--------------------------------------------------------
August 1988 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
--------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 7, No. 8
                Editor:  Kent Harker



BIG SOOTHSAYER BYTES APPLE
by Don Henvick

A friend calls a while back and tells me about a demonstration a so-
called psychic is gonna give down the S.F. peninsula. I've seen this
particular guy do his mumbo-jumbo before, but two aspects of this
thing promise for some interesting developments. The psychic is gonna
take questions from the audience after he does his thing, and the
venue, far from being Madame LaZonga's Meditation Parlor, is part of a
lecture series given by and for the employees of a very biggish
computer company named for a popular and very distinguished fruit. So,
this lot of hard-headed, scientifico-technical types will be less
likely than most to get goo-goo eyed over what our miracle boy will
have to offer. We shall see.

The auditorium is packed with several hundred assorted folk eager to
see what an enlightened mind has to offer that their mere-mortal types
don't, and that maybe even their favorite computer brain can't match.

Our Boy Seer is introduced and goes into his routine. I'm particularly
fond of this guy because he doesn't do too much of the dreary cold
reading which usually sends yours truly off to nap land in short
order. His stuff is more visual, a combination of psychological arm-
twisting and outright, though nicely camouflaged flim-flammery.

He starts out with seeing how the power of suggestion can affect some
folks in the audience more than others. The most suggestible are
praised for being more sensitive and psychic than the rest of us
clods, and the Bogus Seer makes it a point to go back to these more
pliable ones as the show progresses. Much of what he does is
"explained" in terms of psychology and subtle body reactions for the
benefit of those who may be less receptive than others to the astral-
spirit explanation. But then the B.S. cheats like hell to make sure
that his impressions are correct.

I'll give you an example. Twice, not once, but twice, he gets the
audience to believe that by watching their reactions or taking
someone's pulse he can tell if someone is lying or not. Those of us
with some notions about psychology know this is true -- to a point.
But the B.S. stretches it beyond the point of credulity, especially
for those of us with some smarts in magic, when he ensures the outcome
of his "Clever-Hans" experiment by engaging in some sleight of hand.

His demonstration of the power of the mind is nothing more than a
cheesy magic trick, though it seems like very few in this august
assembly are aware of it. It makes no difference that these folks
spend their days calculating and such like that, they're just as
eager, if not more, to lap this stuff up, so the Bogus Seer really
starts to dish it out. The B.S. hits 'em with stuff right off the
shelf of every magician's mental magic library.

Picture this: he holds up a newspaper column and moves a pair of
scissors up and down while a (randomly-selected) member of the
audience tells him when to cut. The top line where the cut was made
reads as he predicted, in writing, before the show. Strong stuff?
You bet. Fake stuff? You bet. How about being able to figure out one
line out of a whole book that a spectator is thinking of? How about
letting a spectator he's never seen before choose one card out of a
pack and that one card happens to have her name written on it!

The B.S. has started off slow with stuff maybe anybody can do -- maybe
it's coincidence -- and has imperceptibly swayed into more amazing
stuff, taking the audience along with him. The more skeptical in the
audience aren't asked to swallow the whole thing at once, just slowly
invited to let their minds accept something a little improbable,
'cause after all, "science hasn't figured out everything; maybe there
are some things we don't understand, so don't be closed-minded." Once
they've given this guy the benefit of the doubt, once they've
surrendered their skepticism, he takes more and more advantage 'till,
at the end, while I'm saying "Phooey!" they're saying, "Maybe!" and
everybody else is saying, "Wow!" They should have just said "No!" to
the Bogus Seer.

The demonstration finally winds up and I'm looking forward to the
question period, but first the lecture organizer has an announcement.
I'm not too surprised to hear it but I think the audience is and maybe
you will be, too. The announcement is, "You've been had!" The B.S. is
our own B.S., Bob Steiner, doing his fake-psychic bit and doing it
very nicely, thank you. Patiently, Bob explains that he is a phonus-
balonus, doing his thing in an effort to see if the employees of
Unnamed Fruit Computer Company are as gullible as everybody else. They
are. Which is not to say they are dumb -- not at all -- but if they
accept demonstrations of the paranormal without proper controls,
there's no telling where they might let themselves be led.

