8/3/2019 Charles T. Tart et al- ESP Research

1/3

ESP Research

Charles T. Tart; Harold E. Puthoff; Russell Targ; Persi Diaconis

Science, New Series, Vol. 202, No. 4373. (Dec. 15, 1978), pp. 1145-1146.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819781215%293%3A202%3A4373%3C1145%3AER%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Science is currently published by American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aaas.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgThu Jul 19 17:01:10 2007

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819781215%293%3A202%3A4373%3C1145%3AER%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aaas.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aaas.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819781215%293%3A202%3A4373%3C1145%3AER%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

8/3/2019 Charles T. Tart et al- ESP Research

2/3

Radwa ste PolicyLuther J . Carter's report of the Key-stone radioactive waste management dis-cuss ion group (News and Comment , 6Oct. , p. 32) has gotten me into som e hot

water. Some environmentalists aresaying we at K eyston e sold out. I did notparticipate at Keystone because rad-waste policy-making is "critical to thesurvival of the nuclear industry." I par-ticipated because radwaste policy-mak-ing is critical to the survival of hum anity,whether the nuclear industry survives ornot.Second, because of the above-quotedphrase, environm entalists are saying theKeystone group's statement on repro-cessing is pro-nuclear and pro-repro-cessing. We simply said that the Inter-agency Review Group, which is pre-paring a policy do cum ent for the P resi-dent, should discuss reprocessing and itsimplications for radwaste policy. To ig-nore the reprocessing issue seemed in-appropriate to us. T o favor a discussionof reprocessing is not the same thing asfavoring reprocessing, which I personal-ly do not favor. PETERMONTAGUESouth\vest Research and InformationCenter, Post Ofic e Box 4524,Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

ESP ResearchPersi Diaconis thanks me for com-ments on an earlier version of his article"Statistical problems in ESP [extra-sensory perception ] research" (14 July,

p. 131)*, but excep t for his potentiallyimportant contributions to clarifyingstatistical problems in cases of guessingwith feedback, I want to dissociatemyself from the rest of his article.As I wrote him in detail about hisearlier draft (which is essentially un-changed in its published form), his con-clusions about modem scientific vara-psychological research are based on asampling of the field far too sm all in size,*A second group of let ters concerning the Dia-conis article will be published in a later issue.-EDITOR

15 DECEMBER 1978

Letters grossly atypical, and clearly biased to-ward debunking, and so are quite mis-leading and a disservice to the readers ofScience.There are no legal restrictions on whocan call himself a parapsychologist, somany unqualified people claim that title;but Diaconis' article purports to be aboutcontemporary scientific studies of para-psychology, not popular parodies. I esti-mate that there are more than 600 pub-lished experimental studies of para-psychological phenomena in the refer-eed specialty journals, the vast majorityof them using ordinary subjects ratherthan psychics, having procedures rigidlycontrolled by the experimenters, not thesubjects, and using quite conventionalstatistical procedures to evaluate hy-potheses which were formulated beforethe experiment was conducted. Insteadof dealing with an adequate and repre-sentative sample from this large popu-lation, Diaconis deals at length withatypical and flashy cases that have at-tracted wide lay interest, such as UriGeller 's claims of psychic abilities, aboutwhich most respected parapsychologistshave serious reservations. Diaconis'prime example of what he believesare major problems (multiple end pointsand subject cheating) in parapsychologi-cal research is his description of B.D.'sself-controlled demonstration at Har-vard, an even t that has no relation to ex-perimental science and that no respectedparapsychologist would have regardedas having serious value as data. Whatwas his point in focusing on such an un-representative even t, especially after theunrepresentativeness had been called tohis attention?After describing several atypical caseslike this, Diaconis concludes that fraudand general experimental sloppiness arecommon problems in parapsychology,even .making into an item of faith thatwhile you can't spot the sloppiness andfraud in the published repo rts , they prob -ably would have been found if a com-petent observ er had been there. There is ,of course, no way of disproving such ahypothesis. S uch faith in the all embrac-ingness of our currently accepted ex-planatory system is touching, but not ap-propriate in a scientific journal.

