Zetetic Scholar - No 06

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic scholar
Issue: Number 6
Date: July 1980
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Country: USA
Language: English
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of Zetetic Scholar is presented as its largest to date and marks the beginning of a series of "ZS Dialogues." These dialogues are initiated by the editor, who sends a stimulating paper to a group of experts for commentary, followed by a rejoinder from the author. The aim is to foster a cooperative and courteous discussion among peers interested in shedding light on various issues, rather than a debate.

Editorial Stance and Content

The editorial emphasizes the concept of "true zeteticism," defined as the suspension of judgment and the presence of doubt coupled with a need for continuous inquiry. This approach represents true skepticism, distinct from dogmatic denial, and is committed to the scientific method as the means of inquiry. The journal seeks to attract a readership interested in quality discourse, even if it means a smaller audience. The editor notes that Zetetic Scholar operates at a deficit, making reader support crucial for its future.

The issue features several key articles and dialogues:

• "Psychic Research: New Dimensions or Old Delusions?" by Robert G. Jahn: This article, a transcript of an address given at the New Horizons in Science Seventeenth Annual Briefing, discusses the history, nomenclature, and contemporary serious efforts in the study of psychic phenomena. Jahn, an engineer and applied physicist, shares his personal journey into the field, initially supervising a student project in psychokinesis. He notes the field's vulnerability to fraud and sensationalism but argues for the potential validity of some evidence, suggesting how research might be better styled, facilitated, and evaluated. He defines psychic phenomena and divides psychic research into extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (PK).

• "Scientists and Anomalous Phenomena: Preliminary Results of a Survey" by J. Richard Greenwell & James E. King: This article presents preliminary findings from a survey of scientists regarding anomalous phenomena.

• "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy" by Ray Hyman: This article examines the characteristics of pathological science. It is followed by extensive critical comments from a wide range of scholars including Joseph Agassi, Stephen Braude, Harold I. Brown, Mario Bunge, Roger Cooter, Allen G. Debus, Gerald L. Eberlein, Paul Feyerabend, Antony Flew, J.N. Hattiangadi, Seymour H. Mauskopf, Andy Pickering, Theodore Rockwell, and Paul Thagard. Ray Hyman and the commentators engage in a detailed discussion.

• "Failures to Replicate Remote-Viewing Using Psychic Subjects" by Edward W. Karnes, Ellen P. Sussman, Patricia Klusman & Laurie Turcotte: This paper reports on the difficulties in replicating remote-viewing experiments. It includes critical comments from James Calkins, Brenda J. Dunne & Robert G. Jahn, Arthur Hastings, David Marks & Richard Kammann, James Randi, and Charles T. Tart. Karnes and Sussman then provide a response to these comments.

• "Seven Evidential Experiments" by John Beloff: This article discusses seven experiments deemed evidential. It is accompanied by critical comments from James Alcock, Irvin L. Child, Daniel Cohen, H.M. Collins, Robert L. Morris, J. Ricardo Musso & Mirta Granero, J. Fraser Nicol, John Palmer, K. Ramakrishna Rao, James Randi, Christopher Scott, Sybo Schouten, and Rex G. Stanford. Beloff then replies to his commentators.

• "What's New On the New Religions? A Review of Recent Books" by Roy Wallis: This is a review of recent books on the topic of new religions.

Features and Departments

Beyond the main articles and dialogues, the issue includes:

• Editorials: An editorial by Marcello Truzzi discussing the nature and goals of Zetetic Scholar and the ZS Dialogues.
• Letters: Correspondence from Philip H. Abelson (Editor of Science) and Geoffrey Dean.
• Random Bibliography on the Occult & The Paranormal: A curated list of relevant publications.
• Supplements to Past Zetetic Scholar Bibliographies: Updates to previous bibliographical entries.
• Book Reviews: Reviews of "Milbourne Christopher's Search for the Soul" (reviewed by Martin Ebon) and "E.R. Hilgard's Divided Consciousness" (reviewed by Ivan W. Kelly), as well as a section for "Books Briefly Noted."
• Announcements: Information on the "ZS Paranormal Contents Bulletin" and "Psi Sources International."
• About the Contributors to This Issue: Brief biographical information on the authors and commentators.

In Memoriam

The issue notes the passing of two significant figures:

• Christopher Evans: A Consulting Editor, remembered for his contributions to psychology, dream research, and his fair-minded approach to paranormal claims.
• James Webb: A further statement regarding his untimely death is promised for the next issue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the rigorous scientific investigation of anomalous phenomena, the challenges of parapsychology, and the importance of skepticism and critical thinking. The editorial stance is clearly one of promoting a "true zeteticism"—a scientific skepticism that requires evidence and continuous inquiry, rather than outright dismissal or uncritical acceptance. The journal aims to elevate the level of discourse on these topics by presenting scholarly research, detailed dialogues, and critical commentary from experts in various fields.

This issue of the Journal of Parapsychology, Volume 43, No. 1, published in 1979, focuses on the scientific study of psychic phenomena. The content is primarily academic and research-oriented, with a strong emphasis on experimental methodology, theoretical frameworks, and the philosophical implications of parapsychological research.

Experimental Approaches to Psychic Phenomena

The issue begins by addressing the sensitivity of psychic experiments to observers and the evasiveness of phenomena, suggesting these might be intrinsic characteristics rather than solely due to flawed methodology. The author advocates for a balanced approach, distinguishing between rigorous study and blind acceptance or rejection. Three key areas of experimental study are highlighted:

1. Remote Perception: Research, notably from SRI, Mundelein College, and Princeton, has generated a substantial database allowing for quantification and correlation of results. This work aims to move beyond subjective judging processes by employing analytical methods for evaluating information transfer.
2. Controlled Psychokinesis (PK): Experiments focusing on quantifiable physical systems, such as those conducted by physicists at the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio and Birkbeck College, London, are discussed. These studies aim to make departures from classical behavior more explicit.
3. Recurrent Spontaneous Psychokinesis (RSPK): These rare and spectacular events, often correlated with adolescents, offer significant opportunities for insight due to the magnitude of their effects.

Other areas mentioned include "ganzfeld" studies for clairvoyance and telepathy, reincarnation studies at the University of Virginia, psycho-physiological studies at Duke University, and personality correlates studied at CUNY.

Methodological Considerations and Criteria

The article stresses the importance of reexamining the criteria for new experiments, given the slow progress in yielding convincing results. It questions the healthiest attitude toward data collection and assessment, proposing an intermediate position that retains rigor in experimental design and controls while tolerating imperfect replicability as potentially indicative of unidentified parameters or statistical phenomena. Experiments should be clearly posed, conceptually simple, and lend themselves to rigorous, tightly controlled study with a sufficient positive yield.

Princeton Program Focus

The author's own program at Princeton focuses on two classes of experiments:

• Table-top experiments in controlled, low-level psychokinesis: These involve simple physical systems (mechanical, optical, thermal, electrical, atomic) that are vulnerable to disturbance. The disturbance is indicated by a large change in a feedback display, such as an interferometer showing a change of less than one-millionth of a centimeter, or colored lights indicating thermistor deviations. Other experiments involve electrical noise variations and the statistical deflection of marbles.
• Remote Perception: The program addresses aspects of the "remote perception" problem, where subjects attempt to perceive a randomly selected target scene. The effort here is to replace subjective human judging with a more analytical method using binary descriptors to evaluate information transfer. The precognitive mode of remote perception, where the report is completed before the target is selected, is preferred for its logical impossibility and stark contradiction with established physical concepts of space/time.

Theoretical Frameworks

A significant challenge in the study of psychic processes is the absence of viable theoretical models. Early hypotheses involving electromagnetic waves have been questioned. More recent efforts apply formalisms from various physical mechanics:

• Statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics: Incorporating entropy and information theory, with a focus on human consciousness influencing random processes.
• Hyperspace theories: Recasting physics in more than four dimensions.
• Quantum mechanics: Its probabilistic approach is seen as suitable for phenomena departing from deterministic sequences, acknowledging the observer's interaction with the system.
• Holographic inversions: Viewing reality as an amplitude/frequency information syllabus, with the brain acting as a Fourier transform device.

Unconventional Possibilities

Based on these theoretical approaches, several unconventional possibilities are suggested:

1. Phenomena may be inherently statistical, observed "on the margin" of normal behavior.
2. Human consciousness may possess an information-ordering capability that can be projected externally.
3. Quantum mechanics might be a fundamental statement about consciousness and perception.
4. Psychic processes may be holistic, requiring integration of scientific and aesthetic perspectives.

Conclusion and Justification for Study

The article concludes by returning to fundamental questions: are psychic phenomena real, and should they be studied? The honest answer is that we do not yet know. However, the author strongly defends the right and obligation of science to inquire into this field with diligence, patience, integrity, openness, and tolerance. This defense extends to the criticism of such research, which should also be conducted with the same scientific rigor and fairness.

Survey of Scientists on Anomalous Phenomena

A separate section details a preliminary survey conducted in the summer of 1978 of 300 professional scientists regarding their attitudes towards anomalous phenomena, specifically Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie). The scientists surveyed included physical anthropologists, marine biologists, and physical chemists (as a control group). The purpose was not to present statistical results but to discuss general reactions and critical comments, some of which were striking and unexpected. Respondents sometimes limited themselves to criticizing public acceptance, while others criticized the studies or the survey itself. Some failed to distinguish between studying these creatures as biological animals and studying attitudes towards their existence.

Justification for the Survey

The authors justify the survey by noting that scientific progress often involves controversy between proponents of new frameworks and those adhering to existing ones. "Establishment science" has historically ignored or rejected new claims, which, while often ill-founded, raises questions about whether this rejection is based on data or psychological factors like social conformity. If social factors are involved, studying attitudes towards controversial phenomena like Bigfoot and Nessie falls within the province of psychology.

Survey Methodology

The survey involved 300 scientists: 100 physical anthropologists (identified from the Fifth International Directory of Anthropologists, 1975), 100 physical chemists (from the American Chemical Society's Directory of Graduate Research, 1977), and 100 biological limnologists/oceanographers (marine biologists, from the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Membership Directory, 1976). All selected scientists held Ph.D. degrees and were affiliated with U.S. or Canadian academic or research institutions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific methodology for investigating controversial phenomena, the challenges posed by the nature of these phenomena, and the development of theoretical frameworks. The editorial stance, as articulated in the conclusion, is a strong advocacy for the scientific right and obligation to explore such topics with rigor, openness, and tolerance, while also demanding the same standards for criticism. The issue champions a cautious yet open-minded approach to parapsychology and related anomalous phenomena.

This document presents the findings of a survey conducted in 1978, investigating the attitudes of scientists towards the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie). Questionnaires were designed and mailed to physical anthropologists, physical chemists, and marine biologists. The study, originating from the Department of Psychology at The University of Arizona, aimed to explore views on controversial topics on the fringes of science, mentioning acupuncture, ESP, and UFOs to avoid revealing the primary purpose.

Methodology

Two similar questionnaires were created, one for Bigfoot and one for Nessie, and mailed on June 6, 1978. Half of each group (physical anthropologists, physical chemists, marine biologists) received a Bigfoot questionnaire, and the other half received a Nessie questionnaire. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was included with each. Of the 300 scientists surveyed, 181 responded, yielding a usable response rate of 59% after excluding satirical responses and non-completes. Sixty-four percent of returned questionnaires were mailed back within two weeks, and almost 79% within four weeks.

Preliminary Results

Of the returned questionnaires, 53% were related to Bigfoot and 47% to Nessie. Physical anthropologists had the highest response rate for Bigfoot. Control chemists responded equally for both topics. A key finding was that acceptance of Bigfoot as a living species was significantly lower (10.6%) than acceptance of Nessie (31%). Physical anthropologists and marine biologists accepted Bigfoot at similar rates (12.8% and 12.5%), while physical chemists had a lower acceptance rate (4.3%). For Nessie, acceptance rates were 23.3% for physical anthropologists, 30.4% for physical chemists, and 38.7% for marine biologists.

Beliefs about Reports and Reasons for Rejection

Across all groups, 40.4% believed ordinary animals like bears were involved in Bigfoot reports, and 34.5% believed Nessie reports involved misidentifications. However, a larger majority (69.1%) believed Bigfoot reports involved hoaxes, imagination, and myths, compared to 47.6% for Nessie reports. For those who rejected both as real creatures (89.4% for Bigfoot, 69% for Nessie), common reasons included the lack of fossil evidence (51% for Bigfoot, 6% for Nessie), lack of specimens (83% for Bigfoot, 54% for Nessie), lack of bones (70.2% for Bigfoot, 35.7% for Nessie), and the unlikelihood of remaining undetected by science (42.6% for Bigfoot, 32.1% for Nessie).

Impact on Science and Research Support

Scientists' perceptions of the impact of discovering such animals on 'science' varied. Only 3.3% of physical anthropologists believed Nessie's discovery would have a 'severe' impact, compared to 51.3% for Bigfoot. Marine biologists and physical chemists had more moderate views on the impact of Bigfoot's discovery. Despite the low acceptance rates, a majority of scientists (56.4%) favored research into Bigfoot and Nessie. However, a strong consensus emerged against using federal funds for such research, with 51% opposed to federal funding for Bigfoot and 63.1% against it for Nessie.

Literature and Personal Experience

Regarding scientific literature, 59% of physical anthropologists claimed to have read scientific literature on Bigfoot, and 77.4% of marine biologists on Nessie. Physical anthropologists were more familiar with John Napier's book on Bigfoot than marine biologists were with Roy Mackel's book on Nessie. Thirty-eight percent of physical anthropologists claimed to have met a Bigfoot witness, compared to 12.9% of marine biologists who met a Nessie witness.

Comments and Criticisms

Comments from respondents were analyzed. In the Bigfoot category, 48.8% of physical anthropologists commented, with 30.8% being informative and 10.3% abusive. Among marine biologists, 25% commented, with 21.9% informative and 3.1% abusive. For Nessie, 45.1% of marine biologists commented (38.7% informative, 3.2% abusive), while only 16.6% of physical anthropologists commented (10% informative, 3.3% abusive). Physical chemists had similar rates of informative and abusive comments for both topics (8.6%).

Some respondents expressed skepticism about the survey's methodology, with one physical anthropologist noting the questionnaire's potential weaknesses. Others questioned the purpose and funding of such research. However, some respondents were enthusiastic, with one commenting, "Bully for our side!"