Questions follow a familiar pattern: "How did you do it?" "Maybe
ghosts are not real, but how about UFOs?" "How DID you do it?" My
favorite is from a seemingly intelligent young woman who asks Bob if
he mediates, and if not, how can he get those powers that he uses?

Some people never get the message no matter how clear.



POP GOES PSI

S.F. Examiner science writer Keay Davidson, critic of psi and very
sympathetic to the goals of CSICOP did a wonderful piece on the
current state of parapsychology.

It seems that the Bottom Line is probably going to be the determining
factor for the immediate future of parapsychology. In the ever-
tightening fiscal realities of the '80s, the "'70s high has become the
'80s low," observes Davidson. Due to the dismal failure of some of the
most prestigious parapsychology institutions to produce anything
significant, government grants have dried up, and private grants are
also on the wane. The Pentagon has suffered some embarrassment from
some of the kooky projects begun to counter the alleged "psi-gap," and
has withdrawn funding from a two-year, $425,000 study. To this
economic crunch was added a crushing blow from the prestigious
National Research Council (NRC), "which has concluded there is `no
scientific justification, from research conducted over a period of
130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.'"

Here in the Bay Area, the most important center of parapsychological
research is J. F. Kennedy University in Orinda, and it is on the brink
of closing its parapsychology laboratory. Elsewhere well-know
researcher Charles Honorton announced that his Princeton, N.J. lab
just lost a $300,000-a-year private grant. Honorton et al. blamed the
NRC in a searing press release for the funding crisis, charging the
NRC with "bias and unfairly lumping parapsychology with a wackier fad
-- people who try to communicate with plants."

One of the principal architects of the NRC summary is CSICOP's Ray
Hyman from the University of Oregon. For his part Hyman has become the
focus of a concerted attack from the circling wagons of the 300-member
Parapsychological Association of North Carolina.

"You can't believe what venom has been directed at me," Hyman said.
"I've been called everything -- a hatchet man, a religious zealot,
everything."

Probably the most telling comment came from Brendan O'Regan of the
Institute of Noetic Science in Sausalito. "The field has been
demoralized by CSICOP's activities, starved to death by the lack of
funding, and flogged to death by researchers pursuing the same old
questions."

For the first 120 years the parapsychologists had the stage all to
themselves -- there lacked a cohesive, united front to confront the
hemorrhage of irrationality. CSICOP is now the vehicle, and it has
proved to be the truncheon that has breached the gates.

Who says we aren't making a dent?



A WORM IN THE APPLE

Steiner's presentation at Apple was not met with universal elation.
When you pry the lid off psychic nonsense, the believers just don't
take too kindly to the light in which they are suddenly bathed. At the
end of Steiner's exhibition, organizer Joe Wujek announced to the
startled crowd that, "You've been had. This was a hoax." (See Don
Henvick's article about the presentation.)

A disgruntled employee posted the following diatribe on the AppleLink
electronic mail, edited for space but otherwise left in its pristine,
garbled original, misspelling, punctuation and all. Instead of filling
the thing with a bunch of "sic", an asterisk will serve to note it is
not our poor proofreading. All ellipses are original. (Permission to
print was granted by Mr. Wujek.)

"To: WUJEK

"Unfortunately, you're right...this was was a hoax. Instead of hearing
what we thought and what was advertized* to be, as a lecture by a
psychic investigator, we got magic tricks! Does this make sense? What
happened to the lecture, the experiences and common ways people are
influenced or tricked.* He was asked more than three times to explain
a particular item `the birthday game', and he had difficulty in
communicating probability I can understand; his mumbo-jumbo and
explanations and yours, frankly, were not communicated well at all.

"He didn't even feel he could devulge* some of his basic magic
tricks... what a joke. My brother did magic and I've always enjoyed
it. I've seen great magicians.... Most of them were enjoyable and
entertaining and I was a willing participant whether I new* how it was
done or not.