For the reader interested in accurateand representative surveys of scientificresearch on the paranormal, I recom-mend the recently published Handbookof Parapsychology (1).C H A R L E S . T A R TDepartment of Psychology,University of California,Davis 95616

References1. B . B . Wolman, L . A . Dale, G. R . Schmeidler,M. Ullman, Eds., Handbook of Parapsychology(Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, 1978).Diaconis' article on ES P research ,which contains some excellent materialon statistics, is unfortunately marred byerrors and faulty reporting in his dis-cussion of contemporary research. Spe-cifically, in discussing our work at theStanford Research Institute (SRI), hereferences erroneous second- and third-hand accounts published in popular

books and m agazine articles. We addresstwo of these errors here.The first error conc erns an apocryphalstory of a visit to SRI by psychologistRay Hyman. The claim, repeated byDiaconis, is that Hym an observed expe r-iments at SRI performed by the con-troversial psychic-magician Uri Gellerand reported "sleight of hand performedunder uncontrolled conditions, much atvariance with the published reports ofthe SRI scientists involved." The truthof the matter, however, is that when Hy-man and two colleagues arrived at SRIwith a request to observ e experiments inprogress, they were denied permission todo so. We had had several such requestsper week and had previously concludedthat it would be impossible to carry outcontrolled experimentation under suchconditions. As an alternative they spentan engaging 2 hours with Geller them-selves, observing the informal coffee-table-type demonstrations which Gellerfavors, and trying a number of their own(and from our standpoint, uncontrolled)experiments. Therefore, although it istrue that Hyman saw uncontrolled ex-periments at SRI, they were not SR I ex-periments, and we consider it irrespon-sible for him or anyone else t o assign re-sponsibility to SRI researc hers for theirown unsatisfactory experiments. Sincethe early anecdotal accounts of thismeeting have been corrected in the ap-propriate literature ( I ) , it is surprisingthat Diaconis would be uninformed inthis matter.

The second error concerning our workocc urs in a section on po ssible pitfalls ofESP experiments involving feedback.Here Diaconis describes our experi-men ts in "rem ote viewing" (2, 3) which

8/3/2019 Charles T. Tart et al- ESP Research

3/3

involved a list of 100 San Francisco BayArea target locations "chosen to be asdistinct as possible." A team of experi-menters visited the locations in randomorder, and a subject tr ied to give adescription of where they were. In thecontext of the article, the discussioncarries the implication that post-trialfeedback to the subject during the ex-periments provided information whichhelped him narrow down th e field of tar-get possibilities in later trials. Diaconis'statement concerning the distinctnessof targets is incorrect, however. Thetarget pool was carefully constructedto contain several targets of any giventype-that is, several founta ins, severalchurches, several boathouses, and soforth-specifically to circum vent thestrategy of "I had a fountain yesterday,so it can't be a fountain today" (4).Since we brought this misunderstandingto the attention of Diaconis last yearin a letter after we had seen an earlydraft of his study, we find the lackof correction in his accounting of suchan important methodological issue anexceptional faux pa s.As researche rs in the field we welcom ethe kind of insights Diaconis can prov idefrom his own area of expe rtise: how ever,we deplore the lack of attention to detailand the reliance on anecdotal sources re-garding the broader aspects of the field.H A R O L D . P U TH O F FRU SSEL LTA RGRadio Physics Laboratory ,SRI Ir~ternatiotzul ,Mvnlo Park, Calijorriia 94025

References and Notes1. B. O'Regan, Neiv Sci. 59, 95 (1973): R. Targan d H. Puthotf, ibid. 64 , 443 (1974).2. H. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. IEEE 64, 329

(10761\3. R. Targ and H. Puthoff, Mind-Reach (Delacorte,New York, 1977).4. In (2) see, for example, fountain targets in tablesIV and V and in figures 7, 8, and 15; churche s intables 11and 111; boat marinas in tables I1 and Vand figure 14; and so forth.The main point of my article on statis-tical problems in ES P research w as thatpoorly designed, badly run, and inappro-priately analyzed experimen ts abound inESP research. Reading published rec-

ord s is not enough-wh en professionalstatisticians, psychologists, and magi-cians are allowed to view these experi-ments they often spo t devastating meth-odological flaws. Puthoff and Targ pro-vide a fine case in point. Sin ce they takeme to task for using secondhandsou rces, it is worth reporting that I spenta day at SRI viewing one phase of theirresearch. Briefly, in one room a strobelight was flashed at a sending subject ei-ther rapidly, slowly, or not at all. A re-ceiving subject in another room tried toguess the strobe light pattern. An elec-