Selected Comments on Bigfoot

Physical anthropologists offered varied opinions. Some cited the lack of physical evidence and theoretical basis for doubt. Others pointed to numerous observations by reliable individuals and miles of footprints. Concerns were raised about the potential for fakery and confusion. One respondent, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, stated they were doing Bigfoot research. Others felt it would be absurd for scientists to undertake such research without tangible evidence or for federal funds to be devoted to it. Questions were raised about the feasibility of finding a smaller, moving object in forests compared to a static object. Some were skeptical about Bigfoot but inclined to accept ESP, UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster. One respondent considered the possibility of an unknown hominid in Asia. Concerns about publicity, logistic problems, and ethical issues were raised regarding Bigfoot research. Suggestions were made to allow amateurs to continue the investigation without federal controls.

Physical chemists generally believed orthodox scientists are often right and advised caution against phenomena like Bigfoot, similar to Velikovskys and Uri Gellers. They questioned the priority of such research compared to societal problems. One asked when UFOs could be discussed.

Marine biologists expressed that Bigfoot is extremely unlikely for biological reasons, citing insufficient space for a hominid group and the lack of evidence. They stated that anything arousing curiosity is worthy of scientific investigation, but opinion based on belief should not dominate. The lack of material evidence in areas with hunters was also noted as a reason for unlikelihood.

Selected Comments on the Loch Ness Monster

Physical anthropologists shared diverse views. One described visiting Loch Ness, finding it a beautiful place that attracts tourists, but did not believe in the monster, glad for the myth. Another stated they would fund Nessie research purely for science, not for projects per se. Some spoke to tourists who believed due to faith rather than scientific training. One hoped the survey was about more than just attitudes towards the Loch Ness Monster. Another dismissed ESP, UFOs, Bigfoot, and chiropractors as "nonsense." One comment noted the postage due on the questionnaire.

Physical chemists questioned the survey's value and whether it was studying Nessie or response rates, hoping federal funds were not used. They stated that scientific method and ethics apply to this area, and confirmation of Nessie would have mainly publicity appeal but little scientific impact.

Marine biologists questioned the research focus and contribution to mankind, advocating for harmony with the environment and limited resources. They noted bias and unscientific reactions within the scientific community towards reports of the Loch Ness Monster and UFOs, urging open-mindedness and application of the scientific method. They suggested the myth might be a result of fish sightings, itinerant mammals, misconceptions, and humbug, recommending research be left to students and laymen. They also stated that if a phenomenon exists, scientists should explain it, but expressed preference for other projects over searching for such animals.

Conclusions

While statistically significant conclusions were premature, the survey indicated considerably more skepticism among scientists regarding Bigfoot than Nessie, though the majority doubted both. The consensus attributed reports to imagination, hoaxes, or myths rather than misidentifications. The lack of physical evidence was a key reason for rejection, along with the belief that such animals could not remain undetected. Most scientists expressed willingness to support research if federal funds were not involved. A notable difference in attitudes was observed among physical anthropologists regarding the potential impact of a Bigfoot discovery on science, suggesting a potential difference in their concept of science or conformity to disciplinary norms. Physical anthropologists were also more negative about Bigfoot than marine biologists were about Nessie, possibly because Bigfoot's existence would challenge the belief that all North American land mammals are identified, whereas Nessie's aquatic habitat is harder to survey and thus more plausible for undetected existence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the scientific community's perception of anomalous phenomena, specifically Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. The study highlights the divide between belief and skepticism, the importance of empirical evidence, and the role of scientific methodology. There's a clear emphasis on the perceived lack of evidence for Bigfoot and Nessie, and the tendency to attribute reports to psychological or social factors rather than literal existence. The issue also touches upon the practicalities of scientific research, including funding priorities and the potential impact of groundbreaking discoveries on established scientific paradigms. The editorial stance appears to be one of objective reporting and analysis of scientific attitudes, presenting the survey data and respondent comments without overtly taking a side on the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie, but rather focusing on the scientific community's response to these topics.

Title: ZETETIC SCHOLAR
Issue: Vol. 6, No. 4
Date: 1981
Publisher: The Center for Scientific Anomalies Research
Country: USA
Price: $3.00

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR delves into the complex topic of 'pathological science' and announces the formation of a new organization dedicated to the study of psi abilities.

Pathological Science: Diagnosis and Remedy

The lead article, "PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE: TOWARDS A PROPER DIAGNOSIS AND REMEDY" by Ray Hyman, explores the phenomenon of scientists defending bizarre positions that deviate from accepted scientific principles. Hyman uses the example of Alfred Russel Wallace, a co-founder of the theory of evolution, who claimed to have witnessed the materialization of a six-foot sunflower during a seance. Wallace attributed this to a 'psychic force,' a claim that met with significant confusion, hostility, and attempts at discrediting from his scientific colleagues.

Hyman borrows the term 'pathological science' from Irving Langmuir, defining it as 'the science of things that aren't so.' He expands on Langmuir's examples to include cases like Martian Canals, the planet Vulcan, and Wallace's 'psychic force,' as well as instances where scientists have wrongly insisted something wasn't so, such as the initial rejection of meteorites.

The article outlines six characteristics of pathological science:
1. A scientist of acknowledged competence and accomplishments.
2. Surprises colleagues by claiming the existence of a bizarre or impossible phenomenon.
3. The scientific establishment ignores or attacks the claim with hostility.
4. The deviant scientist and supporters remain resolute.
5. The claim is discredited in the eyes of the scientific community.
6. The claim is banished from further scientific consideration.

Hyman argues that the scientific community's reaction to such claims is often confused, ambivalent, erratic, and emotional, driven by a panic reaction rather than critical analysis. He highlights the tactics used by the establishment, such as ad hominem attacks, censorship, and misrepresentation, which serve to 'discredit' rather than disprove the hypothesis.

He posits that this discrediting process has negative consequences for science. It isolates deviant scientists, limiting their interaction with orthodox science and often confining them to discussions with like-minded individuals who may lack rigorous scientific evaluation skills. This can entrench the deviant scientist in their beliefs. Furthermore, the inept and irrelevant criticism from the establishment can paradoxically strengthen the deviant scientist's conviction that they are right.

The article criticizes the banishment of these failures from scientific discourse, arguing that it prevents future scientists from learning from past mistakes. Examples like Newton's alchemical pursuits or Sir Oliver Lodge's studies of survival are often omitted, leaving scientists ignorant of these follies and potentially prone to repeating them, as seen in modern endorsements of psychic feats or unproven medical claims.

Hyman also touches upon the 'illusion of personal invulnerability,' where scientists believe such pathologies cannot happen to them, making them more vulnerable. He suggests that a more appropriate response would involve open discussion and fair play, focusing on the claims and evidence to better understand how trained scientists can defend false systems.

Announcement: PSI SOURCES INTERNATIONAL (PSI)

An announcement is made regarding the formation of PSI SOURCES INTERNATIONAL (PSI), an organization independent of ZETETIC SCHOLAR. PSI aims to produce a large research pool of subjects who believe they have psi abilities. The organization is being formed for individuals with 'high psi quotients,' similar to how MENSA caters to those with high IQs. PSI intends to make information and resources available to its members and promote objective inquiry without making claims about the reality of psi.

Potential members will undergo initial screening and can progress to higher levels of membership through further testing. The organization welcomes skeptics and aims to explore commonalities among members beyond their belief in psi abilities. The announcement notes that parapsychologists have often found better psi performance from believers ('sheep') than non-believers ('goats'), and emphasizes the need for larger, everyday samples rather than 'star' psychics.

PSI is seeking qualified Research Consultants and invites ZS readers to comment, help, or make inquiries. Contact information is provided for Marcello Truzzi, Research Director, at P.O. Box 1052, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106.

Other Mentions

The issue also briefly touches upon the survey of marine biologists regarding their views on Bigfoot and Nessie, comparing the reactions of physical chemists, physical anthropologists, and marine biologists. It suggests that non-empirical factors influenced respondents' attitudes.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of claims that fall outside mainstream scientific acceptance, termed 'pathological science.' The editorial stance, as presented by Ray Hyman, advocates for a more rational, scientific, and open approach to investigating such phenomena, emphasizing the importance of learning from failures and avoiding the pitfalls of knee-jerk discrediting and hostility. The announcement of PSI SOURCES INTERNATIONAL suggests an interest in exploring parapsychological phenomena through rigorous, objective research, even if the reality of psi is not assumed.

This document consists of commentaries on Professor Hyman's paper concerning 'pathological science,' published in the January 1985 issue of the *Journal of the History of Philosophy*, Volume 23, Number 1. The issue, published by University of California Press, features contributions from Joseph Agassi, Stephen Braude, Harold I. Brown, Mario Bunge, and Roger Cooter, alongside a list of bibliographic references.

Commentaries on Professor Hyman's Paper

Comments by Joseph Agassi

Joseph Agassi expresses sympathy with Hyman's proposal to keep an open mind about the paranormal but finds Hyman's examples trite. Agassi notes that if parapsychology experiments were judged bona fide, it would necessitate radical changes in our understanding of time and causation. He agrees that Hyman is right to advocate for an open mind, citing mesmerism and the midnight sun as examples where the impossible was eventually accepted. However, Agassi distinguishes between bona fide errors (like a scientist claiming a non-existent planet) and factual reports that are genuinely impossible. He criticizes Hyman for confusing these categories.

Agassi points out that factual claims are crucial in debates, and if ineffective, it might be better to abandon the debate. He questions the conditions under which observation reports contradicting hypotheses should be accepted. He references Robert Boyle's view that unrepeatable experiments should lead to suspended judgment until repetition is possible. Agassi discusses examples like a blind man sensing color or white gold, and the historical reappearance of the 'blind man with magic fingertips' story. He finds Boyle's proposal insufficient, as experiments can be repeatable for a time and then not, or vice-versa. He also questions the repeatability of astronomical data and psychoanalytic observations, noting that phobias and conversion hysteria are individual and markedly different.

Agassi states that paranormal experiments are not repeatable to his knowledge, and that Rhine's experiments being faked is irrelevant if they were not repeatable. He highlights Karl Popper's view that science equals testability equals repeatability, and that refuting observations must be tested. Agassi agrees that if a refuting observation is repeatable, one might have to endorse it, but suggests there can be good excuses for rejecting an observation, which must be given and discussed.

He uses the example of mediums producing sunflowers out of thin air, questioning if this would be convincing. Agassi finds claims about the paranormal to be 'very boring,' preferring to inquire why mediums don't claim more significant details, like those from ancient history. He suggests that fascination might be a substitute for interest for many people, leading them to waste time on boring data. Agassi argues that paranormal discussions leave open important questions about causality and the nature of extrasensory perception. He concludes that the study of the paranormal is often an escape from thinking, leading to frustration. He cites W.B. Cannon's observation of 'voodoo death' as an example of how paranormal reports are ignored until explained away by conventional means, suggesting a dogmatic hostility to the paranormal is as problematic as the paranormal itself.

Comments by Stephen Braude

Stephen Braude agrees with Hyman on how scientists should respond to unorthodox proposals but argues that Hyman's paper itself exemplifies the uncritical approach it purports to condemn. Braude contends that Hyman's paper shifts from advocating for fair assessment to labeling unorthodox claims as 'failures' and 'follies,' despite acknowledging that some such hypotheses are later vindicated. Braude believes Hyman is an ally of those who criticize unorthodox claims.

Braude disputes Hyman's dismissal of studies on D.D. Home and Wallace's investigation of psychic forces as 'failures.' He argues that many competent people consider the Home case unresolved and that Hyman should be more agnostic. Similarly, Braude criticizes Hyman's dismissal of psychic photography studies as 'follies,' citing Jule Eisenbud's work on Ted Serios as an example of dishonest criticism. Braude asserts that Hyman should acknowledge such cases as controversial, regardless of his personal intuitions.

Braude suggests that Hyman selects debatable cases to exemplify failures and follies, rather than truly objective ones. He criticizes Hyman's analogy from medicine, where defending bizarre positions is called 'sickness.' Braude argues that Hyman overlooks the history of science where initially maligned proposals were later incorporated. He believes Hyman sees the study of radical proposals as merely 'housecleaning' rather than a process that could lead to acceptance. Braude finds Hyman's use of the term 'bizarre' to describe all radical proposals prejudicial.

Braude concludes that Hyman does not advocate for impartial assessment of radical scientific claims, particularly in parapsychology. He sees Hyman's paper as a plea to banish such claims while preserving the appearance of scientific integrity, defending 'normal science' and displaying a lack of confidence in the scientific method. Braude suggests that the pathological response to radical claims can be subtle, expressed under the guise of objectivity and fair play.

Comments by Harold I. Brown

Harold I. Brown offers two comments on Hyman's paper. First, he argues that the notion of 'pathological science' needs a narrower definition than simply 'the science of things that aren't so.' Brown points out that many accepted scientific concepts, like ideal gas laws or classical mechanics, are strictly false from the perspective of relativity and quantum mechanics. He notes ongoing debates in contemporary physics and suggests that a definition making most science pathological is unilluminating. Brown emphasizes the need to distinguish between scientifically respectable false views and those that are not.

Second, Brown challenges the assumption that advocates of paranormal phenomena and their critics agree that if such phenomena exist, they are inherently supernatural and beyond scientific investigation. He argues that contemporary science has always been supplemented and revised by new discoveries. Brown believes that if psychic phenomena exist, they should be open to study by the usual processes of observation and theory construction, just like meteorites or dreams, rather than being assumed to have a supernatural origin.

Comments by Mario Bunge

Mario Bunge summarizes Hyman's paper as arguing that reputable scientists sometimes propose unorthodox views, that science education needs improvement, and that the scientific community's treatment of unorthodoxies is unscientific and counterproductive. Bunge agrees with these points but disagrees with the existence of 'pathological science,' which he likens to notions like 'atheistic religion' or 'irrational logic.' Bunge believes Hyman conflates pseudoscience with false science.

Bunge stresses that science is characterized by corrigibility, not necessarily truth. He states that science is self-correcting, testing hypotheses and replacing them if they fail. Pseudoscience, conversely, is a body of fixed beliefs. He uses the example of phrenology, noting that while Gall's hypothesis was initially controversial, its tenacity in the absence of evidence was the issue, not the hypothesis itself. Bunge argues that dissent and controversy are normal in science, while pseudoscience punishes heresy. He contrasts how scientific controversy can be settled by observation and argument, whereas pseudoscience is hushed up or relies on authority.