"We came and were asked to listen patiently and to particpate* in a
demonstration. At the end of the demonstration, instead of being asked
whether we believed his demonstration to be of a psysic* nature or
involving ESP, we were asked whether we believed in ESP. I feel these
are two entirely different questions. Mr. Steiner chose to believe his
own illusion, that people don't know the difference between his work
and possibly something they would call an extra-sensory perception
experience. His work was well done, but by no means would I have
called it an ESP experience. And he was entertaining, except the
audience this time was left with a bad taste in their mouth.

"And what's most unfortunate, instead of helping people remove the
veils of darkness from a particularly difficult experience they feel
they might have had, he forces people to shut the doors and not talk
or come to understand the issues and reasons behind some events.

"What amazed me was your act was worse than the `charlatans and faith
healers' you propose to uncover.

"Isn't it possible that people are growing in their degree of
sensitivity and perceptions and just maybe, sometime in their life,
something might happen to them that is perceived as beyond their realm
of understanding? Things happen all the time, we don't understand the
reasons, but we somehow know them to be true. And sometimes, amazingly
enough they are.

"Thanks for your sense of enlightenment, it sure opened my eyes...the
dark ages are still here, and so is prejudice and misunderstanding."

Steiner, not one to let such nonsense pass, replied and has given
BASIS permission to print his response (also edited for space).

"While it is clear that you were upset by the presentation, I believe
that the anger and outrage in your reply were all out of proportion to
what was presented. "You state about me: `He didn't even feel he could
devulge* some of his basic magic tricks....' You proceed to tell that
your brother was entertaining, and that you enjoyed the magic he
performed. Question: Did your brother ever divulge the secrets of
magic from the stage to a large audience, thereby not only violating
the oath of the craft, but destroying a substantial part of the
entertainment art form of magic?

"You claim that you have seen great magicians. Did they ever divulge
the secrets of the craft from the stage to a large audience? "You
state that `the audience this time was left with a bad taste in their
mouth.' Much as you would like to believe that, I must remind you that
you do not speak for the audience. Based upon the experience of over a
decade of making such presentations, I am happy to report that your
opinion is a tiny, tiny minority view of the event.

"Furthermore, the considerable applause at the conclusion of the
presentation and the large number of people who personally
congratulated and thanked me belie your assertion of a bad taste left
in the mouths of members of the audience.

"You claim that my act was `worse than the charlatans and faith
healers [I] propose to uncover.' Do you truly consider what I did at
Apple Computer to be worse than the effect on an eight-year-old boy on
crutches who left a `faith-healing crusade,' still crippled, with
tears streaming down his cheeks? Do you consider my presentation to be
worse than the self-proclaimed `psychic' who takes money from people
to have them allegedly communicate with their dead loved ones?

"It is this type of thing, which goes on all the time that make me
believe that it is worth the risk of a tiny, tiny shock to the
outrageous and angry sensitivities of the likes of you, in order to
alert the majority to the potential danger of irrational belief."

Joe Wujek sent a note with Bob's letter to the employee in question
praising the public efforts of BAS in general and Robert Steiner in
particular.

(Editor's note: At the time this issue is in your hands, Robert
Steiner is being installed as President of the Society of American
Magicians, a world-wide organization founded in 1902. Bob is not busy
enough with is professional accounting business, his duties as
President of SAM, and his performances and lectures, so we installed
him on the board of BAS.

We're glad to have you back in a more direct, active role, Bob.)



EDITOR'S CORNER

We skeptics have been naive and shortsighted in our response to the
creationists -- seen for the most part as nettlesome, though minor,
pests. We have assumed they would go away if ignored. We have waited
for them to run out of steam or be humiliated out of existence because
they are opposed not only by secular groups, but mainstream
Christianity (and certainly non-christian religions) too.

This has not happened, and could represent a potentially costly error
in terms of the advancement of science and pluralism in a democratic
society.