troencephalogram (EEG) of the receiverwas monitored in the hope that changesin the EE G could be correlated with thestrobe pattern. The account by Targ andPuthoff of this experiment (I ) gives afeeling that it was tightly run. Un-fortunately, my direct observations tella different tale. For example:1)When I asked a lab assistant how the

patterns for the strobe light were gener-ated (for example, whether they wererandomized or carefully designed), shetold me that she just m ade them up. Thisis a well-known error. Humans cannotgenerate random patterns.2) Although electronic equipment wasused to record the EE G's, many crucialdetails, such as the actual guesses madeby the receiver, were handrecorded by avery busy lab assistant.3) The final analysis of the EEG datawas based on techniques 1 did notunderstand. I questioned Targ and Put-hoff about them and concluded that theydidn' t understand the techniques either.As statistical analysis of EEG 's is a verytricky business, I suggested that theyconsult on e of the SRI statisticians. Targsaid to Puthoff: "Do you notice howstatisticians are always trying to makework for one another?"4) Th e listing of the strobe light patternsto be sent was lying around for severalhours before the experiment, accessibleto anyone. I copied them down and dur-ing the experiment was toying with theidea of pretending to go into a trance an dreveal the patterns.The abo ve points are typical of manyother methodological problems I sa wthat day . It is unfortunate that su ch prob-lems are impossible to recognize fromthe published record. It is this experi-ence, together with reports from otherskilled observers who have seen howthis research was co nducted at S RI, thatled me to conclude it was impossible todetermine what went on during these ex-periments.Puthoff and Targ say that a criticism Imake of their remote viewing experi-ments-internal cues resulting fromfeedback could be used to guess targets

correctly-isn't relevant . In a recentstudy (2), psychologists Marks and Kam -rnann used actual transcripts obtainedfrom the SRI experiments and showedconclusively that, because of availablefeedback infonation, there were enoughinternal clues to guess every targetcorrectly w ithout visiting target sites andwithout ESP.Puthoff and Targ begin by trying to setthe record straight on Hyrnan's visit toSRI. They should have included a refer-ence to Lawrence's rebuttal (3) to theirletter to the New Scient i s t . Lawrence

accompanied Hyman on the tr ip andcompletely supports Hyman's account.In the first letter above, Tartreemphasizes many points I made in myarticle. To answer his one qu estion, mypurpose in focusing on B.D. was to re-port that a subject who has been used inwidely quoted ESP experiments hasbeen ob served using sleight of hand. Th esimilarity of the descriptions of the con-trolled experiments with B .D. to the ses-sion I witnessed convinced me that para-normal claims involving B.D. should bediscounted.The examples I reported in my articleare a small and surely biased sample ofmodern parapsychological research. Asindicated by the example describedabove, they are typical of all the ES P re-search I know of. PERSIDI ACONI SDvpartrnerlt of Statistics ,Stanford University,Stanford, CnliJbrrzia 94305

References1. R . Targ and H. Puthoff, Mind Reach (Delacorte, New Yor k, 1977), pp. 130-134. 2. D . Marks and R. Kammann, Mature ( L o n d o n ) 274, 680 (1978). 3. A. Lawrence , New Sc i . 66, 595 (1975).

The Numbers GameThe recurring suggestion that a per-son's contribution to science can bemeasured by the number of publishedpapers o r the frequency with which they

are cited by others (New s and Commen t,29 Sept. , p. 1195; 20 Oc t., p. 295) bringsto mind Dorothy Parker 's co gent obser-vation (1):Ther e exists, especially in the American mind, a sort of proud conf~ision etween [tal- ent and industry]. A l ist of our authors who have m ade themselves most beloved and, theref ore, most comfortable financially, shows that i t is our national joy to mistake for the first-rate, the fecund rate.

Her critical assessment. in a review ofa lesser-known novel by Sinclair Lewis,evidently can be extended to include au-thors of nonfictional works (and not justscientific ones). No doubt it was only amatter of time before quantitative esti-mates of unquantifiable values would beused to predict winners of the three an-nual Nobel prizes in science. By theway, Sinclair Lewis received the NobelPrize for Literature in 1930.W I L L ~ A M. THOMASAnz~rictrnBar Fout~dut ionChicago, Illinois 60637

References1. h'ew Yorker (1 6 March 1929), reprinted in D.Parker, C'onstant Render (Viking, New York,19701, pp . 108-112.

SCIENCE, VOL. 202