Bunge acknowledges occasional data doctoring and cheating in science but argues these are eventually found out and punished. He distinguishes these breaches of scientific ethos from honest errors. He states that making mistakes is not pathological, but hitting on the truth every time would be abnormal. He views forgery as a non-scientific activity.

Bunge argues that no field of scientific research is free from error, but errors can be corrected. He emphasizes that dissent is essential to science and that suppressing it is more injurious than pseudoscience. He defines pseudoscience not by its wrongness, but by its tenacity and lack of attempt to find laws or harmonize with science. Bunge concludes there is no pathological science, but rather false scientific ideas, dishonest researchers, nonscientific belief systems, and ignorance about the philosophical underpinnings of science.

As a treatment, Bunge proposes that science students take courses in logic (modern, mathematical), philosophy of science (taught by practicing scientists), and history of science (covering both failures and successes). He believes this would teach students that science is about searching for truths and reliable methods, not hoarding truths.

Comments by Roger Cooter

Roger Cooter views Hyman's paper as a caricature of uncritical academic thinking, designed to mock the naivety of science's practitioners, historians, and philosophers. He suggests Hyman has skillfully written himself into a Dickensian script, updating historical encounters with pneumatic pumps and phrenology to a modern scientific context.

Cooter argues that if Hyman's paper is not a caricature, then his critical poverty and the potential for an audience to be duped are causes for concern. He defines 'junk propaganda' as the paper's manipulative tactics, not its content. Cooter states that from a social perspective, the 'truth' or 'falsehood' of the paranormal is irrelevant. He asserts that 'scientific truth' is merely the hypothesis that works best in a given socio-economic context. Cooter believes Hyman's paper, rather than advancing the study of 'pathological science,' legitimizes the superiority of orthodox science by failing to question its cultural specificity.

Cooter notes that Hyman overtly praises orthodox science but covertly celebrates it by appealing for open-mindedness. He argues that Hyman's suggestion of considering 'deviant' sciences is a diversionary tactic. Cooter believes Hyman retains the dichotomy between true and false knowledge, revealing himself to be locked within a 'sociology of error' that reinforces belief in orthodox science's value-neutral veracity. Cooter suggests Hyman feigns ignorance of how modern science mediates a partial view of reality, separating human essences and creating dichotomies like science/pseudoscience.

Cooter criticizes Hyman's acceptance of Langmuir's term 'pathological science.' He argues that Hyman's celebration of science's reifying ideology is driven by a naive liberal desire for others to share his open-mindedness. Cooter points out that Hyman fails to mention Wallace's commitment to socialism, which he sees as a deliberate attempt to underwrite the orthodox scientific audience's belief in their worldview. Cooter argues that ignoring Wallace's political and social outlook leads to a mistaken conclusion that his mind was fragmented. He concludes that Hyman's paper makes clear that 'pathological' in relation to 'orthodox' science is about the metaphors easiest to the caricatured mind, and that the paper leaves little doubt that the answer to the question of the consequences of taking this view seriously is the extension of orthodox science's philosophical hegemony.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in these commentaries revolve around the definition and implications of 'pathological science,' the proper conduct of scientific inquiry, the treatment of unorthodox hypotheses within the scientific community, and the philosophical underpinnings of science. The commentaries collectively engage with Hyman's paper, offering critiques and alternative perspectives on the nature of scientific progress, the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry, and the role of skepticism versus open-mindedness. The overall stance of the journal, as evidenced by the publication of these diverse commentaries, appears to be one that encourages critical debate and the examination of complex issues within the philosophy and history of science.

Title: The Journal of Psychohistory
Issue: Vol. 10, No. 3
Date: Winter 1983
Publisher: The Journal of Psychohistory
Country: USA
Price: $7.00
ISSN: 0145-0138

This issue of The Journal of Psychohistory presents a critical examination of Ray Hyman's paper concerning "pathological" science. The journal features a main article and several commentaries from prominent scholars in the history and philosophy of science, debating Hyman's thesis and its implications for scientific orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Ray Hyman's "Pathological" Science: A Critique

The central theme of the issue revolves around Ray Hyman's paper, which is interpreted as suggesting that the orthodox scientific community should adopt a more "appropriate and rational" response to deviant or "extra-scientific" activities. Hyman's approach is seen as a tactic to "save face" and reassert scientific authority by allowing these deviant claims into the academy, thereby controlling them. The historical parallel drawn is with the seventeenth-century scientific revolution, where alchemy and astrology were discarded to enhance the authority of the new science. However, the modern inheritors of this scientific objectivity are seen as needing to re-examine these discarded elements to maintain their own image of objectivity.

The naivety of Hyman's paper is also highlighted as a potential lesson for practitioners of "pathological" sciences, urging them to recognize the social and ideological interests behind their pursuits. Spiritualists, for instance, are encouraged to see their work as a counterpoint to the reifying materialism of modern rationalist science, offering a means to fight against socio-economic alienation. Hyman's paper is commended for its heuristic service in alerting readers to the social and cultural construction of science, even if it displays a disregard for history and unawareness of science's nature as a product.

Comments by Allen G. Debus

Allen G. Debus acknowledges Hyman's point that the history of science has perpetuated a myth of constant progress in "real" science. He notes a growing interest in previously marginalized areas like alchemy and the mystical views of scientists such as Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler, suggesting a revised understanding of the Scientific Revolution that includes non-modern elements. However, Debus contrasts the free interplay of occult and scientific ideas in the Renaissance with the more established scientific community after the mid-seventeenth century, which used scientific societies and journals to enforce the dominance of the mechanical philosophy. He agrees with Hyman that understanding figures like Wallace and Crookes requires studying their "occult" and "scientific" views together, but questions the practicality of extending this to contemporary "deviant" scientific views.

Comments by Gerald L. Eberlein

Gerald L. Eberlein frames the "pathological science" situation as a phase of "a-paradigmatic" or "anti-paradigmatic" science, where a disciplinary matrix or research program has not yet been established. He argues that this shortcoming is often blamed on researchers' incompetence, leading to a "science in crisis." Eberlein suggests this is even more true when a discipline is evasive or hostile towards the prevailing normal science paradigm. He references theoretical frameworks from Sneed, Stegmüller, and Kuhn to support his analysis.

Comments by Paul Feyerabend

Paul Feyerabend questions the relevance of internal scientific disputes to the wider public, suggesting that if scientists cannot agree, it is their problem. He critiques the view of science as a "club" with exclusive criteria, arguing that science has become akin to a church, providing the "only kind of knowledge that counts." This church-like status leads to undesirable consequences, where scientific quarrels become public malaise. Feyerabend emphasizes that scientists, due to finite resources, must make subjective choices about what to study. He advocates for honesty from researchers about the limitations and subjective basis of their choices, contrasting this with the current practice of presenting 'objective' reasons that mask personal or group idiosyncrasies. He likens the "objectivization of the subjective" to arguments used by churches and criticizes the idea that science should be the sole measure of knowledge.

Feyerabend also discusses the value of alternative traditions and criticizes the idea that scientific medicine is inherently superior to other forms of healing, such as traditional Chinese medicine, due to the lack of control groups. He argues that in a free society, all traditions should have equal rights and access to public resources, and that science should be treated as one among many institutions, subject to the wishes of its "buyers."

Comments by Antony Flew

Antony Flew analyzes Hyman's approach through the lens of Hume's "Inquiry concerning Human Understanding." Flew distinguishes between the "marvellous" and the "miraculous." He points out that Hyman's description of alleged phenomena, such as a medium materializing a sunflower, as "phenomena that cannot be accounted for by currently accepted principles" is too broad, as it could apply to any new field. Flew argues that the crux of dismissing alleged phenomena lies not just in their being bizarre or unaccountable, but in their being "just plumb impossible" based on constantly tested nomological propositions or "basic limiting principles." While acknowledging the possibility that an outsider might be right, Flew stresses that assessing historical claims requires appealing to what is probable or improbable. He concludes that for a phenomenon to be considered seriously, it needs to be repeatable and explainable by a fresh theory, rather than being a singular, past-tense event.

Comments by J. N. Hattangadi

J. N. Hattangadi finds Hyman's call for "fair criticism" valuable, noting that "pathological" science has often played a role in the development of what is now considered "healthy" science. He uses the examples of Luigi Galvani and Volta, where initial "pathological" ideas about electricity led to significant discoveries. However, Hattangadi cautions that not every bizarre idea can be followed up and fairly criticized due to limited time and resources. He suggests that relevance to the science's central problems, rather than initial plausibility, determines what to study. He argues that the definition of what is scientific changes over time and that scientists must remain open-minded but also choose what to focus on.

Hattangadi also touches upon the historical view of science as having produced final laws of motion, which led to hostility towards scientists with peculiar views. He contrasts this with the modern understanding, influenced by Darwin and Einstein, that scientific laws are not necessarily final. He concludes that if a piece of "pathological" science is relevant to current problems, it should be criticized, but if irrelevant, it should be ignored. He asserts that idiosyncratic views have not damaged scientific knowledge, but scientists cannot spend all their time attacking superstitions.

Comments by Seymour H. Mauskopf

Seymour H. Mauskopf expresses an oscillation of sentiment regarding Hyman's paper, perceiving a contradiction between Hyman's call for "more appropriate and rational" responses and his underlying intent to "prejudge" and dismiss deviant claims. Mauskopf, as a historian of science, takes exception to Hyman's purpose of using historical examples like Newton's alchemy and Wallace's spiritualism to teach contemporary scientists lessons from "follies." Mauskopf's own aim as a historian is to delineate scientific outlooks and belief systems comprehensively, avoiding personal presuppositions and seeking to understand beliefs within their historical context, rather than condemning them as wrong-headed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the nature of scientific inquiry, the boundaries of scientific orthodoxy, and the historical relationship between "normal" and "pathological" science. The journal appears to advocate for a more nuanced understanding of scientific history, acknowledging the contributions of ideas and practices that were once considered outside the scientific mainstream. There is a clear emphasis on the social and cultural construction of science, challenging the notion of pure, objective scientific progress. The editorial stance, as reflected in the commentaries, is one of critical engagement with Hyman's thesis, urging a deeper historical and philosophical analysis of scientific claims and their reception.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified by its page number 65 and the context of the articles, appears to be a collection of commentaries and a research paper focused on the concept of 'pathological science' and its implications for scientific inquiry, particularly concerning parapsychology and remote viewing.

Commentary on Ray Hyman's "Pathological Science"

The issue features several commentaries responding to an article by Ray Hyman on "Pathological Science." The central theme revolves around how scientists should approach and evaluate claims that fall outside conventional scientific understanding.

Commentary by Malcolm Jay Kottler

Kottler critiques Hyman's scheme for assessing past science, arguing that it might reinforce a focus on "pathological" interests rather than positive achievements. He questions the criteria for defining "the science of things that weren't so" and suggests that Hyman's dichotomy between healthy and pathological science distorts the historical context of figures like A.R. Wallace. Kottler argues that Wallace's psychical beliefs were integral to his scientific thought and that Hyman's characterization of Wallace's audience as outcasts shows ignorance of the intellectual caliber of the Society for Psychical Research leadership.

Commentary by Andy Pickering

Pickering agrees with Hyman's first proposition that good science requires good criticism and that unusual claims should be discussed. However, he takes issue with Hyman's second proposition, which suggests that "bizarre positions" are symptoms of something wrong requiring remedy. Pickering counters with historical examples, such as the initial dismissal of meteorites and the later acceptance of parity violation, arguing that bizarre positions can prove to be justified. He contends that what is considered bizarre is contingent on the prevailing theoretical context and that the transformation from anomaly to orthodoxy is mediated by changes in accepted theory. Pickering criticizes Hyman for dismissing claims without argument, mirroring the very sin he accuses others of. He concludes that anomalies are context-dependent and that the concept of "pathological science" itself is problematic.

Commentary by Theodore Rockwell

Rockwell finds Hyman's approach to outrageous scientific claims fresh but believes he reaches the right answer for the wrong reason. He notes that great minds like Newton, Lodge, and Wallace devoted efforts to psychic phenomena, yet Hyman dismisses their findings as "follies" without sufficient analysis. Rockwell agrees with Hyman's recommendation that scientists should act like scientists when faced with scientific claims, but he finds this task not particularly difficult. He emphasizes the need to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, like horoscope columns. Rockwell criticizes the journal *Science* for not publishing serious research papers on psychic phenomena while featuring denunciations. He advocates for treating such claims through the regular scientific process of peer review, criticism, and replication, suggesting this would be more productive than *Science*'s current "anti-psychic campaign."

Commentary by Paul Thagard

Thagard views Hyman's discussion of pathological science as valuable for the "political philosophy of science." He agrees that disciplines like astrology and parapsychology should receive less peremptory criticism, as they might hold some validity. Thagard supports C.S. Peirce's principle of not blocking inquiry but also considers Peirce's principle of "economy of research," suggesting that limited resources may necessitate prioritizing investigations. He also raises the issue of the "social cost of rubbish," arguing that in some cases, like astrology, polemics might be more effective than detailed criticism in combating irrationalism.

Research Paper: "Failures to Replicate Remote-Viewing Using Psychic Subjects"

This paper, authored by Edward W. Karnes, Ellen P. Susman, Patricia Klusman, and Laurie Turcotte, presents experimental findings on remote-viewing. The authors note the ongoing controversy surrounding psychic abilities and the development of societies dedicated to critical evaluation of paranormal claims.

The Phenomenon of Remote-Viewing

Remote-viewing is defined as the ability of a receiver, separated from a sender, to describe the sender's surroundings without prior knowledge. The scientific respectability claimed for it stems partly from the perceived rigor of experiments and the credentials of researchers like Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, who are physicists.

The Replication Requirement

The paper stresses that replication by independent investigators is crucial, especially for findings that challenge established physical laws. It notes that while some successful replications of remote-viewing have been reported, numerous failures have also occurred, with some researchers reporting inability to replicate the phenomenon.

Previous Experiments by Karnes and Colleagues

Karnes and his colleagues report two previous experiments that failed to find evidence for remote-viewing ability in college students. These studies used signal detection procedures and control conditions to account for response biases, concluding that successes could be explained by guessing.

The Present Experiment

The current experiment was designed to provide an additional test using self-proclaimed psychic subjects and multiple remote-viewing trials with feedback. The rationale was that improvement in performance might be a function of practice, and that psychic subjects might be more suitable than inexperienced ones. The experiment also focused on accurate recording of the sending experience, using motion picture cameras and verbal recordings to capture visual and subjective impressions, which independent judges then used to assess accuracy.

