procedure, but in much fess detail. In fact, it is just in this detail that problems arise The : statistics and judging procedure assume independence of descriptions for cach 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. | have talked with two individuals who went through this procedure who were definitely not convinced that they had succeeded beyond simple chance matching. And 1 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. | 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 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 | am ready to resign my membership in the Loyal Opposition. e othe} fumanist