Creationists make their public appeal under democratic slogans like
"equal time," "open mindedness," "alternative views," and talk of the
"marketplace of ideas." This is their public approach, but when
speaking to each other, their aims are stated very differently. They
sell tolerance as a substitute for the hard evidence their viewpoint
lacks.

This became clearer than ever to me after I read Ken Ham's "The Lie:
Evolution". Ham is an Australian and recent adjunct to the Institute
for Creation Research (ICR) near San Diego. His prosy book, which
includes 31 pages of sophomoric cartoons depicting the evils of
evolution, begins by warning FCs (fundamentalist Christians) that the
creation/evolution debate is the most important issue they face,
because the problems of society -- "lawlessness, homosexuality,
pornography, Nazism, racism, drugs, male chauvinism, war and abortion"
-- find their roots in evolution. If I was surprised to discover that
all the ills of the world originate with evolution, I was
flabbergasted to read that "In fact, I [Ham] have not yet met one
informed evolutionist who has disagreed with me concerning the
relationship of evolution to these particular moral issues. [p. 84]"

Ham begins his thesis by saying that evolution is not science because
"we cannot DIRECTLY test the past using the scientific method, [p. 5,
my emphasis]" and then says one page and two cartoons later that "the
evidence for creation...[is] what the Bible says concerning Noah's
Flood, the Tower of Babel and other related topics. [p. 8]" Ham
acknowledges that creationism is not science: "The reader needs to be
aware that, when we discuss creation/evolution, in both instances we
are talking about beliefs, that is, religion. Creation is a religious
position based on the Word of God.... [p. 12]"

If science consists only of that which we can DIRECTLY test there is
no such thing as science because there is no such thing as a DIRECT
test of anything. Even looking at something two feet away is indirect,
because what we see happened a very short time ago -- the time it
takes for the light to travel from the object to our retina to be
passed (and processed) by the optic nerves and  the visual centers of
our brain. There is no direct connection even  with our own
consciousness. All science is historical in this strict  sense.

Probably the most common logic error in Ham's book -- and a linchpin
of creationist logic -- is the false dichotomy. Everything is black or
white. All of the complex scientific and sociological issues in  our
experience are grandly simple in the world according to Ham. All
matters can be sifted by Scripture into sheep or goats. In what
amounts to a colossal misunderstanding of science, he hangs his
readers on the manufactured dilemma of distressing uncertainty:
"Unless we know every bit of evidence is available, we can never
really be  sure that any of [our] conclusions were right. This is a
real problem  for any human being -- how can he ever be one hundred
percent sure about anything? [p. 19]"

How to solve this problem? Do not despair. Though there may be
uncertainty on one side, on the other is the "irrefutable evidence of
the Scriptures,... This ends our dilemma. We are in no doubt.... [p.
20]"

A cartoon on page 25 sums it up: a smiling, suited-and-tied man (the
evolutionist counterparts are usually ill-clad, scowling, long-haired
and dirty) holds a sign which reads, "OUR THINKING IN EVERY AREA" as
the character points to the Bible on which he stands. To this is added
the declaration, "If the Bible is not the infallible word of the One
who knows everything, then we have exactly nothing. [p. 25]"

With such thinking, of course, the FCs are in an all-or-nothing
position.  Ham states that "...if you do not have a believing
understanding of that book [Genesis], you cannot hope to attain full
comprehension of what Christianity is all about" and accompanies it
with an illustration of a crumbling block of Christianity resting on a
crumbling block of Genesis -- i.e., if a literal Genesis a la FC is
not the foundation of Christianity, it will crumble.

