T£>
'
Vm
; v< Approved |Forvj^r^ase
1/03/26
: CIA-RD^S-^b^§^ft6jj^idb^6ii^J-yennsv,v '
jU'lfllKV'SJf^UiV/
1 ^ ^
mi.i
ib
Colk'j’i'oi
I kimunilios
& Scx'ia! Sciences
IVp.iMmeniol I’svihology
N Sociology
(2l r»)H
< ) r»-24 r
l .r
>
*
MAY 3 - 1975
IEEE
- EDITOniAU
\JvJEW. yORK, ,y
April
26,
1976
Mr. .Robert
W.
Lucky,
Editor
Proceeding,*?
of
the
IEEE
366
East 47th Street
New York,
New York
10017
Deer Mr.
Lucky:
I
have
just
read,
with considerable
interest,
an article
in
the March
issue
of
the Proceedin gs
of
the
IEEE by
It.
E.
Puthoff and
R.
Targ entitled
"A Perceptual
Channel
tor
Information Transfer Over Kilometer
Distances:
Historical Perspective
and Recent
Research."
These authors
have undertaken
a
scries
of potentially
significant
studies
into
a
topic
of obvious
interest
to an increasingly
largo
number
of
individuals,
doing
so utilizing what appears
to he appropriate
techniques
taken
from' the scientist's arsenal
of objective methodologies,
many of which
the authors
have previously distinguished
themselves using
in research
in
the
natural
sciences,
It
is
certainly
an understatement
to
say
that
such
a controversial
topic
as
ESP
re-
quires
extraordinarily precise and careful methods
,
especially well
suited
to exclude
the basis
for all
those nagging criticisms
often
irreverently hurled
at
the para-
psychologist-fraud,
inadequate controls,
imprecise and
incomplete
reporting,
of detail
improper
statistics,
proper
statistics
improperly used,
and,
especially,
the presence
of numerous
confounding variables which vary with
the
independent variables
In
their
experimental designs
in such a way
that
these
other uncontrolled variables remain
i.o
potentially account
for
the given results.
Indeed,
the authors
themselves apparently
set
out
to achieve
this
goal,
what
they refer
to as
their
"principal
responsihil
i ty—
to
resolve, under unambiguous conditions
the basic
issue
of whether
or
not
this
class
of paranormal
perception phenomenon exists"
(pps,
334-336).
Unfortunately,
the
model
for
their
study
follows
the
traditional
stratagems
of
the parapsychologists
in
tin:
United
States and Europe,
rather
than
the method
they
no doubt otherwise use
in
their
non-behaviora 1 research
in
the natural
sciences
(and
I might
add
that
is
largely
followed
in experimental
psychology).
As we
shall
indicate,
the consequence
of
this
is
that
they must necessarily
fall
far
short
in
fulfilling
their stated
"principal
responsibility.
It
is
the essence of the experimental mothod--in contrast
to naturalistic,
observation,
the survey technique,
correlational
procedures,
field
studios,
and
the
"Theoretical Model" of the parapsychologists
(Girdon,
1962,
p.
360) —to in
fact, create
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
C Ii
, if It hid* Si In ml
ii|'
I ilii.iiy Si mm
i>
i mIIi'iH' ill
1 mim 'i 'i
ii in
*
I vi'innm
nlli'ni'
96-00787R000200080043-7
Culti'im Ml
I tilMi it 'Vi ,md Ailminis1r.il i< hi
I
i illi'im nl
I
tl H Mill tit it ",
i im
I Si
ii
till '* »
ii< is
Hr. RohAF^RQVggt^r Release ^Qpl/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0^200080043i7.
,
i y /*»
Proceedings
of
the
IEEE
Papo
the conditions necessary
for "unambiguous" resolution of
fundamental questions
since
only this method permits manipulation and
control
of potentially confounding variables
by
the eminently sensible method
of va ry! ng
the
critical
factors under
study
,
and
systematically observing
their effects upon
oilier
selected and measurable variables
while holding
chose potentially
confounding, variables under
tight
control via
such
techniques
as
randomization,
constancy,
counterbalancing,
matching,
etc,
The mani-
pulated variables
are called independent
' variables
(IVs)
,
and
the variables
sensitive
to
the effects
of
the
IV
is
ealledi the dependent
variabl.es
(DVs)
.
