attitude that consistently tends to damp these latter is evidently
detrimental to the whole enterprise.
In the study- of psycho-
produces these phenomena is not an instrument or a machine.
Any attempt to treat him as such will almost certainly lead to
failure. Rather, as indicated earlier, he must be considered to
be one of the group, actively cooperating in the experiment,
and not a 'subject' whose behaviour is to be observed 'from the
outside'
in as cold and impersonal manner as possible.
Andconcerningthe involvement of magicians they continue;
It has been our observation, however, that magicians are
often hostile to the whole purpose of this sort of investigation,
so that they tend to bring about an atmosphere of tension
in
which
little or nothing can be done. (154)
This
factor of experimental conditions
is
also noted by
Joseph Hanlon:
One of
the
potential
difficulties
of parapsychological
investigation
is the sensitivity of the whole phenomenon, and
the inability of even "good" subjects to perform under many
seemingly reasonable, controlled conditions.
If ope accepts the
existence of parapsychological abilities, this
is not surprising.
One would, presumably, be dealing witha talent like musical
ability, and
it would be not unreasonable
to find a skilled
violinist, for example, being adversely influenced by playing
before a group of people he knew to be hostile critics. Also,
because we
are dealing
with
"mental
energies",
it
is
not
unreasonable to suppose that a confirmed critic could use his
psychological powers to block those of the sensitive.
Thus, the phenomenon will require somewhat different
procedures than other forms of research. Some concessions
will have to be made to keep the subject happy and com-
fortable, for example. (155)
Indeed, it is clearto see that setting up experimental controls
without reference to this fact may lead to a lack ofpositive results.
It
is perhaps clearer to see the point
if one makes analogy to
intuitve or non-rational psychological functions such
as
ro-
mance,
",Psychic powers, too, tend to emerge spontaneously, if
at all, so that
it has been about as much use asking a man to
exhibit them in a laboratory as it would to ask him to fall in love at
first sight with the lab. assistant." (156)
I do not defend or deny ESP or other parapsychic phe-
nomena.
I offer an analogy.
In the
past
I have written some poems of quite good
quality. Whole poems or the major part of them have seemed to
be deliverances of a subconscious region of the mind. They
came spontaneously as though they wrote themselves.
A skeptic could say: "This is nonsense.
I cannot believe
it
unless Hoffmann writes a genuine poem under carefully con-
trolled conditions."
Under such conditions
I would be seated under observa-
tion by psychologists. Instruments would be fastened to me to
record blood pressure, cephalic electric waves, cardiographic
pulsations, and maybe other recordings. Then
I would be told:
"We are ready now. Write a poem."
Under such conditions
I would not be able to write any-
thing but some exasperated cusswords. Consequently
! would
have been proved a fake and a fraud. (157)
inciaentauy, young uri snaies a ciididcceiiMic
111 tun ii
with everybody who claims to exercise occult powers, whic
^
for the mosf trivial
IV THE DEEPER ISSUES
ii) PKMB IN PERSPECTIVE
'ng up the spirit world
never do more than extract small talk from his contacts in
Great Beyond. "Tell Aunt Edie to be sure to wear her wc
vests in this cold weather," and. so on. Uri fiddles around \
cutlery and trinkets and the rest. As a good Israeli he ought t<
out there by the canal twisting the barrels of the Arab gun
that they fire backwards. (178)
In a letter to NEW SCIENTIST we have:
Sir,—When he heard that Uri Getter's accomplishm
were to be examined by a panel selected by NEW SC.IEN1
John Wade, a distinguished member of the inner council of
Magicians' Circle said to me: "What a number of us would
to know is not how Geller bends forks and keys and things,
why?" (179)
Author John White makes an apparent point:
His psychic functioning has so far not been put to ber
cial use for humans,
Uri has not,
to my knowledge, he;
anyone or relieved human
suffering. He hasn't used his
ability to straighten bent forks. (After all, who needs bent fo
(180)
He has perhaps suggested a possibility. Perhaps if
abilities are useable, they may be useful on biological systt
Psychic healing is also a considered possibility in parapsyt
logy.
Looking back over the data and the controversy, we
I
voluminous evidence suggesting the validity of PKMB, we
seem to have equally voluminous evidence denying
it. A
parapsychologists feel that the data is at least leaning in fav<
PKMB. John Beloffand Charles Tart who are well-respected ir
field comment respectively:
Let us start with the question that must be asked of e
paranormal claim, namely, the question of authenticity. Tc
reviewer,
at
least, the Geller case has long since passec
point where
it
is
sensible
to doubt
that
Gclie.r
posse
paranormal powers except,
that
is,
in the purely theorc
sense in which all psi phenomena are open to doubt. If aski
justify such a statement, my first impulse would be to reply
no one in the world could be that clever! However,
I
re.
that
this
intuitive judgment
is scarely
going
to
satisfy
skeptics.
Tjhe case
for
regarding
the specific
"Geller effect
authentic (i.e., the paranormal bending of metal objects) st
me as even more indisputable if only because here there a
many independent witnesses. (181)
Whether Geller is "pure," as some believe, or whethi
uses conjuring sometimes but occasionally shows parano
abilities, as many parapsychologists now believe,
is of
consequence. More than 500 methodologically tight, ex
mental studies that show various paranormal effects
air
exist, none of them depends on the ability of Geller, wl
probably only a passing fad.
The known physical laws indeed appear to bend
sc
times and the implications of such paranormal effects fo
understanding of ourselves and the universe may be eriorrr
Geller has drawn enough attention to the paranormal
tc
some
very
bright
scientists
interested.