If one ever had any doubts about the real purposes of the scientific
creationists they are abruptly dispelled in Ham's excitement about the
success of their "creation ministry." Relating his experiences of
teaching creationism (in Australia) to non-Christians, he says, "The
results [teaching creationism] have been astounding. Many, many
students have listened to the claims [of creationism] and have shown
real interest in Christianity with a number of conversions as a
result. [p. 31]"

FCs have established centers for creation "research" in the guise of
science. These are really launching platforms for "creation
ministries." Since evolution is the root of all evil, teaching it
turns souls away from the Truth, so it must be destroyed. The real
agenda has nothing to do with equal time: "This is the real problem.
If we want to see... humanism collapse (which any thinking Christian
must), then we have to reaim [sic.] the cannons at the foundation of
evolution. It is only when the foundation is destroyed that the
structure will collapse. The foundation of evolution needs to be
destroyed and the foundational basis of creation restored to its
rightful place of importance. [p. 93]"

Increasingly, FCs are urged to remove their children from schools and
teach them in the home. The burgeoning home-school program is bringing
significant problems to public education in some areas, and we can be
assured that there is no such thing as equal time for evolution in
these home schools.

Any who think creationists support such fuzzy-headed notions as free
speech or the "marketplace of ideas" had better stop dreaming and
realize the FCs have declared war. The militaristic lingo they use is
combined with a potential for violence expressed in the bombings of
abortion clinics around the country.

FCs cannot tolerate any form of dissent because it threatens the very
foundation of their being. Those Christians that see metaphor or
mythology in Genesis are denounced and condemned to The Pit. FC
exegesis, like their science, is simple: "When Scripture is meant to
be taken symbolically or metaphorically, it is either obviously so
from the context or we are told so. [p. 80]" Theistic evolution, they
say, is just another of the wiles of the Prince of Darkness, perhaps
even more evil than more conventional forms of wickedness because it
has the appearance of religion.

What is to be done?

First, let's get off our duffs and take this attack seriously. FCs
have declared that the only thing that will stop them is the 2nd
Coming, so we are truly in this thing for the long haul.

The keys are education and vigilance, and organization is the
necessary follow-up. There is a growing list of resource books and
information as more and more scientists rise to the once ignored
threat.

Watch what is happening in your schools very closely, and be prepared
and willing to confront school boards and administrators. Find out
what your local science teacher is presenting, especially in the 5th
to 8th grades. Concerned science educators have banded together to
form Committees of Correspondence (BAS advisor Eugenie Scott heads the
Northern California group) for clearinghouse activities. If you detect
FC attempts to unlawfully foist their doctrines in the public schools,
immediately contact Dr. Scott's organization at Box 9477, Berkeley, CA
94709. If you wish to assemble a group of concerned parents, again
Eugenie's group can provide speakers seasoned in the political, social
and scientific issues.

Don't take it lying down. Don't take it standing up. Don't take it at
all.



PSYCHICS DON'T FIND CRASH

Morris Huggins sent us the story reported in the Fresno Bee in which
National Park Service Ranger Paul Fedor received an anonymous phone
call around midnight about a plane that had been reported missing for
a week. The aircraft was last reported in an area near Sequoia
National Park.

The caller, alleging psychic powers, said that two of the four people
were still alive -- she "saw" them "standing on a two-foot slab of
concrete," and described in great detail what they were wearing.

Later that same day, Fedor felt a chill up his spine when a relative
discussed the case with him by phone and inadvertently verified some
of the description of the clothing. Most people are not aware that
this tactic is a common trick of psychics: a detailed description of
clothing for several people is almost certain to hit something on
SOMEONE. Because of the detail, it will seem striking if anything
fits, and that's all the victim is likely to remember.

Search efforts were diverted to the area best described by the psychic
and proved fruitless. A police helicopter then began work along the
route last reported by the Oakland radar center when Emergency Locator
Transmitter (ELT) signals were picked up (these devices are required
to be installed in all aircraft and are automatically actuated upon
impact) from the crash site. The terrain was so rugged that rescue
crews had to be helicoptered in two days later.

The psychic had said the wreckage would be found in the Mineral King
area by Crystal Lake near chaparral, in heavily forested terrain,
close to a bridge near a road.

The wreckage was located about 100 miles from the closest description
the psychic gave; there were no roads, and the nearest thing to a
bridge was a horse bridge about 5 miles away. The aircraft had flown
at high speed into a vertical rock mountainside at a fairly steep
angle and disintegrated to the point that the engines could not be
found. All aboard were evidently killed instantly.