This
has boon
expressed quite eloquently by Ebbinghaus
(1964,
p,
7;
original:
1885)
in his
incorporation of
this
expe ri ments 1 method
into his researches
into human memory,
a
successful
effort which went far
in illustrating
in
1885
the
p over
of
this method
in scientifically understanding human bchavior--including perception :
"We
all know of what
this method consists;
an attempt
is
made
to keep constant
the mass
of conditions which have proven
themselves causally connected with
a certain result;
one
of
these conditions
is
isolated
from
the
rest and varied
in
a way
that can be numerically described;
then
the accompanying change
on
the
side of
the effect
is ascertained by measurement
or
computation.
The
simplest experiments,
therefore,
arc
those employing
but
a
single
IV and
n
single
DV,
and,
in
the
fundamental
situation
in which an effort
is being made
to
demonstrate
the
sheer ex istence
of
a phenomenon
(as
in
the present
study,
without;
inquiring further into
its, composition and contingencies),
the
two basic values
or
levels
or variates
of
the
IV may be
simply designated
the "experimental"
(i.e.,
the
factor appea rs - -opera t iona 1 ly definod--in some amount)
and
"control" condition
(i.e.,
the
factor appears
as
a zero amount).
A helpful example might
be
n drug study
in which we
only wanted
to know
if
the
drug, makes
running
a maze difficult--or
not.'
In
this
situation,
we woutd expo
1."
mentally compare
the drug condition's
effects
to
a condition
oth erwise
id e nti cal
in
which
,
however,
the drug
is absent
.'
This would constitute
one
of
the most
fundamental
empirical control conditions used
in experimental
science
in general,
and experimental
p s yThTTfogy
in particular,
although of course other empirical control conditions
are
possible,
depending on what
one
is control lin g
for
We
speak,
by
the way,
of
"control
condition",
and not
"controlled" condition,
since we assume all conditions
in
the
experiment
are controlled
in
some way,
This
is apparently
a
source
of much confusion
in
the parhpsychological
literature,
where constant
reference
is made
to 'controlled
laboratory conditions," "scientifically controlled conditions," and
so
on,
thereby
creating
the
illusion that basically well conceived contro l
conditions
are
being,
used.
In
the
present
example,
if one
is concerned
that
the
proc edure
of
causes
errors
to he made
on
the maze,
then we
need
n
p l.acobo control
in which
S
is
treated
identically as
in
the drug condition,
but
saline rather
than
the drug
is
injected.
In
this
case,
we
"control
for"
the injection procedure's effects
on
the
I)V by holding
this potentially confounding variable constant
and can
thereby evaluate
it and prevent
it
from creating
the erroneous impression
that
the
drug,
per
se,
produced
the errors
Si
made on
the maze, when in
fact
the
drug injection procedure itself may have prpduced
that effect on
the
DV.
As we know,
in the present
study,
the basic
procedure described was carried out
with all
the subjects
(six in number
for section III
studies
through subsection
"D",
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7
Mr.
Rf^provect&CM'yPeleaiaa- ^^1/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787ROQgj20008004£rIl
26,
3 976
Proceedings of
the IEEE
Pago
two more
in section
"E",
snd
five more
in section
"F";
we
limit
our critique
to
the
more detailed accounts given in sections A-D rather
than
the very sketchy material
in sections
E and
F,
altliough all
these studies used essentially
the
came procedure
and varies mainly on
the basis
of subject characteristics. )
.
That
is,
all
t he
subjects were administered,
as
it were,
the same .bas ic
treat ment
cond i tlon
,
and were
thus
all
part
of
the
same
"clairvoyant"
or
"remote viewing" group,
consisting,
essentially
in
the
_Ss making an effort
to somehow envision
a
remote
target.