If
it
takes
key
spoon-bending
to
get us
started on
a
large-scale
sciei
investigation of the paranormal, the career of Uri Geller
have served a useful purpose. (182)
What is moic interesting however,
is that a few of the c
V/hen the phenomenon of PKMB is considered in terms of
practical relevance, aside from philosophical implications for the
parrAj3pro'VGoGtvporsRe4^afee^0O<l'/O3/O7^P'©IA''JRDP96^0
(O'T88ROGy2OOO4®OO?1
i5vo,t/)y
of study-
lo
have viewed this whole affair in a refreshingly lighthearted way:
Hanlon, who remains skeptical of PKMB,
sti[l has written:
!
teel strongly marine
ntiXt mieiusuug uitdMuronjTT
,,,
.
-
science may well come not from expensive research by huge
tipn and sloppiness are vital in examining heterodoxy, impat-
tearrvAp01^V^dfS©tt)RdJed®er20fl4/O)3/07idi€iA-RDI?96 I-CIO7
,@8RO
,O2O0Oe180ai1^§roduc tive / and anti-
and small teams into the interaction of people and themselves
pathetic to the spirit of science. (186)
€
and their surroundings.
Through
biofeedback, we now have control over our
bodies of a sort that not so long ago was almost universally
agreed to be impossible. Negative ions in the air seem of affect
our attitudes. And so on. In the past few years, these areas and
others such as parapsychology have become less the province
of hopeful amateurs and more the area of trained
scientists.
(183)
And sober critic Ray Hyman has written of the paranormal:
Parapsychologists
are
doing much more
sophisticated
research than many critics and indifferent scientists realize;
and
if nonparapsychologists took the time to read the current
parapsychological journals, most of them would discover that
the
field
contains
a
solid
core of dedicated,
serious, and
competent experimenters. Furthermore,
it
is difficult to read
through this literature without coming to the conclusion that
“something"
is there. (184)
Perhaps the best stance one can take towards the issue of
PKMB and
its controversy
is at least one that
is not closed.
Editorials
in two of the most distinguished scientific journals
have encouraged openness to the field, and perhaps
it is'the
safest stance.
In NATURE is printed:
The parasciences may not yet have unearthed much for
which there
is a cast-iron case for scientific explanation, but
there
is ample material crying out for verification, and the
lessons learned over the last few years should have improved
techniques and
procedures
for getting
to the
heart of the
deception/reality question. Now, surely, isthetimefor scientists
m
n
large numbers to take a more
practical
interest
in these
obstinate issues.
If we
fail to do so, parascience will recede
further into the mystic's world and will take with
it much of the
public's sympathy.
Investigation in the para-world is neither easy nor always
agreeable.
Public
interest,
however,
demands,
rightly
or
wrongly,
that
scientists come to grips with the propositions
being made. And
if scientists won't come
in with
rational
attitudes and, where necessary, rational explanations, they can
hardly be surprised if the forces of irrationalism take over. (185)
And in NEW SCIENTIST we have:
The temptation is always to be negative, to dismiss bizarre
notions
as impossible and unexamined evidence
as inade-
quate. And researchers who have once invested valued time in
a fruitless pursuit of bent cutlery or empathelic tomatoes can
become even more haughty than those who have never been
blooded
in these woolly areas.
Patience and persistence form a
better stance. Science
must remain open
to strange
possibilities, even when they
come from the most unlikely quarters. Scientists must remain
cool, and committed to determined proselytising on behalf of
IV. DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
We must consider how best to proceed further.
Perhaps
continued validation of PKMB is not the most productive. Speak-
ing to the pro/con controversy Author Hastings writes:
These two positions have given rise to a controversy with
attacks, charges, and countercharges. The issue is the nature of
Geller's abilities.
Is he a trickster using magic? Is he a genuine
psychic? Is he a person with some real psychic ability and who
also uses deception when he wishes or has to?
I
think
it
will prove
better not to draw any
of those
conclusions, or any conclusions at all on that level, it is too late
for that. The argument over Geller has become a Gordian knot,
in a rope that we do not need. (187)
Parapsychologists Ted Bastin and Charles Honorton have
offered us what maybe the optimium approach to PKMB. Bastin
writes:
I think that, at the present moment,
it is a good thing for at
least some investigators of the paranormal, with material now
coming to hand
in an unprecedented volume, to aim to get
information about the regularities and shapes that are discern-
ible
in the material, rather than endlessly to repeat proofs of
their existence. One important way to demonstrate the exist-
ence of a field
is to map
it out. (188)
Honorton writes:
There are those who believe that satisfactory explanation
of the anomalies studied in parapsychology will require major
modifications in scientific theory. This is debatable. What is not
debatable is that the anomalies will remain anomalous so long
as attention
is maintained on "conclusive proof" of the claims
of flamboyant psychic superstars, rather than the systematic
delineation of positive attributes and necessary conditions for
the phenomena
in
less
spectacular
but more
cooperative
subjects. (189)
However, this reviewer has preferred this eloquent express-
ion by a philosopher:
Research
into the paranormal
is bogged down
in
the
boring question of whether
it exists to the exclusion of the
question of what
it
is. Neither does this remark prejudge the
former question,
for
if
it does not
exist
then
it
will prove
impossible to say what
it is and we answer the boring question
by our failure to answer the interesting one. This
I submit is
:
better method. (190)
C
MR. SAT BIR SINGH KHALSA, graduate student in neurophysiology at the Uni
versity of Toronto who at my request in 1976 became involved in the meticulous ant
time consuming task of further reviewing the diverse literature on this topic. Hi
tireless dedication to this difficult project has provided much valuable information
and he has gained my deep respect.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R0020001 3001 1 -5
>k