So, radar and other "normal" means are still the best way to find lost
aircraft.

Officials confirmed that they have "never had a case where [a psychic]
provided them with information that was critical in finding a plane."
Of course, the problem comes that sometime one of them is likely to
give some information that will be helpful, and it remains to be seen
if those same officials will be able to remember all the duds and
chalk it up to the law of averages.

The tragedy could be, however, that while serious efforts to locate a
crash are diverted to follow the psychic crapola someone could be
dying. The psychics usually make their calls anonymously so they won't
have to take the heat when they are wrong. But if it can somehow be
construed that they aided in the case they come out to bask in the
warmth of their claimed successes.

BASIS thinks that alleged psychics should be required to register in
person and to have their information taped, and when efforts are
fruitless following their leads the bums should have to pay for all
the investigative expenses that were diverted on the false
information. Those are our tax dollars at work.



PLEASE NOTE: BAS Secretary Rick Moen has moved -- and with him the
mailing address. Please do not send material for BASIS to the S.F.
address; use the San Jose P.O. box. All proper addresses can be found
in the "Calendar."



ROUND TWO

In the June issue of BASIS we reported Shawn Carlson's debate on KCBS
radio with astrologer Pat Brown. In that exchange, Ms. Brown asserted
that she had conducted a rigorous test of her astrology forecasts in
which she kept records on 44 people.

Shawn obtained a tape of the broadcast and transcribed it for BASIS
because he was not going to let some of her assertions go
unchallenged. From the tape:

Brown: "[I] have 44 people who keep a dairy who I do what I call a
`mental cage' where I mathematically calculate every planet in motion
to every planet their chart. They then determine if this is exacting
or not. So far, it has not missed on any one of the 44 people that I
am working with. This is a test that I am using with all the people
essentially that I know. You can't get any closer than that...."

Shawn: "Her `test' is so poorly controlled that no reputable
scientific journal would publish it."

Brown: "I am doing this research project with Dr. Harry Gorden. He's
vice president of Dell Laboratories. He is a scientist that has been
considered for the Nobel peace prize. He did the first papers that
have been written up in the scientific journals on DNA. He finds this
study to be very accurate. I am doing it with other people that he has
sent to me of who I do not know, and he is also checking with them.
And he is conducting research as a scientist."

When you go up against Carlson, you'd better have your facts straight,
because they will be checked out. Here is the reality after Shawn
contacted Dr. Gorden.

Dell labs is a pharmaceutical company, and Dr. Gorden is a
pharmacologist working there. He has never been considered for the
Nobel peace prize or the Nobel prize in any other field. He does not
endorse Pat Brown's "research" project in any way. He indicated that,
as a scientist, he did not wish to pass judgment on any field, even
astrology, before evaluating the evidence. He further clarified that
he wasn't aware of any evidence either for or against astrology.
(Carlson sent him a copy of his "Nature" article as well as his
complete review, recently published in the European journal
"Experientia", of the experimental research into astrology and
astrologer's claims.)

As to his feeling about the scientific validity of Brown's project, he
said that she explained to him what she was trying to do and he told
her that if the proper double-blind controls were followed then her
results MAY be indicative of whether or not there was something to
astrology. He also stated that her public assertions constituted
improper use of his name.

This is an endorsement?

BASIS then tried to contact Ms. Brown to see what she had to say for
herself.

Three separate messages left on her phone recorder did not produce a
return call.

When you hear astrologers tout the alleged scientific evidence for
their pronouncements, get the specifics and challenge them.



MARCH MEETING
by Ivan Linderman

Mr. Peter Bishop, President of the Humanist community of the San Jose,
began his presentation with a short history of ESP experimentation.
Harry Houdini, the famous early Twentieth-Century magician, was one of
the first spiritualist skeptics. Having performed spiritualist tricks
as a youth, Houdini was familiar with the techniques employed by
spiritualists. When his mother died, Houdini wanted to contact her
after her death and sought the aid of spiritualists, but he observed
they were only using the same tricks he had used as a boy.
Disappointed, Houdini wrote several books unmasking spiritualists:
"The Unmasking of Robert Houdin", 1908 (from whom Houdini took his
stage name), "Miracle Mongers and Their Methods", 1920 and "A Magician
among Spirits", 1924. Houdini also cooperated with "Scientific
American" to evaluate paranormal claims.