Actually,
all we know of
tl\e
instructions
to
the
S,
so critical
in determining
the operational
definition of
this condition,
is
that
the
"remote-viewing subject was
asked
to
describe
his
impressions of
the
target
site
into
a
cape recorder and
to make any
drawings
lie
thought appropriate
(p.335)," since
the authors
do
not
give
us
the actual
instructions.
In any case,
for each
_S,
there
did
indeed
exist
a
"remote
target"
designated by a
"target
team"
or
"demarcation
team"
situated
at
some geographical
location nearby
the
SRI
laboratory,
although
the
theoretical
rationale
for
this
team's
existence and
its
role
in
the procedure
is never really
logically presented
by
the
author
save
only
for an historical precedent established working informally with
Mr.
Ingo Swann
(p.
334)
and perhaps
the anecdotal
"pilot experiment"
(p,330)
where
one
of
the authors
functioned
in
this capacity as
a
"demarcation
team"
and,
we
infer,
grew quite
excited and impressed with
a
subject's descriptions
of some
sitos
he
visited, where
the subject
supposedly had
no particular prior information about
the
site
in question.
This
situation,
we
shall detail
later,
results
in considerable
ambiguity
in
the designation
of
the
"target"
(is
it. the
"targct-perceived-by-tho-tcam",
or
is
it
the physical
stimulus of
the
target,
and
so on?).
Tlie
whole procedure,
carried
out under what
the authors describe
ns
"rigidly
controlled
scientific conditions
(p, 334) ",
and
including
tlic
subsequent
judging,
procedure we
shall discuss
in
some detail
later,
could have been called an
"experi-
mental" condition comparable
to
the
"drug present" condition
in
the example above
i
i.
there
had been
a control
condition with
wliich
to compare
it
(comparable
to
the
"placebo*
or
"no\lrug" conditions
in our
example),
that
is,
n condition
in which all
of
the
preceding procedures were exactly
followed
but
in
t he
absen ce
of what was previously
ope ra t ions 1
l
y and objectively defined as
the
"remote-viewing" condition
(note
the
importance
of oh
) ectivc
specification of
the conditions under which
the
"remote-viewing*
is
to occur,
because without
that
there can be
no objective controlled
va rlnt ion of
the condition since
one would never know quite when
the experimental
condition existed
in
the
first
place,').
As
the matter
stands,
since, only one condition was
run
in
this
study,
wo really have
nei thor experimental
nor control conditions
(because
the
terms
are defined relative
to each other);
and
since
that
is
the
case,
we really have
no
IV;
and
since
wo. have
no
IV,
wo actually do not
even have
one experiment
(let alone
the
or
so claimed by
the authors
in
this
single
pub lication--p
,
330),
The
DV,* of course,
also deserves careful
scrutiny,
since hypothesised
IV effects
are evaluated
in terms
of changes
in
I)V measures.
In
this
study,
the
actual
"number"
obtained as
the basic raw datum was
the
individual ranking or
"match" number
of
a
subject's
tape recorded description
(supposedly of
a
"target"),
with
some aspect
(perhaps)
of
a nearby geographical
location.
The number could assume any value
from
"1"
to
"9",
where
"1" referred
to
the
judge's estimate
of
a
"bent" match,
through
"9"
which was assigned
to
a match if
it was
a
"worst" match
for
a given
target,
. Nine
tar-
gets
and nine
descriptions were obtained
for each
j3.
This was apparently an ordinal
scale
of measurement.
We must assume,
in
the
nljsence
(also)
of
a
specific
report
of
the
instructions
to
tlac
judge,
that
the
judge knew exactly what
his
task was
in
deter’*
mining
the degree of correspondence between
the £8
'
descriptions and
the
judge's own
unspecified perceptions when physically present,
at
the so-called
target,
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7
MV,
RobAppravedcEpr Release afipl/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0<^0008OQ43-7
Proceedings
of
the IEEE
PflE 0
We.
should,
therefore,
consider
the precise meaning
of
a
"hit" under
these
circumstances,
Evidently,
a
"hit"
for
the
Es occurred when
the geographical
locus
they called
the
"target"
is
judged
to correspond
to
the
jS's description obtained
while
the "demarcation
team" was visiting
a particular
site.