Design and Procedures

Eight self-proclaimed psychic subjects participated in remote-viewing trials, with sender-receiver pairs alternating roles. The experiment employed a double-blind procedure, where experimenters and receivers had no knowledge of the target identity. The procedures were based on previous successful demonstrations, including experimenter isolation with the receiver and the use of blind conditions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of claims that lie outside mainstream science, particularly parapsychology and phenomena like remote-viewing. The commentaries engage with the philosophical and practical challenges of defining and evaluating "pathological science." There is a clear emphasis on the importance of rigorous scientific methodology, including criticism and replication, as the basis for scientific acceptance. The journal's stance, as indicated by its title "Zetetic Scholar" and the content, is one of critical inquiry and skepticism towards extraordinary claims, while advocating for open-mindedness and adherence to scientific principles in their evaluation. The issue highlights the tension between encouraging inquiry and the efficient use of scientific resources, as well as the potential for bias in research.

This document appears to be a collection of pages from a scientific or academic publication, likely a journal or conference proceedings, focusing on parapsychology and specifically remote viewing. The content includes experimental results, discussions, commentaries, and references. The primary focus is on a study by Karnes, E. W., and Susman, E. P. (1980) that investigated remote viewing.

Experimental Study on Remote Viewing (Karnes et al., 1980)

The core of the document details an experiment designed to test the existence of remote-viewing capabilities in experienced psychic subjects. The experiment involved four males and four females with professional or semi-professional involvement in psychic matters, aged 41 on average, with significant formal schooling and experience in psychic development.

Methodology

The study utilized 16 distinct target sites (6 indoor, 10 outdoor) for 16 remote-viewing trials. Subjects were paired as sender-receiver. Receivers were isolated and recorded their impressions verbally and through sketches. Senders were taken to the target sites and recorded their impressions using a Polaroid Motion Camera and a portable cassette recorder. The order of target sites was determined by random numbers, and only the principal author was aware of the sequence.

Sender-receiver pairs underwent sessions lasting 15 minutes. After each session, the sender debriefed the receiver at the target site. Some pairs participated in two trials, while others engaged in six trials, alternating roles.

Judging and Results

Sixty-four independent judges evaluated the accuracy of the remote-viewing data. They were given sender descriptions, shown a movie of the sending situation, and visited the target site. Judges were tasked with separating the 8 best matches from the 8 least matches among 16 receiver protocols and then rank-ordering the best matches.

The results indicated no support for remote-viewing. The proportion of hits (0.39) was not significantly different from chance (0.50). Similarly, the mean rank-order value assigned to hits (4.36) was not reliably different from the chance expectation of 4.50.

Feedback and Practice Effects

The study also evaluated the effect of feedback on remote-viewing performance. The results failed to show any improvement across trials, suggesting that feedback did not enhance performance. Even with multiple trials and feedback, the results remained consistent with chance expectations.

Specific Case Analysis

While the overall results were negative, one sender-receiver pair's transcript for the pedestrian overpass target in downtown Denver appeared to be a remarkably close match. Four judges identified this protocol with high accuracy (rank-order values of 1, 1, 1, 4). However, further analysis revealed that this specific receiver's protocol was also selected as a match for other targets by a high number of judges (62 out of 64), suggesting a response bias or a general tendency to select this protocol, rather than specific remote-viewing accuracy.

Commentary by James Calkins

Professor James Calkins provides a critical commentary on the Karnes et al. study and previous work by Puthoff and Targ. He expresses frustration with the methodological rigor of parapsychological studies, particularly those claiming proof of clairvoyance and telepathy.

Methodological Criticisms

Calkins argues that studies like those by Puthoff and Targ often fail to meet the requirements of basic undergraduate psychology experiments. He highlights the absence of adequate control conditions, which he believes are essential for ruling out factors like guessing, experimenter bias, and cueing. He contrasts the rigor expected in physical science research with the perceived laxity in some psychology studies, especially those proposing revolutionary theories about perception.

"One-Shot Case Study" Critique

Calkins criticizes the "one-shot case study" approach, where an "experimental" condition is presented without a corresponding control condition for comparison. He argues that this makes it impossible to distinguish genuine psychic effects from coincidental occurrences or methodological artifacts.

Examples of Weak Controls

He provides an example of a hypnotist claiming remote hypnosis at kilometer distances. When tested in a laboratory setting with a control condition (hypnotist not sending a signal), the subject entered a trance state at the same frequency, indicating the effect was not causally linked to the alleged telepathic sending.

Similarly, he discusses PK dice-throwing studies, questioning whether successes are due to genuine PK effects or simply chance expectations. He emphasizes the importance of comparing experimental conditions with appropriate control conditions to isolate the phenomenon of interest.

Discussion and Conclusion

The authors of the primary study conclude that their experiment, along with previous investigations, offers no support for the existence of paranormal perceptual capabilities like remote viewing. They state that the results are remarkably consistent and close to what would be predicted by chance. They acknowledge the possibility of extraneous cues in transcripts, but note that their study carefully edited out such cues, leading to results that were close to chance expectations.

They express confidence that no paranormal perceptual capabilities were demonstrable in their investigations, despite attempts to replicate the phenomenon using modified procedures and experienced subjects.

References

The document includes an extensive list of references, citing numerous studies in parapsychology, remote viewing, and related fields from the 1970s. Notable references include works by Puthoff, Targ, Marks, Kammann, and Vallee, as well as various IEEE conference proceedings.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this document is the critical examination of remote viewing and other parapsychological phenomena through rigorous scientific methodology. The primary study by Karnes et al. adopts a skeptical stance, presenting negative results that challenge the validity of remote viewing. The commentary by James Calkins strongly reinforces this skeptical and methodologically critical perspective, advocating for stringent experimental controls. The overall editorial stance leans towards a scientific skepticism regarding claims of paranormal abilities, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence and robust experimental design to support such claims.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #6, delves into the complexities and controversies surrounding remote viewing experiments. The content primarily consists of a research paper by Karnes, Susman, Klusman, and Turcotte, followed by a series of critical comments from various researchers and commentators, and a response from the original authors.

Remote Viewing Experiments and Methodological Critiques

The core of the issue is the report by Karnes, Susman, Klusman, and Turcotte (1980) detailing their experiment which failed to obtain evidence for 'remote viewing' (a form of ESP). They describe their methodology, which aimed to address criticisms and requirements for replicating the work of Targ and Puthoff. The paper discusses the psychology of coincidence and how it can lead to belief in paranormal phenomena, drawing parallels with operant conditioning principles as explained by B.F. Skinner.

Key to their experimental design was the establishment of a control condition to avoid self-deception and distinguish between causal and coincidental events. They detail a procedure where two objects are remotely viewed, and then sketches are matched against photographs of these objects. The dependent variable is the frequency of correct matches ('hits') between sketches and targets.

Commentary and Critiques

Several prominent figures in the field offer their perspectives:

Brenda J. Dunne and Robert G. Jahn:

Dunne and Jahn find the Karnes et al. experiments to be well-posed and well-conducted, agreeing with their conclusion of overall insignificance. They note that these negative results are comparable to other findings, but argue that they do not dispel the substantial database of positive findings from other laboratories. They emphasize the ongoing challenge of controlling all relevant parameters in such experiments and highlight their own development of an analytical scoring technique to reduce subjective judging.

Arthur Hastings:

Hastings suggests that the reason for the lack of positive results in the Karnes et al. study is that no remote viewing actually occurred. He posits that remote viewing is a skill that requires development and that experimenter bias, faulty target selection, or inadequate learning conditions can hinder success. He recommends informal practice and gradual progression to formal experiments, emphasizing the need for experienced judges.

David Marks and Richard Kammann:

Marks and Kammann applaud Karnes et al. for their persistence but predict that new rationalizations will be offered to explain away the failures. They point to their own work, 'The Psychology of the Psychic,' which details their non-replication of remote viewing experiments. They highlight issues such as data selection and statistical errors in the original Targ-Puthoff research, and the presence of sensory cues in transcripts that allowed for successful matching by judges who were not properly blinded.

Charles T. Tart:

Tart identifies a 'serious methodological flaw' in the Karnes et al. study: the principal author's knowledge of the target sites during interactions with the receiver. He argues that this created a possibility of subtle cueing, violating a fundamental rule of parapsychological research. While acknowledging that this flaw might not account for negative results, he stresses the importance of eliminating any possibility of sensory cueing.

James Randi:

Randi offers strong support for the critics, applauding the authors' work and framing parapsychology as a 'pseudo-science.' He echoes the point made by Marks and Kammann about the ease of finding matches when not considering the entire dataset. He also criticizes the original Targ-Puthoff presentation for publishing photos of targets taken after judging, which were angled to emphasize similarities to drawings, thus adding a peripheral, misleading strength to their paper.

Authors' Response

Edward W. Karnes and Ellen P. Sussman respond to the comments, expressing agreement with the favorable reviews and informative points raised by Randi, Calkins, Marks, and Kammann. They clarify that they were premature in concluding that Targ and Puthoff had 'refuted' their evidence of cues and errors, suggesting 'disputed' would have been a more appropriate term. They note the lack of constructive criticism from proponents of remote viewing regarding their failures.

Regarding Charles Tart's methodological criticism, Karnes and Sussman consider it irrelevant to their negative results, arguing that cueing could only explain positive findings, not negative ones. They maintain that their procedure ensured confidentiality and that the principal author's contact with the receiver was limited to reading instructions.

They agree with Tart that cueing could be a possibility for reported successes in remote viewing, citing Marks and Kammann's findings that removing cues led to inability to match transcripts. They also discuss the discrepancy between their results and Targ and Puthoff's claims of successful matching by new judges. They suggest that the 'psychic' abilities might reside in the judges rather than the sender/receiver pairs, or that differences in cue removal and blinding procedures are at play.

Karnes and Sussman also address Arthur Hastings' comments, agreeing that no remote viewing occurred in their study. They find his suggestion of informal practice problematic, as it could lead to self-deception, where subjects believe they are accurate when judges cannot verify their perceptions. They also question the need for 'specialized intellectual faculties' in judges, as suggested by Tart, wondering if it relates to the degree of blinding.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of experimental methodologies in parapsychology, particularly remote viewing. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of rigorous controls, blinding procedures, and replicability to establish the validity of paranormal claims. The issue showcases a skeptical stance towards remote viewing, highlighting the potential for methodological flaws and psychological biases to account for reported successes. The editorial stance appears to favor critical, evidence-based investigation and expresses concern over the lack of scientific rigor in some areas of parapsychology.

This issue of ZS features a significant article by John Beloff titled "SEVEN EVIDENTIAL EXPERIMENTS," which presents and analyzes seven parapsychological experiments that Beloff considers to be strong evidence for the existence of psi phenomena. The magazine also includes an announcement for the "ZS PARANORMAL CONTENTS BULLETIN" and commentaries on Beloff's article from several notable figures in the field.

"SEVEN EVIDENTIAL EXPERIMENTS" by John Beloff

John Beloff's central argument is that the seven experiments he has selected, when viewed collectively, present an "overwhelming case for accepting the reality of psi phenomena." He lists these experiments in order of their date of execution, providing a brief description of each:

1. The Brugmans' experiment (May 1920) with subject van Dam at the University of Groningen.
2. The Blom & Pratt experiment (November 1963) with subject Stepanek in Prague.
3. The Musso & Granero experiment (1967) with subject J.B. Muratti in Rosario, Argentina.
4. The Roll & Klein experiment (August 1969) with subject Harribance at the P.R.F. Laboratory.
5. The Kanthamani & Kelly experiments (February 1972 - April 1973) with subject B.D. (Bill Delmore) at the FRNM Institute.
6. Helmut Schmidt's experiments (1973) on PK using a binary random number generator at FRNM Institute.
7. Terry & Honorton's 'Ganzfeld' experiment (1975) with student volunteers at the Maimonides Laboratory, Brooklyn, New York.

Beloff acknowledges that no experiment is perfect and that criticisms are possible. He notes that in retrospect, one can always think of additional controls. He also states that unless a much higher level of repeatability becomes possible, the skeptical opinion—that results can be attributed to carelessness or cheating—remains open and valid. However, he concludes that the cumulative evidence from these seven investigations is "overwhelming."

References

Beloff's article is supported by a bibliography that includes works by:

• Marks, D. and Kammann, R., *The Psychology of the Psychic*, 1980.
• Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E., and Tara, R., "Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments," *Nature*, 1980.

Commentary on Beloff's Paper

The issue includes extensive commentary from several researchers, offering diverse perspectives on Beloff's claims:

• James Alcock finds a "glaring inconsistency" in Beloff's closing paragraph. While Beloff himself criticizes the experiments and acknowledges the validity of the skeptical view due to low repeatability, Alcock finds it "astonishing" that Beloff then concludes the evidence is "overwhelming." Alcock suggests Beloff's acceptance represents a "gigantic leap of faith."
• Irvin L. Child agrees with Beloff's selection of experiments and stresses the importance of the number and diversity of reports. He differs on the inference drawn, agreeing that "apparent transmission of information" suggests gaps in knowledge, but finds the phrase "reality of psi phenomena" to suggest something more substantive. He notes that the importance of these studies lies in their potential to identify problems for future research and suggest new experimental approaches.
• Daniel Cohen expresses that Beloff's conclusion is "absolutely incredible." He points out that there is no generally acceptable theory reconciling psi with current scientific knowledge and that the evidence for psi must be "far better than that which is considered adequate in conventional psychology." Cohen acknowledges that anomalous results occur in all fields but finds Beloff's leap from "suggestive" or "intriguing" to "overwhelming" to be unwarranted, stating the case remains "unproven."
• H.M. Collins begins with a disclaimer of being neither pro nor anti-parapsychology. He notes that Schmidt's experiments, cited by Beloff, were what first interested him in the field, appearing as convincing as any other experimental reports. He emphasizes that judgments are often based on published reports, not direct observation, and that commentaries are typically on reports rather than the experiments themselves.