Prior to Houdini's death on Halloween 1926, he agreed with his wife
that he would try to communicate with her after his death. Ten years
later, in 1936, having received no legitimate post-mortem
communication from her husband, Mrs. Houdini declared the experiment a
failure.

Even though Houdini's efforts as a skeptic were widely publicized, J.
B. Rhine began his famous ESP research during the 1930's. Mr. Bishop
judged Rhine's intentions to be without fraudulent intent, even though
the early work with Zenner cards had many problems. By 1937, one year
after Mrs. Houdini declared her ten-year attempt to communicate with
her dead husband a failure, Rhine started publication the "Journal of
Parapsychology".

In the opening issue, Rhine invited skeptical criticism and declared
high standards for published articles: "The need for multiple
replications by different observers...is greater in this field... to
convince a skeptical public."

During the 30's and 40's, experiments reported in "JP" were flawed,
but improved during the 50's and 60's. During the late 60's however,
members of Rhine's laboratory were discovered to have reported
fraudulent results. By the 70's, interest in such figures as the now
defunct Uri Geller revitalized the field.

Charles Honorton (Psychophysical Research Laboratory at Princeton
University) then developed the general protocol for what would be
called the Ganzfeld PSI Experiments. The first base upon which these
experiments was founded was a tacit assumption that even though
popular psychics were known to be fraudulent, researchers should
examine what they do and try to emulate their results in a non-
fraudulent manner. Second, since all the experiments of Rhine and his
group showed only minimal effects, a technique to amplify these
effects was sought. It was hypothesized that ESP was related to
dreaming, hypnosis, relaxation and general "perceptual restriction."
By perceptually isolating subjects, background "noise" which
interfered with the demonstration of psychic abilities would be
eliminated; i.e., psychic abilities would be enhanced by perceptual
isolation.

The Ganzfeld (german for "whole field") have the following general
protocol:

1. A Sender of telepathic messages and a Receiver of these messages,
attain a state of deep relaxation.

2. The Sender and Receiver are separated by a barrier, which can be as
inconsequential as a wall or as substantial as separate rooms or even
on the other side of the planet.

3. Both the Sender and the Receiver have access to an identical pool
of items. The pool of items may be Zenner cards, photographs of
different locales, etc.

4. The Sender selects one item from the pool and sends that image to
the Receiver telepathically.

5. Having received the telepathic message, the Receiver selects the
corresponding item from their identical pool of items.

6. Ostensibly, when the Sender and Receiver select the same Item,
telepathic transmission is scored as a hit. Otherwise, it is a miss.

7. The hypothesis that ESP exists would be confirmed by a proportion
of hits statistically significantly greater than chance.

Between 1974 and 1981, 42 different Ganzfeld PSI experiments in 34
separate reports (10 by Honorton) were generally praised as showing
good design against fraud. In 1978, Honorton published a paper
claiming 55% of all Ganzfeld PSI experiments demonstrated ESP at p =
0.05. Blackmore and Sargeant claimed 50% replication rates for
Ganzfeld PSI experiments. The seeming scientific proof of ESP was
picked up by the popular press. Scott Peak, in "The Road Less
Traveled", concluded these experiments had clearly proven ESP exists.
A recent NOVA program on PBS also concluded the Ganzfeld PSI
experiments demonstrated ESP probably exists.

In 1981, Dr. Ray Hyman, was asked to assess the status of PSI
research. Hyman selected the Ganzfeld PSI experiments as the most
likely series of research to have a chance of passing close scrutiny.
Hyman asked Honorton to help gather data to evaluate from this field.
Two articles were eventually published, and a series of nine separate
articles in the March 1986 issue of "JP", which included "A Joint
Communique: The PSI Ganzfeld Controversy" by both Hyman and Honorton.