This was
also,
therefore,
a
situation where
the
S 's corresponding desciption was assigned
a
rank
of
"1".
Since
targets were
"experimented" with
a
given
55,
we have
9 separate
judgments
of
lank
carried
out
by
n
single given
judge.
The
sum
of ranks
for
the given
_S
of all
the
descriptions
for
the
theoretically associated
targets was
then compared
to
a probability
distribution
for
that
statistic,
a
situation wo claim
is
really
improperly nerving as
a
subs
t
i tu tion
for
a
test based
on
some
statistic
(which
c ou 1
d
be
the
sum of tanks)
obtained
from
the compart son of
the matches
for
this hypothetical
"remote viewing*
data
to
the matches obtained under similar judging conditions where
there was
n_o
remote viewing possible
(other control conditions will be described below).
' However,
there are numerous peculiarities
about
this
judging process
possibly
unresolvable
on
the basis
of
the authors’
scanty and ambiguous description of
this
critically important aspect
of
their
study.
Let
us consider
a
few of these
problems.
.
What was
the
jud ge
jud ging, ?
The
judge
Cor
a given
S
1 a
performance
for
a
given target
(what
-
the authors refer
to incredibly ns an "experiment")
was
successively
driven
to each geographical
location previously visited by
the peripatetic
Es.
5Jinco,
as wo previously noted, wc do not know precisely what
as pects
of
the geographical
location constituted
a
"target"
in
the original
"experiment" when
the demarcation
team, was
present,
and
since
it
is
even more ambiguous
now what
tire
judge
wa_n
viewing,,
as well
as what
he was
supposed
to be
looking at while
he reviewed
the
S's packages
of
9 descriptions,
we
seem
in
this procedure,
therefore,
to actually be dealing with
two
(and perhaps
three)
recognizably distinct
categories
of "targets";
one
is constituted
by
the perceptions
of
the demarcation
team;
a
second by
the perceptions
by
the
jt
f
( e;
and
n
third by direct physical aspects
of
some geographical
location
(photographs
are
used
in
the report and
labelled
"target"
to
further
complicate
target delineation--
c.R.j
Figure
A).
It
is difficult
to evaluate how potentially dissimilar
these various
"targets'* wore
in
the absence
of clarifying and detailed
accounts of
the
specific
instructions
to
the
teams and
to
the
judge.
After
all,
the
judge
or demarcation
team
may have
fixated
the horizon,
focused on passing vehicles,
noticed
a
sign,
and
so
on.
Consequently,
the reporting of
the
target
simply as
a
"target
location",
or
"remote
location"
(c
, g
.
,
"Marina j Redwood
City")
ns
the authors
do,
belies
the
fact
that
wo
are dealing here with both
their
c
l
a i rvoyance belief and
in
the perceptual
theory
that
Che way
things appear
to n viewer and
the way
they are physically constituted
may
not
bo at
all
identical
(c. g.
,
the
sensation "red" of
n perceived
stop
sign,
and
the atomic
structure
of
the paint pigments
on
its metal
surface).
The possible
con-
sequence
of
this
lack
of precise definition of
tho
target
is
that
the
judge
has
considerable latitude
in
fitting
S'a description
to
tho
scene ns
ho. perceives
it,
possibly even looking
for certain aspects
of
the
scene before him
that
aocm
to be
present
in
some
of
Si's descriptions.
2.
How reliable
is
the
Judge's
"Matching" Measure ?
A direct consequence
of
the preceTTing^onsideration bears directly upon
the
integrity
of
the measurement
used
for
the authors' basic datum,
namely,
the problem
that we do not know specifically
what,
constitutes
tho "standard"
(the target"
in some
sense)
against which our "comparison
stimuli"
(S's descriptions)
are measured by
the
judge,
resulting
in what must
be an
impressively unrealiable measure
(DV)
.
Furthermore,
this potentially highly iUI££li£]Ll£.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7