Specific Experiment Discussions within Commentaries:

• Brugmans' experiment (1): Noted for its striking finding that correct responses were often speedy, suggesting new experimental planning avenues. However, it was a "one shot affair" with little further interest generated.
• Stepanek experiment (2): Described as a long-lived subject, but with weaknesses including a restricted repertoire and mediocre scoring rates. The "focusing effect" made his performance erratic. Some researchers, like Persi Diaconis, have questioned the controls and even detected cheating.
• Musso & Granero experiment (3): Praised for its free-response drawing method, where responses were self-evidently correct. The subject was a psychiatrist who was mistaken about the conditions favoring his psi hitting, confirming the usual inaccessibility of psi processes to consciousness.
• Roll & Klein experiment (4): Illustrates that research into underlying processes does not guarantee positive findings. The experiment tested two notions about process, neither of which was sustained, but it provided a striking demonstration of psi hitting.
• Kanthamani, Kelly et al. experiments (5): Provide a counterbalance to the Musso & Granero study, showing that introspective report can be a useful guide. The subject, B.D., was a law student with a high scoring rate, particularly on confidence calls. It is noted as a pity that this subject did nothing further.
• Schmidt's experiments (6): These experiments on psychokinetic effects on random event generators are of special interest for their evidence that the rate of event generation affects the probability of successful psychokinetic influence. However, individual scoring rates seldom exceed 51% and replication has been difficult.
• Terry & Honorton's Ganzfeld study (7): This technique is highlighted as leading the field in successful replications and producing striking qualitative correspondences. It is considered well-adapted for studying the role of alertness and attention in psi processes, suggesting reduced external attention favors psi events. The success with unselected subjects is a cause for optimism.

ZS Paranormal Contents Bulletin Announcement

An announcement details plans to launch the "ZS PARANORMAL CONTENTS BULLETIN." This quarterly newsletter would be composed of xerox copies of tables of contents from various publications dealing with scientific anomalies, psi, UFOs, and cryptozoology. The goal is to help scholars and others who cannot subscribe to all these journals individually. The bulletin would also include issue purchase and subscription information, as well as addresses for the listed publications. Permission to copy contents pages is being sought, with the aim of including at least 30 journals per issue. Subscriptions are estimated to cost $10 per year, with issues being xeroxed off to order. Suggestions and expressions of interest are welcomed, with full information to be provided in a later issue.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the debate surrounding the evidence for psi phenomena. John Beloff champions the idea that a select group of experiments provides "overwhelming" proof, while the commentators raise critical points about methodology, repeatability, and interpretation. The issue reflects a tension between proponents who see compelling evidence and skeptics who demand higher standards of proof and are wary of fraud or error. The editorial stance, as indicated by the publication of these diverse viewpoints and the announcement of the Paranormal Contents Bulletin, appears to be one of facilitating discussion and providing access to information within the field of parapsychology and related anomalous phenomena.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as Issue 10 and dated 1984, delves into the complex landscape of parapsychological research, focusing on the nature of experimental evidence, repeatability, and the challenges of establishing psi phenomena within the scientific community. The content comprises a main article and several commentary sections from various researchers in the field.

The Nature of Experiments and Scientific Knowledge

The opening section discusses the inherent difficulty in completely describing the conditions of any experiment due to the dynamic and complex nature of the universe. It posits that the concept of repetition in science relies on a 'ceteris-paribus' clause, an assumption that most environmental factors are irrelevant. True scientific knowledge, it argues, is constituted by the sharing of tacit understandings within the scientific community, allowing for generalizations rather than mere communication of anecdotes. The growth of science is seen as a reduction of anecdotal material in experiment descriptions. Experiments can be attacked by questioning the assumptions upon which they are based, such as the relevance of the experimenter's personal beliefs, which critics might use to 'deconstruct' scientific findings into anecdotal material. This process is observed in parapsychology, where critics may 'unpack' generalizations to re-establish anecdotal qualities.

Comments on John Beloff's List of Evidential Experiments

Several researchers offer their perspectives on a list of 'evidential' experiments compiled by John Beloff. The general consensus is that Beloff's list is judicious and represents a significant contribution to the field. However, there is also a recognition that choosing the 'best' experiments is inherently controversial, and individual selections might differ.

Robert L. Morris's Comments

Robert L. Morris agrees with the sentiment that one can always think of additional controls for any experiment. He does not share Beloff's final opinion that seven specific studies represent an overwhelming case for psi phenomena. Instead, he believes that the strongest evidence comes from conceptually and procedurally related studies that point toward functional relationships, indicating whether psi phenomena can be meaningfully integrated into human knowledge.

J. Ricardo Musso and Mirta Granero's Comments

Musso and Granero discuss their own experiment, which Beloff included in his list. They highlight a recent strengthening of their evidence through the discovery of a 'U-effect,' which was not detected in their initial analysis. They explain that their experiment was initially criticized, leading to new analyses that validated their findings and clarified the presence of high and low scores. They found that sessions could be divided into 'good sessions' (where ESP functioned positively) and 'bad sessions' (where ESP was inactive), with the U-effect being clearly present in the good sessions.

J. Fraser Nicol's Comments

J. Fraser Nicol acknowledges the difficulty in agreeing on a definitive list of convincing experiments. He notes the controversy surrounding such lists, referencing historical examples like the Duke University list and the work of S.G. Soal, whose experiments later faced considerable doubt due to evidence of data faking. Nicol contrasts the historical focus on spontaneous experiences and mental mediumship with the modern vogue for behavioristic experiments like card guessing, initiated by J.B. Rhine. He questions why the scientific establishment remains hostile to parapsychology, suggesting it's due to the failure to produce a repeatable experiment.

John Palmer's Comments

John Palmer praises Beloff's list as excellent and largely agreeing with it. He expresses particular gratification for the inclusion of the Musso and Granero experiment, considering it elegant and evidential. He suggests adding studies by William Braud. Palmer voices reservations about the Brugmans experiment, noting that it lacked the benefit of later scientific scrutiny that tightened experimental procedures. He also cautions against drawing too close an analogy between Beloff's list and Soal's work, given the latter's eventual discrediting. Palmer emphasizes that correlational data, showing reliable relationships between psi scores and other variables, are as good evidence for psi as large excesses of hits, especially if these relationships make theoretical sense.

K. Ramakrishna Rao's Comments

K. Ramakrishna Rao argues that the case for psi does not rest on a single infallible experiment. He believes that no experiment is perfect and that the call for a 'crucial' experiment is futile. Rao suggests that Beloff's criteria for an 'evidential' experiment are insufficient and that his list may be incomplete and selective. He advocates for judging psi evidence cumulatively, assessing probabilities and relative values rather than seeking absolute certainty. He believes that a probabilistic estimate of psi phenomena's existence would be convincingly in its favor.

The Role of Replication and Credibility

This section addresses the crucial issue of replication in parapsychology. It argues that judging the credibility of an experiment requires the same criteria as in other fields, such as psychology. The cumulative effect of credible experiments provides the overall evidence. The alleged anomalous and nonrepeatable nature of psi phenomena is often cited as a reason for skepticism, but the article contends that neither attribute is logically necessary for believing in a phenomenon's existence. Replication is presented as a matter of degree, and while parapsychological phenomena may be less replicable than psychological ones, they are not entirely unreproducible. The article cites studies employing random event generators, meditation, hypnosis, and ganzfeld stimulation, which showed significant results with replication rates above fifty percent.

When replication rates are low, it is suggested that nonconventional questions of credibility, such as the honesty of the experimenter, may arise. However, if the observed frequency of replication is significantly higher than the known frequency of fraud, raising the question of experimenter fraud without hard evidence is deemed illegitimate. The author's belief in psi is based on the judgment that psi phenomena are replicated at a level significantly greater than manifest dishonesty or incompetence among scientists, and that indirect evidence reasonably rules out conscious fraud.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the definition and evaluation of evidence in parapsychology. There is a strong emphasis on the need for rigorous experimental methodology, the challenges posed by the lack of consistent repeatability, and the critical role of statistical analysis. The issue highlights the ongoing debate between proponents and skeptics, with researchers actively engaging with criticisms and defending the validity of their work. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious optimism, acknowledging the difficulties but maintaining that the cumulative evidence, when judged by appropriate scientific standards, supports the existence of psi phenomena. The article also underscores the importance of historical context in understanding the evolution of research in the field.

This document consists of several pages from the *Journal of Parapsychology*, Volume 41, Issue 1, published in 1977. It features a series of critical commentaries and responses regarding parapsychological research, primarily focusing on the interpretation of experimental results and the methodology employed.

References

The document begins with a list of references, including works by C.R. Carpenter & H.R. Phalen (1937), C. Honortin (1978), K. Ramakrishna Rao (1977, 1979), J.B. Rhine & J.G. Pratt (1954), and L. Warner (1937). These references likely support the arguments and discussions presented in the main text.

Comments by James Randi

James Randi, a well-known skeptic, critiques Professor Beloff's reliance on older, obscure experiments. Randi expresses skepticism about the quality of these experiments, suggesting they are likely not well-controlled or reported. He specifically addresses the Kanthamani/Kelly tests of "B.D.", stating they were exposed as simple card tricks by statistician/magician Persi Diaconis, who found that the experimenters were fooled by common conjuring techniques. Randi also comments on Helmut Schmidt's work, noting that while Schmidt promised interesting results, his methods were not properly observed by an outside authority and his tests have not been adequately replicated. Randi classifies Schmidt's work as "well-intentioned but unproven."

Comments by Christopher Scott

Christopher Scott outlines two key features that distinguish evidence for psi from conventional scientific evidence: it is primarily negative evidence (i.e., the inability to find a normal explanation), and it is historical rather than experimental. Scott argues that the jump from "I cannot think of" a normal explanation to "there does not exist" one is a weak link, as people are not good at thinking of all plausible explanations. He also points out that evidence for psi consists only of reports, which can contain errors, unlike chemical knowledge based on reproducible experiments. Scott suggests that a skeptic's task is to find a plausible explanation, even if it requires eccentric assumptions, for strange events.

Scott then analyzes the Brugmans et al. experiment (1922), which was considered strong evidence for psi. He notes that while re-analyses by Schouten and Kelly (1978) addressed issues of sensory leakage and target randomization, a glaring deficiency remains: the agent knew the correct target, but the role of the observers and recorders is not clearly defined. Scott questions whether the agent himself acted as the recorder, which would be unacceptable in modern parapsychology. He also raises concerns about the clarity of the subject's response signals and the potential for confusion and uncertainty, leaving room for biased recording.

Scott concludes that it is difficult to believe that recording errors alone could account for the high success rate in the initial Brugmans experiments. He suggests that a naive and highly motivated enthusiast might achieve such results through motivated error. Scott asserts that one need not accept the overthrow of well-established scientific principles to accommodate uncertain implications of such evidence.

Comments on Christopher Scott's Remarks by Sybo Schouten

SybO Schouten responds to Christopher Scott's suggestion that the Heyman's experiment might be due to recording errors. Schouten acknowledges that recording errors are known in parapsychology. He argues that the procedure in the Heyman's experiment made recording errors unlikely due to the use of a hammer to indicate trial onset and finger tapping to signal the target. He also notes that observers could follow the subject's hand movements and check the target afterward. Schouten states that no trends were observed in the data to support a recording-error hypothesis; in fact, some findings contradict it. He points out that there was no significant difference in scoring when different experimenters acted as agent, implying that if errors were made, they were made equally by all, which is unlikely. Furthermore, he notes that the data showed a non-significant trend in the opposite direction of what would be expected if near-misses were carelessly recorded as hits.

Schouten concludes that neither the procedure nor the data support the recording-error hypothesis for the observed scoring.

Comments by Rex G. Stanford

Rex G. Stanford discusses the differing opinions among parapsychologists regarding what constitutes adequate evidence. He categorizes researchers into "demonstrationists," who focus on "crucial demonstration experiments" and "star subjects," and "constructivists," who emphasize building a systematic structure of evidence that converges on a hypothesis about psi function. Stanford notes that demonstrationist approaches often highlight anomalies but do not explain under what conditions they occur. He criticizes the "constructivist" approach when it relies on labeling negatively-defined events without specifying antecedent conditions, arguing that such a proposition is not testable and cannot be falsified.

Stanford finds Beloff's demonstrationist presentation unimpressive, suggesting that parapsychology has made few advances except technologically. He advocates for examining specific experimental areas and the original work to form opinions on methodology and conclusions. Stanford believes that skeptics begin to take parapsychology seriously when they recognize a convergence of evidence suggesting something meaningful, rather than just startling probability values or abstract demonstrations.

Stanford then discusses his own choice of experiments, which he compiled in response to a challenge. He mentions that his judgment was supported by authorities like John Palmer and Irvin Child. He contrasts this with the Stanford-Morris position, which he finds unrealistic, suggesting that statistically reliable relationships between psi scores and other variables are good evidence for psi, but that such relationships need to be reliably demonstrated. Stanford recalls the imposing constructions based on the work of Soal, Shackleton, and Stewart, which now appear invalid and fraudulent. He argues that the parapsychological scene lacks consensus on fundamental questions, with different models being mutually incompatible, indicating a "preparadigmatic" science.

Stanford criticizes the idea of "convergent constructs" in pseudo-sciences like astrology, suggesting that a skeptic would demand watertight evidence for specific hypotheses. He concludes that Stanford mistakes the direction of movement for the destination.

John Beloff Replies to His Commentators

John Beloff responds to the criticisms from Cohen and Scott, acknowledging that his claim of an "overwhelming case" might have been provocative. He insists that his opinion is based on a rational conjecture, no less so than the conjecture that paranormal phenomena do not exist. Beloff clarifies his position, stating that while he uses the phrase "the reality of psi," he knows only what psi is not, not what it is. He proposes a more guarded statement: "these seven experiments represent a strong case for rejecting, or, at any rate, questioning the sufficiency of the prevailing scientific world view if this is taken as defining the limits of what is possible."

Beloff disagrees with the criticism that his approach was misconceived and that parapsychology cannot be vindicated by citing isolated experiments. He states he is not a "demonstrationist" and that experimental evidence is not always the most convincing; spontaneous, real-life phenomena can be equally important. He agrees with Scott that parapsychology is bound to remain primarily a historical study in the absence of repeatable experiments, but insists that skeptics have a right to demand specimens of good experimental evidence for psi. He argues that refusing to provide such evidence would be a dereliction of duty and open to charges of prevarication.

Beloff then discusses his selection of seven experiments. He mentions that he was delighted by Child's constructive comments and encouraged by fresh analyses of Musso and Granero's data. He notes that his own experiment, No. 7 (Terry & Honorton study), was faulted by Nils Wiklund for a minor methodological flaw concerning the rotation of picture-reels as targets instead of random selection, which could have inflated the scoring. Beloff points out that this flaw was peculiar to this experiment and that he included it because it did not depend on special subjects. He acknowledges that he should have chosen a methodologically sounder experiment, perhaps from William Braud.