Hyman's initial 1985 paper noted the following criticisms of Ganzfeld
PSI experiments:

1. Sensory Leakage. The Barrier may not have completely excluded
contact between Sender and Receiver; e.g., if Sender handles items in
pool before they are provided to Receiver. Honorton agreed this was a
possible problem in early experiments that had been solved by
providing two separate pools of items. To their credit, no higher
incidences of purported ESP occurred in earlier experiments where
sensory leakage may have occurred. Experimenters tested this
hypothesis and discovered subjects of experiments did not use channels
of communication when they were provided.

2. Feedback or Improper Randomization. Once an item is removed from
the pool, the degrees of freedom decrease by one. That is, it is more
likely Sender and Receiver will select same item by chance alone.
Therefore, when Sender selects an item, scrupulous care must be taken
to return the item to the pool and randomize all Items in the Pool
such that probability of selecting any Item is same as before Item was
selected. Hyman noted some correlation between feedback (i.e.,
improper randomization) and reported positive ESP and concluded 28% of
studies suffered from improper randomization.

3. File Drawer Problem. Hyman noted it was unclear exactly what
constituted a study to be included in Honorton's summary of 42
experiments. Hyman noted many studies were informal and suggested
experimenters began informal studies and if they obtained positive
results published. Otherwise, negative studies went unreported. By
eliminating some of the more informal studies, Hyman showed
replication of positive ESP in only 30% of studies vs. 43 - 55%
reported by Honorton.

4. Number of Trials. The most serious objection by Hyman was the
observation that studies which demonstrated positive ESP had the
fewest number of trials. Seven of the 42 experiments had only 5 - 19
trials, and these 7 studies showed the most positive ESP; 5 of 7 were
statistically significant at p = 0.05. Studies have larger number of
trials had lower levels of replicability and were less likely to
demonstrate positive ESP. This observation lends credence to the File
Drawer phenomenon since it appears to indicate researchers were quick
to report positive results rather than continue performing additional
trials.

5. Multiple Testing. Techniques for scoring hits were not limited to
simply determining whether Receiver picked same item as Sender.
Techniques for scoring hits varied from concluding negative ESP was
demonstrated if Receiver picked fewer items same as Sender (24% of
studies) to scoring a hit if Receiver picked an item from same half of
pool as Sender. In some cases (e.g., when items were geographical
locations) a panel of judges was used to determine whether a hit had
been made.

6. Statistical Errors. Hyman noted many statistical errors primarily
concerned with type of statistical test to be applied; single- vs.
double-tailed, etc. Hyman also noted a good correlation between
studies with statistical errors and purported demonstration of
positive ESP.

7. Experimenter Effect. Two experimenters, one of whom was Honorton,
accounted for most of the studies in the group.

8. Inadequate Documentation. Many studies were simply abstracts rather
than formal papers. Examination of laboratory notebooks from these
studies revealed even more problems.

Hyman's position can best be summarized as follows: Experimental error
was being concluded as proof of the existence of ESP.

In the 1986 joint communique, Honorton appeared to agree with Hyman
(although differing on several issues) that Ganzfeld PSI experiments
to date had not yet demonstrated ESP. The final verdict is still out.
Both Hyman and Honorton noted past experiments had deviated from ideal
conditions and that future experiments would have to be more
scrupulous. The interesting point was also made that even if these
experiments never yield any results, the lessons in experimental
design will help science as a whole.

After the formal presentation by Mr. Bishop, the discussion centered
on two topics: Humanism and ESP. The general consensus was there was
little hope of ever convincing believers there is no such thing as
ESP, and an equally unlikely probability of convincing skeptics there
is.



Gerald Straub, author of "Salvation for Sale: An Insider's View of Pat
Robertson" (Prometheus Books) will be in the Bay Area to speak on
"Religion and Politics" with an update on the significance of
Robertson's presidential campaign in October. We will have detailed
information next month.

                             -----

Opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the August, 1988 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1988 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-