Howdy TIPSters,
I tend to fall on the side of Chuck Huff; the side of humility. I certainly
agree with most of what Jim Clark writes vis-a-vis charlatans, the effect of
chance, and certainly all the emotional reasons people have for wanting to
believe in telepathy, clairvoyance, etc. But unlike Jim Clark, I have some
reasons (including one personal) to keep an open, if critical, mind
regarding the possibilities. (Note, however, that I take a more conservative
approach with students who have not yet learned to weigh evidence or think
critically).
Why indeed would someone of Bem's stature continue to examine psi? (Psi is
the term used by those who conduct research in parapsychology.) Unlike an
area such as astrology, of which I know of no corroborating study
whatsoever, psi continues to be an area that produces mixed findings.
Surely those predisposed to "believe" would be just as likely to find
supporting evidence in astrology. But apparently not.
For me, the most compelling reason for humility regarding psi is my past
experience as a "pseudo-scientist." (Orwell was so right when he wrote
about our exceedingly short memories.) For those of you teaching
introductory psychology, perhaps you are familiar with the "pseudo-science"
that all my graduate work was about: psychoneuroimmunology. I began my
graduate work in 1988, a mere 3 years after Marcia Angell's infamous
editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine decrying the wasted
resources going toward psychoneuroimmunology. And you know what? She was
right...based on the data that had been published to that point. Lack of
replicability, was the refrain. And for those who don't know, scientists
like my mentors, Margaret Kemeny, George Solomon, and others...well,
apparently they should have been ashamed to accept research funding for
their work, according to the critics. Perhaps you have heard of my field?
Yes, NOW, it is a fairly standard component in any run-of-the-mill intro.
psych. textbook. How amusing to me now, in retrospect!
At the time, it simply was not yet clear to us that we were dealing with
small to moderate (at best) effect sizes. There were not enough subjects in
our studies typically. Actually, it's amazing that effects were found at
all given the sample sizes. Of course, meta-analysis has made all those
criticisms fade away. Like most things, hindsight makes it all seem so
obvious. As I tell my students (who greatly overestimate the size of the
stress-health relationship), "if every time someone cut you off on the
freeway, you got cancer and died...well, our species would hardly be around
to debate the issue." I wonder if those scientists who LAUGHED at the
absurd notion that psychological events could directly affect immune
function (in contrast to the more prosaic and less interesting indirect
route via the usual diet, exercise, etc.)...I wonder if they remember the
scorn. Given hindsight bias, I strongly doubt it. Perhaps they remember
having had more of an open mind or, ironically, even "remember" being
supportive of the exploration.
Nowadays, I love teaching full time. Never was much of a writer once my
curiosity had been assuaged by the numbers from SPSS. And goodness knows, I
consider it a victory when I can get students to question the validity of
Ms. Warwick's Psychic Hotline (the poor dear should have stuck with music).
But I remember how lack of theoretical mechanisms and replicability placed
me and others in the same conceptual category as tarot card readers and palm
readers.
So, I'll be gracious to those parapsychologists who labor in good faith and
who (based on an admittedly limited perusal) appear to be SO concerned with
precision that they include estimates of effect sizes in their journal
articles!!!! Wow, what a concept. Would that good old-fashioned
psychological researchers would show as much diligence.
Will the parapsychologists eventually say "I told you so"? I don't know. I
do know it could, and has, happened before. The part of me that cheers for
an underdog hopes so, perhaps vainly. At least, I will observe what I see
in my quite elder colleagues who have seen more than I and who seem to imply
that the lay public are not the only ones with dearly held belief
systems--patience and respect for colleagues whose views differ.
Just my two cents, and with respect to all,
Christian Hart, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Santa Monica College
-----Original Message-----
From: jim clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:23 PM
To: TIPS Mailing List
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: James Randi & Daryl Bem
Hi
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Chuck Huff wrote:
> But I like more Myer's comment below that: "The scientific attitude
> blends curious skepticism with openminded humility. It demands that
> extraordinary claims be supported by clear and reliable evidence."
>
> Humility seems an excellent scientific virtue.
Having just reviewed Shirley MacLaine's "The Camino" for a local
newspaper, I'm afraid that the nonsense being promoted and
accepted by laypeople suggests to me that this is no time and no
matter to be "humble" about. There are numerous reasons to
discount the false hopes in ESP and the like:
1. If demonstrated under controlled conditions, it would violate
much of natural scientific thinking. Note that physicists
generally discount the idea of a natural explanation in terms of
quantum theory or any of the far-fetched ideas that have been
suggested.
2. Just by chance some positive effects are expected.
3. We truly do not know what important flaws might be in the
studies without complete access to everything that was done. One
of my students studies implicit serial learning, a task in which
subjects demonstrate considerable sensitivity (but not
necessarily awareness) to transitions between successive
events. If, for example, sloppy randomization or simply chance
resulted in transitions in the Ganzfeld being predictable, then
the chance would no longer be 25%.
4. The area is full of cheating.
5. The psychological mechanisms to allow remote viewing, ESP,
and the like are so implausible as to be fantastic. Emanations
from some object (or mind) somehow transmit information about its
shape (or the view of some shape) in such a way that remote
viewers can detect that pattern out of all the other objects (and
minds) that are present. The population of objects (and minds)
approaches the infinite if, as is sometimes suggested, the
"forces" are not limited by distance.
Personally, I will never understand how someone of Bem's stature
could participate in such a venture, nor how the editors of Psych
Bull could permit such a fiasco. Imagine the boost given to
promoters of this stuff by being able to cite one of the most
prestigious journals in psychology.
The problem with humility in cases like this is that it wrongly
gives the impression that science cannot put some matter to rest.
Imagine if biologists were "humble" about evolutionary theory and
still granted that creationism offers a possible alternative? I
believe that ESP survives because it provides a faint ray of hope
to some people that mystical and spiritual forces still have a
place despite the apparent success of the naturalistic
worldview. And this hope in turn helps to undermine acceptance
and promotion of the scientific approach to understanding human
behaviour and experience.
Let us demonstrate humility about things that we truly do not
know about, nor understand. But ESP and parapsychology is not
one of those things and does not merit a so-called "open" mind,
unless by "open" one means naive and credulous.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