Regarding the Brugmans experiment (No. 1), Beloff agrees that precautions against sensory leakage were less than foolproof. However, he finds it hard to imagine that such massive effects could be due to inadvertent cueing. He addresses Scott's suggestion of misrecordings, stating that Sybo Schouten, an authority on the investigation, found no decrease in near-misses, which would be expected if near-misses were carelessly recorded as hits. Beloff also notes that the rotation of agent and recorder roles among the three experimenters, including Professor Heymans, made no difference to the scoring pattern.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the methodology and interpretation of parapsychology research. There is a clear tension between those who advocate for rigorous experimental design and replicability (constructivists, skeptics like Randi and Scott) and those who highlight the significance of anomalies and suggestive evidence, even from older or less controlled studies (Beloff, demonstrationists). The issue underscores the challenges in establishing parapsychology as a legitimate scientific field, with debates on what constitutes adequate evidence, the role of skepticism, and the potential for bias and error in experimental procedures. The editorial stance appears to be one that encourages critical examination of the evidence and methodology, while acknowledging the ongoing debate within the field.

Title: ZS Dialogues
Issue: 5
Date: 1979
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of ZS Dialogues features a significant exchange of views on statistical problems in parapsychological research, primarily between Edward F. Kelly and Persi Diaconis, with a commentary from Charles T. Tart.

Edward F. Kelly Responds to Persi Diaconis

Edward F. Kelly opens the discussion by directly addressing Persi Diaconis's "Rejoinder" published in the previous issue. Kelly finds Diaconis's response insufficient, claiming it fails to address many of his specific criticisms and continues a pattern of misrepresentation and unsupported allegations. Kelly urges readers to reread the exchange to understand the context.

Point 1 - Feedback

Kelly addresses Diaconis's comments on feedback experiments. He states that Diaconis diverts attention from the main point by shifting to a different class of cases and misrepresenting Kelly's position. Kelly clarifies that he did not claim feedback experiments were irrelevant to ESP research, but rather that Diaconis's remarks were largely irrelevant to the existing literature, which already recognizes the complexities of trial-by-trial feedback. He acknowledges that Diaconis's analytical results might be useful for future research with such procedures. Kelly also notes that while some studies may have issues with feedback, these are uncommon and have been criticized within the parapsychology literature itself.

Point 2 - B.D.

Kelly addresses Diaconis's comments regarding the subject B.D. Kelly states he neither admitted nor denied that B.D. used sleight-of-hand at a Harvard performance, asserting that their opinions on this are irrelevant. The crucial question, according to Kelly, is whether the conditions of formal experiments with B.D. were safe against subject cheating. He criticizes Diaconis for dismissing results because no expert magician was present to observe, calling this an "amusing curiosity, not scientific evidence." Kelly points out that while Diaconis claims no "explicit precautions" against cheating were mentioned, the precautions taken were simply not of the form Diaconis demands. He defends the integrity of contemporary experiments, which are designed to be safe from cheating and sensory leakage, and acknowledges that some of his own experiments with B.D. had minor shortcomings but did not invalidate the data or analyses.

Kelly further disputes Diaconis's assertion that experimental conditions were similar to the informal Harvard demonstration. He argues that it is unreasonable to suggest cheating without offering specific hypotheses or evidence. Kelly also disputes Diaconis's suggestion that the presence of a magician is a necessary and sufficient condition for experimental integrity, arguing that it is possible to design impervious conditions and that hardened skepticism can always find fault.

Kelly concludes that Diaconis's sweeping negative attitude toward the experiments with B.D. is unsupported and unreasonable. He objects to Diaconis encouraging others to believe that formal experiments were like informal demonstrations and that Harvard conditions were typical of psychical research, calling Diaconis's broader claim "unambiguously irresponsible."

Point 3 - Not a Survey

Kelly strongly criticizes Diaconis's generalizations about the state of parapsychological research, particularly his claims that poorly designed experiments and subject cheating are major obstacles. Kelly argues that Diaconis's generalizations are wildly inaccurate and based on a limited and biased experience, rather than a comprehensive study of the professional literature. Kelly asserts that Diaconis's experience is primarily with sensational, non-experimental situations involving star subjects, which are uncharacteristic of the vast majority of modern investigations. He argues that the scientific community does identify problems in parapsychological research through literature review, data reanalysis, and replication, and that Diaconis's approach of dismissing the literature based on innuendo and informal demonstrations is irresponsible.

Kelly acknowledges that the field has real problems but argues that it is an exaggeration to claim the literature is "huge volume of studies beyond reproach." He states that there are hundreds of strictly experimental studies, many of which are good. He criticizes Diaconis for characterizing the entire literature as corrupted by elementary methodological blunders, stating that Diaconis has not familiarized himself with the actual experimental literature and displays little willingness to do so.

Kelly concludes by questioning Diaconis's claim of open-minded scientific skepticism, given his repeated pronouncements and his attitude towards the subject. He notes that critics often make sweeping judgments without deep knowledge of the field and that irresponsible attacks gain access to scientific publications more readily than responsible research and criticism.

Kelly also touches upon the financial realities of psychical research, noting that it is carried out on a shoestring budget by a small number of workers. He estimates that 90% of useful research is done by about fifty people worldwide, often under disheartening material circumstances. He refutes the idea that researchers are cynical opportunists, stating they are often misinformed.

Finally, Kelly asserts that psychical research is here to stay and that scientific knowledge is being accumulated about the phenomena. He believes that undisciplined critical attacks impede the process by preventing the general scientific community from forming an accurate image of the field. He reiterates that consulting the professional literature is the most reliable way to understand the field.

Charles T. Tart Comments on Persi Diaconis's Reply

Charles T. Tart also comments on Diaconis's rejoinder to Kelly, aiming to correct specific points.

First Point: Random Number Generator and Feedback

Tart addresses Diaconis's statement that Goldman, Stein, and Weiner showed Tart used a faulty random number generator in a feedback experiment. Tart clarifies that Lila Gatlin was the first to call his attention to occasional small departures from an equiprobability and serial independence model in his First Training Study. He contacted Drs. Goldman, Stein, and Weiner for advice on corrections. Tart states he did not learn anything of consequence from this consultation that he had not already worked out and was disappointed by their absolutist view of randomness. He believed that the departures from randomicity in his data were probably trivial in their usefulness for prediction, a view he understood Diaconis to share. Tart states there is no convincing evidence that these biases were of real importance, citing extensive discussions in the literature and his own work with Eugene Dronek, which showed that a computer-based estimation strategy could not produce much hitting on his data, suggesting such a strategy was not used by actual subjects.

Second Point: Redoing the Experiment

Tart corrects Diaconis's claim that he redid the experiment with better random numbers, and the new results were non-significant. Tart explains that the Second Training Study was part of a planned research program on the effects of feedback on learning improved ESP performance, based on theoretical considerations, and was undertaken independently of questions about randomicity in the First Training Study.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the debate over the scientific validity of parapsychological research, focusing on statistical methodologies, experimental controls, and the interpretation of results. Kelly and Tart defend the rigor and significance of their work against criticisms from skeptics like Diaconis, emphasizing the importance of consulting peer-reviewed literature and conducting systematic, controlled experiments. The editorial stance appears to favor open discussion and critical examination of research within the field, as evidenced by the publication of these responses and counter-responses.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified by its content and references, focuses on debates within parapsychology and cryptozoology, featuring critical analyses of scientific methodology and evidence. The primary contributors include Charles T. Tart, responding to criticisms of his ESP research, and Jon Beckjord, presenting arguments for the existence and unusual nature of the Sasquatch.

Charles T. Tart's Response to Criticisms

Charles T. Tart addresses criticisms, particularly from Persi Diaconis, regarding his ESP research. Tart defends the significance of his findings, stating that the Second Training Study, like the first, produced statistically significant results. He highlights that the four-choice ESP feedback machine yielded results with P = 4x10-4, and the ten-choice machine showed a significant negative correlation between real time and precognitive hitting. Tart clarifies that he approached Diaconis for statistical expertise to enhance his analyses, not because he perceived major problems in his research. He expresses surprise at Diaconis' implication that no evidence of paranormal phenomena was brought to light through their discussions, requesting clarification on any perceived flaws in his First Training Study. Tart also dismisses philosophies that require specific conditions, like the presence of magicians, to accept results, emphasizing the importance of replication over single experiments.

Tart further responds to criticisms regarding his random number generator, acknowledging a potential issue but questioning its impact on the overall findings. He expresses surprise that the experiment was not redone with better random numbers and notes that his attempted replication failed to achieve statistically significant results, a point he admits in the published version. He hopes for further contributions from other researchers and a detailed critique from Martin Gardner.

Jon Beckjord on the Sasquatch Phenomenon

Jon Beckjord offers a detailed argument for the existence and unusual nature of the Sasquatch, responding to Robin Ridington's article "The Sasquatch Image." Beckjord posits that the Sasquatch is not a conventional "natural animal" but rather a visitor from another dimension or a being with paranormal abilities. He critiques the "Napier's angst" phenomenon, which he defines as the intellectual struggle between what is known about cataloged species and the visual evidence presented by films like the Roger Patterson Bigfoot Film.

Beckjord recounts his experience showing an enlarged copy of the Patterson Film to scientists, noting that many viewers' skepticism was shaken by the naturalness of the motion and the apparent bulk and weight of the creature, which bore no resemblance to a monkey suit.

He addresses several points raised by Ridington and others:

• Sasquatch Existence: Beckjord asserts that the Sasquatch exists but not as a "natural species" or "natural animal." He suggests it is a visitor from a "Goblin Universe" or an entity with abilities beyond current scientific measurement.
• Weight Calculations: Beckjord criticizes the assumption that Sasquatch weights can be estimated like those of known animals. He refers to his paper "A New Method For Calculating Sasquatch Weights," which uses soil compression formulas based on footprint depth to estimate an incredible weight of 2,448 pounds for a 6 ft. 7 inch animal, contrasting this with the density of human beings.
• Photographic Evidence: Beckjord discusses controversial stills from Sasquatch sightings, including "cat-like" faces and gargoyle-mask-heads, which he claims were revealed through enlargement and analysis by photo interpreters. He notes that a "cat-like" face, measuring 14 inches wide, was identified in photos taken in the Sierras, bearing similarities to the Patterson Sasquatch's head structure.
• Tracks: Beckjord acknowledges that tracks can be followed but often end abruptly or start suddenly, suggesting unusual locomotion or abilities. He recounts an experience where he heard and felt something jump over him, leaving behind large, widely spaced footprints.

Beckjord concludes that the Sasquatch's abilities, such as leaving deep tracks and seemingly disappearing, suggest they bend the laws of physics and may be performing in a manner similar to UFOs. He advocates for studying these paranormal aspects to expand the bounds of traditional science.

Other Contributions and References

The issue includes a reference list detailing numerous publications by Charles T. Tart, Persi Diaconis, and others related to ESP research, parapsychology, and statistical analysis. It also lists references for Jon Beckjord's work on Sasquatch and related books.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the rigorous examination of evidence in parapsychology and cryptozoology, the challenges of scientific skepticism versus belief, and the limitations of current scientific paradigms in explaining anomalous phenomena. The editorial stance appears to favor open inquiry into these subjects, encouraging detailed analysis and debate, while also upholding standards of scientific rigor and replication. The publication seems to serve as a platform for researchers to defend their work against criticism and to present unconventional hypotheses supported by their investigations.

This issue of the *Zetetic Scholar*, identified as issue 3/4 and published in 1979, is a collection of critical commentaries and bibliographical entries related to topics often considered on the fringes of mainstream science. The publication, originating from the University of Chicago, focuses on rigorous examination of claims related to pseudoscience, paranormal phenomena, and alternative theories.

Robin R δυνατότητα Replies to Beckjord

Robin R δυνατότητα begins by characterizing Jon Beckjord not as a poet but as an "imaginative, energetic and creatively intelligent zealot." R δυνατότητα recounts an instance where Beckjord claimed to have photographed sasquatch families that R δυνατότητα himself could not see. Beckjord also claimed to have seen R δυνατότητα at a private showing of Roger Patterson's sasquatch film at a UBC conference in 1978. R δυνατότητα clarifies that while he participated in the conference and saw the film, he was not present at the private showing Beckjord mentioned, suggesting Beckjord's "angst" was misattributed.

R δυνατότητα argues that Beckjord's misidentification might be an error, but his use of innuendo based on similar situations reveals a "zealot's predilection for interpreting information according to preconception." Beckjord's interpretation of the sasquatch as an "interdimensional time traveller" is presented as requiring "entirely unsubstantiated assumptions about the world." R δυνατότητα contends that Beckjord's interpretation assumes the sasquatch is physical but then uses the ephemeral nature of the evidence to question established knowledge about physical reality. R δυνατότητα proposes a more economical interpretation: that the sasquatch is meaningful as an "image we hold of the limits of our knowledge." He states that if physical science is to be revised, the evidence for sasquatch sightings and circumstantial evidence is not sufficiently persuasive.

R δυνατότητα agrees with Beckjord that sasquatch and UFO sightings may have a common source, viewing both as "creatures at the margins of our discriminatory powers." Both lack "solid scientific substantiation," but while sasquatch exists without culture, UFOs exist through a "super-culture." R δυνατότητα interprets the interest in sasquatch and UFOs as a reflection of humanity's "real human predicament," where humans have enough culture to destroy themselves but not enough to ensure survival.

R δυνατότητα congratulates Beckjord for his diligence but finds his cited testimony unconvincing. He warns that Beckjord's style of argument, though seemingly innocent, mirrors the argumentation used by powerful religious and political interests to suppress dissenting opinions and evidence.

C.J. Ransom Comments on David Morrison's Commentary on Joseph May's "The Heresy of a New Synthesis"

C.J. Ransom comments on an article by David Morrison regarding Joseph May's work, noting Morrison's article was one of the few attempting "ethical scientific investigation." Ransom finds the comments made by Morrison in *Zetetic Scholar* surprising, suggesting they would be more accurate if "Velikovsky and Establishment Science were substituted for Scientists Confront Velikovsky." Ransom observes that Velikovsky supporters tend to respond to every detail of their opponents' arguments.

Ransom addresses the "comet-like Venus" comment, explaining that the term "comet" derives from a Greek word for "hair" and was applied to celestial objects with tails. He notes that ancients described Venus appearing "comet-like" and that Morrison's acknowledgment of this is magnanimous. Ransom then critiques Morrison's statement that he "cannot imagine what evidence supports" the idea that some comets originate from planets. Ransom argues that the scientific approach requires examining the literature, not just imagining what might be there. He points to the work of S. K. Vsekhsvyatskii, who has discussed the possibility of comets originating from giant planets or their satellites, leading to predictions of debris rings and volcanoes on Jupiter's moons, which were later discovered and termed "surprises."

Ransom asserts that Vsekhsvyatskii has proper credentials and support from other investigators in Russia, suggesting that opponents' preoccupation with credentials is a "smokescreen." He emphasizes that the comparison is between two imperfect theories, not a perfect one versus an imperfect one, and that unanswered questions in one theory do not mean it should be immediately forgotten. Ransom notes that many "uniformitarian 'facts'" used against Velikovsky were not actual facts, and that Uniformity had to be readjusted to fit observed data.

Ransom also comments on Mays' article, characterizing the comments as pronouncements that science has spoken and need not be revisited. He suggests that writers claiming Velikovsky supporters do not read these pronouncements may be unaware of existing rebuttals, some of which have been banned from advertising in *Science News* or other periodicals. Ransom refers readers to the journal *Kronos* for these rebuttals, acknowledging they are not the final word but hoping discussions will continue until facts, rather than opinions, dominate.

Andreas N. Maris van Blaaderen Comments on Joseph Agassi's "Towards a Rational Theory of Superstition"

Andreas N. Maris van Blaaderen comments on Joseph Agassi's review-article, which is divided into five sections: The Current Theory of Superstition, Impressions about the Volume at Hand, The Theory of Theory-Assesment, Irrationalism, and Superstition, the Illusive. The review-article originated from an invitation to assess "Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976" by G. Dean and A. Mather.

Van Blaaderen notes that Agassi, apart from ad hominem statements, poses a central problem of science: the appraisal and reasonableness of probabilities as certainties, and the preconditions for accepting or rejecting findings outside current thought. Agassi's article reinterprets decisions from his earlier works but is presented as standing on its own. Van Blaaderen declines to follow Agassi's suggestion to "cast a horoscope for astrology" and suggests that Agassi's formulations of "progressive, regressive and degenerative" research programs might be influenced by ideological factors.

Sociology and Astrology

Van Blaaderen shares Agassi's distress with astrology as a predictive tool for individual lifecourses and is concerned with the certainty value ascribed to astrological predictions. He notes that if astrology guides social actions, it implies a certainty value similar to beliefs in God or the coherence of the universe. Van Blaaderen then discusses sociological studies over the last 100 years that have examined areas related to astrological approaches, such as the influence of birth (demography) and career choices (sociology of work). These studies used methods to prevent observer bias and ensure that preconceived causalities did not influence conclusions.

As a sociologist, van Blaaderen summarizes regularities that seem to obfuscate astrology's claims:

1. Parturition and Conception: Variations in human egg fertilization are seasonal, and resultant births over centuries shift with perceived seasons, not astrological "houses." Even if astrology has influence, it is at best a predisposition.
2. Birth Order and Work: Simple birth order combined with family of origin appears to be the most important factor in determining an individual's career path. Job opportunities also vary based on differential fertility, not astrological interpretations.
3. Sex and Mate Selection: At puberty, the number of males and females is roughly equal. Proximity of partners and mate selection methods determine the array of possible partners, regardless of astrological morphology.

Van Blaaderen questions whether astrology operates to determine individual life course probabilities as certainties, even when examining case histories. He outlines a scenario where a couple selects each other and the conception moment based on astrological factors, but questions if the child's life course confirms these predictions. He notes that modern computerization could analyze such data but expresses doubt about astrology's efficacy in providing proofs.

Van Blaaderen concludes by stating that such approaches negate the conceptualization of human freedom and limit social relations. He questions whether astrological predictions are more effective than social science predictions (Occam's Razor) and whether Agassi's method provides good advice to avoid ignorance.

Ignorance and Social Life

Van Blaaderen analyzes Agassi's review-article by removing references to astrology, focusing on contentions based on interpretations of Western thought. Agassi presents judgments on the level and purpose of constructive thought, citing thinkers from Ptolemy to Einstein and Bacon to Evans-Pritchard. Agassi's style is exemplified by his statement that "The confusion of the irrationalists is illustrated by Evans-Pritchard's identification of the Zande magic system, the Communist dogma, Nuer religion, and even his own Catholiscism, all as self-imposed intellectual systems."

Van Blaaderen states that Agassi stresses that individual yearning for understanding and meaning is in opposition to "This inverted superstition......logical positivism." Agassi's approach refutes statements derived from "uniform or dualistic (or pluralistic) theoretical 'pre'-assumptions," emphasizing "process thinking" rather than the content or certainty of logical thought. The theory of theory-assessment aims not to disparage findings but to promote a way of thinking.

Agassi's concern is with ignorance, and he proposes a way of thinking to distinguish certainties from other statements. He argues that ignorance is not a lack of knowledge but an inability to distinguish certainties. Common sense knowledge results in "other" statements, while certainties are reached through "Socratic" dialogue. Agassi's article is a critique of those who do not follow this format.

Agassi believes that understanding ourselves and others cannot proceed by treating humans like stones, as physics methods might suggest. He questions how successful Agassi's method is in increasing understanding and meaning, and whether it provides good advice to avoid ignorance. Van Blaaderen notes that Agassi's approach might be mistaken for a series of superstitions without clear guidance on how to avoid his definition of ignorance.

Random Bibliography on the Occult & the Paranormal

The issue concludes with an extensive bibliography of articles and books related to the occult and paranormal. This bibliography includes entries on topics such as witchcraft, skepticism, conversion models, psychokinesis, Carl Sagan, J.W. Dunne, science and anarchism, new religions, rationality, alien beings, ethnopsychology, cosmic evolution, cults, voodoo, psychic phenomena, physics and psychology, shifting paradigms, literary vampires, charms, Velikovsky, pseudoscience, crashed saucers, frames of meaning in science, pseudo-science, the persistent debate, Nostradamus, folk healers, déjà vu, lying, earthquake lights, spirit-possession, witchcraft, parapsychology, telepathic transfer, Indian conjuring, deviance, "foolsgold of the gods," spiritualism, ritual healing, parapsychological surveys, debunking pseudoscience, continental drift theory, and more.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of *Zetetic Scholar* revolve around the critical examination of claims that fall outside established scientific paradigms. The editorial stance is clearly one of skepticism and rigorous analysis, prioritizing empirical evidence and logical consistency. The journal actively engages with topics such as sasquatch phenomena, UFOs, the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, and the scientific validity of astrology. The contributors consistently apply a critical lens, questioning methodologies, assumptions, and the interpretation of evidence. There is a strong emphasis on the philosophy of science, the nature of knowledge, and the distinction between genuine scientific inquiry and pseudoscience. The journal appears to advocate for a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding the world, challenging what it perceives as unsubstantiated claims or flawed reasoning, particularly when these claims are presented with excessive certainty or used to dismiss established scientific understanding.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #5, is primarily a collection of extensive bibliographies and a review of recent books. The content is predominantly academic and research-oriented, focusing on a wide array of topics related to the paranormal, pseudoscientific claims, and new religious movements. The issue is presented in English and appears to be from the late 1970s or early 1980s, based on the publication dates of the cited works.

Bibliographies

The issue features several specialized bibliographies:

Bibliography on Lycanthropy

This section lists books and articles related to lycanthropy, including "Book of the Werewolf" edited by Brian J. Frost, and articles on the Olmec Were-Jaguar motif, "The Were-Tigers of the Assam Hills," and "Jaguar Cult - Down's Syndrome Were-Jaguar."

Bibliography on Scientific Studies of Classical Astrology

This bibliography provides critical studies of astrology, featuring works like "Sun Sign Suset" by R.B. Culver, "The Gemini Syndrome" by R.B. Culver & P.A. Tanna, and articles examining astrology's scientific credibility, its correlation with hostility scales, and its potential for discrimination.

Bibliography on Scientific Studies of the "Lunar Effect" and Human Behavior

This section compiles research on the purported effects of the full moon on human behavior. It includes studies on the "Effects of the Full Moon on Human Behavior: Yet Another Failure to Replicate," temporal variations in suicide and homicide, and drug overdose in relation to the full moon.

Review of Recent Books: "What's New on the New Religions?"

This section, authored by Roy Wallis, reviews recent books on new religious movements. Wallis categorizes the approaches used in these studies into two main types: externalist and internalist.

Externalist Approach

Wallis describes the externalist approach as based on observation from the outside, applying standardized measuring devices and viewing behavior as produced by causal variables rather than rational evaluation. He further divides externalist accounts into:

• Hostile Externalist Accounts: These are characterized by antipathy towards new religious movements. Examples include works by Enroth, Horowitz, and Conway & Siegelman. Wallis criticizes these for being motivated by ideological stances (e.g., evangelical Christianity or anti-authoritarian socialism) and for relying heavily on defectors' accounts, leading to a "mechanistic appreciation of how commitment arises" and a tendency to dehumanize adherents. Enroth's work is noted for using Lifton's "Thought Reform" model and Kanter's ideas on commitment in utopian communities. Horowitz's book is described as a composite of magazine reports and trial documents, focusing on the Unification Church's politics and its alleged connection to the KCIA. Conway and Siegelman's "Snapping" is critiqued for its "information disease" concept, suggesting that joining cults is a result of something "snapping" in rational capacities, a notion Wallis finds simplistic and comparable to older ideas of physiological psychology.
• Non-Hostile Externalist Accounts: These accounts are less inimical to the believers' orientation. Nordquist's study of the Ananda Community in Nevada is presented as an example, involving observation and analysis of members' attitudes and background characteristics, though still employing questionnaires and psychological tests.

Internalist Approach

While not extensively detailed in this excerpt, the internalist approach is described as seeking an interpretive understanding of a movement through its own beliefs and close acquaintance with the everyday life of believers, interpreting behavior as strategic responses informed by beliefs.

Wallis expresses a preference for the internalist approach, viewing externalist accounts, particularly the hostile ones, as inferior in character and achievement, often becoming "contaminated by the object of study successfully, and to their considerable detriment."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of pseudoscientific claims, anomalous phenomena, and the sociology of belief systems. The editorial stance, as evidenced by the critical reviews and the nature of the bibliographies, appears to be one of skeptical inquiry, aiming to dissect and evaluate claims made in areas such as parapsychology, astrology, and the study of new religious movements. There is a clear emphasis on scientific methodology and a critique of approaches that are seen as ideologically driven or lacking in rigor.

This document is page 159 of a magazine, likely "UFO Universe" given the issue number and context of similar publications. It contains survey questions related to motivations for joining a community (Ananda Cooperative Village), questions about expected duration of stay, and value comparisons with the larger community. The subsequent pages (160-168) contain a review of several sociological studies on new religious movements.

Survey Questions (Page 159)

The first page presents a questionnaire likely for members of Ananda Cooperative Village. It asks about primary motivations for joining, categorizing them as social-political or psychological reasons. Respondents are asked to elaborate on their choices, particularly if social-political reasons were primary, detailing whether they related to immediate relationships, local, national, or international conditions. If psychological reasons were primary, respondents are asked to specify if they related to self-identity, personal relationships, societal role, or altruistic reasons. A section (d) requests elaboration on checked categories, asking for specific events, reactions, and changes in values or behavior that led to joining. The page concludes with two questions about the duration of expected stay and what keeps members at Ananda Cooperative Village, comparing its value to opportunities in the larger community.

Review of Sociological Studies on New Religious Movements (Pages 160-168)

The remainder of the document is a critical review of various sociological studies concerning new religious movements. The reviewer analyzes and critiques the methodologies and findings of several authors.

Nordquist's Study of Ananda Cooperative Village (Pages 160-161)

The review begins by discussing a study by Nordquist on the members of Ananda, described as counter-cultural dropouts. The reviewer notes that only 28 out of approximately 100 members completed the questionnaires and tests. The study's findings suggest that joining Ananda and adopting its teachings were motivated by psychological reasons, interpreted as 'self-identity' and 'altruistic'. The reviewer questions Nordquist's clarity and suggests potential linguistic issues or a biased perspective. The study is characterized as a 'mechanical study' with ill-formed ethnographic accounts and a nebulous focus on the counter-culture, lacking conceptual sharpness and interpretive insight.

Richardson, Stewart, and Simmonds' Study of Christ Communal Organisation (CCO) (Pages 160-162)

This section critiques a study of a Jesus People movement called Christ Communal Organisation (CCO). While acknowledging the authors gathered extensive data, the reviewer finds their approach to be a 'parody of positivism in sociology'. The study uses 'alienation scales' with questions about God's role in politics and law-breaking, which the reviewer finds problematic and lacking comparative evidence. The reviewer argues that Richardson et al. miss the opportunity for a close interpretive account due to their preoccupation with being 'scientists' and erecting barriers between themselves and their subjects.

Hostile Internalist Accounts (Pages 162-165)

This section discusses 'hostile internalist accounts', often written by former members of movements. These accounts are characterized by a tendency to dehumanize movement personnel and attribute their actions to 'mind control' or 'brainwashing'.

• Christopher Edwards' "Crazy for God": This book about the Unification Church is presented as an example. Edwards, a former member who was 'deprogrammed', stresses infantile dependency, repression of criticism, and subordination to leadership. The reviewer finds Edwards' claims of 'mind control' unconvincing, suggesting his wounds were self-inflicted and his account self-serving.
• Jeannie Mills' book on the Peoples Temple: Mills also uses the term 'brainwashed' but less readily than Edwards. The reviewer finds her reasons for joining the Temple unclear and hazy. The account details the attraction of the Temple, Jim Jones's charisma, and the members' commitment despite Jones's manipulative nature. The reviewer notes that Mills's account is colored by a moral purpose to make sense of an association that now seems incredible.

Non-Hostile Internalist Accounts (Pages 165-168)

This section contrasts hostile internalist accounts with non-hostile ones.

• Sontag's study of the Unification Church: Sontag's work is described as an 'analytically trivial' effort to improve the Unification Church's public relations, with limited probing and reliance on church-approved sources. It is criticized for adding nothing to empirical or analytical understanding.
• Damrell's study of a Vedanta church: Damrell's study is characterized as an exercise in 'existential phenomenology', focusing heavily on his subjective experience rather than a sociological analysis of the group. The reviewer questions its sociological relevance and the lack of connection between Damrell's experiences and general social relations.
• Damrell's study of the Church of Cosmic Liberty: This study is considered better than his Vedanta study, drawing broader sociological points about American youth and identity search. However, the reviewer finds the lives of the members to be trivial and the religion invented as a self-serving legitimation for drug use.
• Downton's study of the Divine Light Mission: This study is seen as an improvement, based on observations and interviews. However, the reviewer finds the analysis to be of low order, lacking theoretical advance, and scant on organizational details. Despite this, the information gathered is considered useful due to the scarcity of reliable data on the movement.
• Bainbridge's "Satan's Power": This work is highlighted as the best among those reviewed. Bainbridge cultivated a deep acquaintance with the movement over years, participating and befriending members. The book is praised for its sympathetic yet objective portrayal, conveying an understanding of the people involved without relying solely on their words or contrived models. While it errs on the side of being less explicit about analytical implications, its combination of ethnography and suggestive ideas on cult formation makes it highly valuable.

Conclusion (Page 168)

The conclusion reiterates that new religious movements must be carefully understood before being explained, suggesting that sympathy and close, direct observation are crucial. The reviewer criticizes the mechanical application of standardized 'instruments' and emphasizes the need for interpretive charity, viewing behavior as willed and motivated acts rather than purely reactive responses to social or psychological compulsions. The review ends by listing the works that were reviewed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical evaluation of sociological methodologies used to study new religious movements. The reviewer consistently emphasizes the importance of interpretive charity, empathetic understanding, and detailed ethnographic observation over purely quantitative or instrument-based approaches. The editorial stance appears to favor in-depth, qualitative analysis that respects the subjective experiences of individuals within these movements, while still maintaining analytical rigor and sociological relevance. There is a clear skepticism towards studies that rely heavily on standardized tests or present biased, 'hostile' interpretations without sufficient evidence or comparative analysis.

This document consists of pages from the magazine 'Zetetic Scholar', specifically issue number 10, published around 1980. The primary content visible comprises extensive book reviews, covering a wide array of topics related to the paranormal, psychology, sociology, and the occult. The magazine appears to cater to a readership interested in skeptical inquiry and critical examination of these subjects.

Book Reviews

The 'BOOK REVIEWS' section, spanning multiple pages, offers a detailed look at recent publications. Each entry typically includes the author(s), title, publisher, year, page count, and price, followed by a concise review.

Detailed Reviews:

• Search For the Soul by Milbourne Christopher (1979) is reviewed by Martin Ebon. The book explores 'life after life' experiences against a historical backdrop of attempts to analyze the soul. Christopher, a magician and occult historian, is noted for his skeptical approach, often looking for trickery. The review highlights his examination of efforts to photograph and weigh the soul, his critique of out-of-the-body experiments by Dr. Karlis Osis and Dr. Charles Tart, and his conclusion that the soul's existence remains unresolved. The reviewer finds the treatments of Dr. Raymond Moody and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross truncated but appreciates Christopher's sympathetic handling of Kubler-Ross. The book concludes with a chapter on reincarnation.

• Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action by E. R. Hilgard (1977) is reviewed by Ivan W. Kelly. This book is described as a remarkable and significant work on hypnosis as an altered state of awareness. Hilgard's research covers phenomena like multiple personality, automatic writing, fugues, age regression, amnesia, and possession states. The review notes the book's clear summary of dissociation phenomena and Hilgard's caution against paranormal explanations. A case study of a student convinced of reincarnation is presented, which Hilgard explains through memory retrieval without identification. Hilgard's neodissociative approach, proposing a hierarchy of control systems reordered by hypnosis, is discussed, particularly the concept of the 'hidden observer.' The reviewer suggests the book might be less satisfying for those seeking a synthesized theory of consciousness but highly recommends it as an introduction to the field.

Books Briefly Noted:

Numerous other books are briefly reviewed, providing a snapshot of the literature available to readers interested in the paranormal and related fields. These include:

• The Folklore of the Sea by Margaret Baker (1979): An introduction to paranormal claims from phantom ships and sailors.
• Stonehenge and Its Mysteries by Michael Balfour (1979): A well-documented survey of Stonehenge and its prehistoric sites.
• The Once and Future Life: An Astonishing Twenty-Five-Year Study on Reincarnation by H.N. Banarjee (1979): Primarily case studies, deemed poorly documented and of little scientific value.
• Into Thin Air: People Who Disappear by Paul Begg (1979): A survey of disappearances, including those related to the Bermuda Triangle.
• Dragons: An Introduction to the Modern Infestation by Pamela Wharton Blanpied (1980): A scholarly dissertation on dragons, with a bibliography.
• ESP and Psychokinesis: A Philosophical Examination by Stephen E. Braude (1979): A sympathetic study of parapsychological claims, with valuable sections on synchronicity and the definition of 'paranormal.'
• Astronomy of the Ancients by Kenneth Brecher and Michael Feirtag (eds.) (1979): A series of articles, with 'Sirius Enigmas' noted as of special interest.
• Moonies in America: Cult, Church, and Crusade by David G. Bromley and Anson D. Hupe, Jr. (1979): A major sociological examination of the Unification Church.
• Supermind: The Ultimate Energy by Barbara B. Brown (1980): A general survey arguing for extraordinary human capabilities, criticized for poor documentation and a scientifically dubious presentation.
• Chance, Cause, Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Scientific Evidence by Arthur W. Chance Burks (1977): A sophisticated study of the logic of empiricism.
• Prehistoric Avebury by Aubrey Burl (1979): A definitive study of the standing stones at Avebury.
• The Pattern of Expectation 1644-2001 by I.F. Clarke (1979): A survey of the history of prophecy of technology.
• The Celtic World by Barry Cunliffe (1979): A lavishly illustrated survey of Celtic culture.
• Words from Tikal by Frances C. Doran (1978): A compendium of Mayan divination, useful for stock replies in cold readings.
• Lying Truths: A Critical Scrutiny of Current Beliefs and Conventions by R. Duncan and M. Weston-Smith (eds.) (1979): A collection of essays debunking common beliefs.
• Monsters: Their Histories, Homes and Habits by Perle Epstein (1973): A volume for young readers on monsters.
• Mysterious Monsters by Daniel Farson and Angus Hall (1978): An enlarged edition of earlier works on monsters.
• Saga America by Barry Fell (1980): A controversial presentation of trans-Atlantic Old World incursions into North America.
• The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformations in the 1980s by Marilyn Ferguson (1980): A survey of the consciousness movement, noted as uncritically presented but informative.
• At the Crossroads of Knowledge by V.A. Firsoff (1977): An interdisciplinary consideration of alternative biochemistries for life.
• Body Magic by John Fisher (1979): Experiments about the human body explained scientifically.
• The Complete Book of Extraterrestrial Encounters by Randall Fitzgerald (1979): A summary of ideas about UFOs.
• Seeing: Illusion, Brain and Mind by John P. Frisby (1980): A book on visual perception, illusions, and color effects.
• Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress by Curtis G. Fuller et al. (eds.) (1980): A collection of pieces on ufology, noted for internal skepticism.
• Poltergeists by Alan Gauld and A.D. Cornell (1979): A survey of poltergeist phenomena.
• Cancer Quackery: The Label of Quack and Its Relationship to Deviant Behavior by L. Kay Gillespie (1979): A work on labeling perspective in sociological deviance theory.
• Fact, Fraud, and Fantasy: The Occult and Pseudosciences by Morris Goran (1979): A debunking work on esoteric 'sciences.'
• The Modern Myth: Ancient Astronauts and UFOs by Morris Goran (1978): A debunking book on ancient astronauts and UFOs.
• Operations of Increasing Order, and Other Essays on Exotic Factors of Intellect, Unusual Powers & Abilities, Etc. by John Curtis Gowan (1980): A treatise on exotic factors of intellect.
• Observing UFOs by Richard F. Haines (1980): A guidebook for scientific observation of UFOs.
• Cults in America by David Hanna (1979): A survey of contemporary cultic activity.
• ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Re-Evaluation by C.E.M. Hansel (1980): A re-evaluation of ESP and parapsychology, criticized for not noting criticisms.
• Lightning in His Hand: The Life Story of Nikola Tesla by Inez Hunt and Wanetta W. Draper (1977): A biography of Nikola Tesla, noting his emergence as a 'cultic' figure.
• Self Fulfilling Prophecies: Social, Psychological and Physiological Effects of Expectancies by Russell A. Jones (1977): A review of literature on self-altering prophecies.
• Joy's Way: A Map for the Transformational Journey, An Introduction to the Potentials for Healing with Body Energies by W. Brugh Joy (1979): A volume on healing with body energies.
• UFOs: A Pictorial History from Antiquity to the Present by David Knight (1979): A compendium of photographs and illustrations of UFOs.
• The Paranormal and the Normal: A Historical, Philosophical and Theoretical Perspective by Morton Leeds and Gardner Murphy (1980): An integrative monograph representing Gardner Murphy's last work.
• Life-Times: True Accounts of Reincarnation by Frederick Lenz (1979): Non-hypnotic case studies lacking external validation.
• By Lust Possessed by Eric Lombard (ed.) (1980): A collection of case histories of alleged interactions with demon lovers.
• Monsters in the Sky by Paolo Maffei (1980): A presentation on accepted anomalies in astronomy, excluding UFOs.
• Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East by Gita Mehta (1979): An account of Westerners seeking 'karma' in India.
• The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks and Richard Kammann (1980): An examination of evidence for psychic abilities, with criticism of the book's generalized title.
• The Encyclopedia of American Religions by J. Gordon Melton (1978): A compendium of information about religious groups in the US.
• Culture and Curing: Anthropological Perspectives on Traditional Medical Beliefs and Practices by Peter Morely and Roy Wallis (eds.) (1978): A collection of papers on healing practices.
• The Body Electric: A Personal Journey into the Mysteries of Parapsychological Research by Thelma Moss (1980): An autobiographical account of parapsychological research, noted as unconvincing.
• Alternative Realities: A Study of Communes and Their Members by Andrew Rigby (1974): A sociological study of British communes.
• Earth's Secret Inhabitants by D. Scott Rogo and Jerome Clark (1979): A collection of Fortean phenomena.
• Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication. The PONS Test by Robert Rosenthal et al. (1979): A work on nonverbal communication.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of paranormal phenomena, the psychology of belief, the sociology of cults and alternative movements, and the scientific investigation of subjective experiences. The editorial stance, as reflected in the reviews, is predominantly skeptical, favoring rigorous evidence and critical analysis over unsubstantiated claims. Books are evaluated based on their documentation, methodology, and contribution to a rational understanding of the topics discussed. The inclusion of works on hypnosis, reincarnation, and UFOs, alongside critiques of pseudoscience and quackery, indicates a broad interest in phenomena that often blur the lines between belief and evidence, with a clear leaning towards the latter.

This issue of ZETETIC SCHOLAR, identified as issue #36 and dated October 1, 1980, is primarily a collection of book reviews covering a broad spectrum of topics related to parapsychology, the occult, and fringe science. The magazine announces an increase in its subscription rates and discusses the availability and pricing of its back issues and specialized bibliographies.

Book Reviews

The issue features extensive reviews of numerous books, providing summaries, critical analyses, and recommendations. The reviewed works span diverse subjects:

• Parapsychology and Psychology: Books cover nonverbal communication (Rosenthal), environmental psychology (Ross), human energy systems (Schwarz), ESP (St. Clair), and the sociology of medicine (Stroman). Several reviews critically assess the scientific validity of parapsychological claims, with some authors noted as critics (e.g., Hyman, Scott, Alcock).
• Witchcraft and the Occult: Several titles delve into the history and practice of witchcraft (Russell, Scott, Scott), the occult in the Elizabethan age (Yates), and general encyclopedic works on the supernatural (Walker).
• Fantasy and Folklore: Reviews include "The Fantasy Almanac" (Rovin) and "Breaking the Magic Spell: Radical Theories of Fok & Fairy Tales" (Zipes).
• Philosophy and Science: Works on the nature of scientific inquiry (Wolff), paradoxes (Smullyan), and black holes (Sullivan) are also reviewed.
• Specific Topics: Books on "Catharsis in Healing, Ritual and Drama" (Scheff), "Ventriloquism" (Schindler), "The Real World of Fairies" (van Gelder), "Incredible Coincidence" (Vaughtn), and "The Harmonious Circle" (Webb) about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky are discussed.

Many reviews offer detailed descriptions of the books' content, methodologies, and the authors' perspectives. Some reviewers express strong skepticism regarding the scientific merit of certain subjects, while others recommend books for their scholarly value or readability.

Subscription and Back Issues

The magazine announces a price increase for individual domestic subscriptions from $10 to $12 per year, effective October 1, 1980. Foreign and institutional rates remain $15. The issue also details the prices and availability of back issues, noting that some are out of stock or have limited quantities remaining, making them collector's items. Prices for available back issues range from $6 to $12, with single copies of the current issue (#36) priced at $8.

Bibliographies

Zetetic Scholar is making reduced-xerox copies of specialized bibliographies available for purchase. These include guides on pseudoscience, debunking the paranormal, Uri Geller, biorhythms, astrology, vampires, Velikovsky, lycanthropy, and the "Lunar Effect." The prices for these bibliographies range from $2 to $4.

Upcoming Features

A "Coming Soon" section previews future content, including "ZS Dialogue Replies & Rejoinders," a "Giant ZS Dialogue on UFO Theories," discussions on parapsychology by I.J. Good, an annotated bibliography on "Cold Readings," and bibliographies on dowsing, cattle mutilations, conjurors, psychic research, and crime detection.

Contributors

The issue includes a detailed list of "About the Contributors," providing biographical information on numerous individuals associated with the publication. These contributors are primarily academics and researchers from universities worldwide, with expertise in psychology, philosophy, sociology, history of science, statistics, and parapsychology. Many are noted as authors of relevant books or as active researchers in their fields, including prominent figures in both the promotion and critique of parapsychological research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of paranormal claims, the history and sociology of belief systems (such as witchcraft and occultism), and the scientific assessment of evidence. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous inquiry, with a significant portion of the content dedicated to reviewing and critiquing works in parapsychology and related fields. While acknowledging the interest in these subjects, the magazine often highlights skepticism and the need for scientific validation, as evidenced by the inclusion of critics among its contributors and the nature of many book reviews.