Zetetic Scholar - No 08

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: No. 8
Date: July 1981
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Type: An Independent Scientific Review of Claims of Anomalies and the Paranormal.

Editorial: The Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR)

The editorial announces that Zetetic Scholar is now the official organ of the newly formed Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR). The formation of CSAR is a response to reader requests to institutionalize a network of experts for better communication among active researchers. CSAR aims to advance interdisciplinary scientific study of anomalies, act as a clearinghouse, publish journals and newsletters, promote information dissemination, create a network of experts, sponsor events, and foster communication between critics and proponents of anomalies.

The issue features the first two reports from CSAR's ongoing research: the Psychic Sleuths Project (study of alleged psychics by law enforcement) and the Anomaly Project (analysis of engineers' UFO encounter reports). Further reports are promised for future issues.

The editorial then delves into the complexities of "applied parapsychology." While acknowledging critics' points that applications cannot be built until a science is established, it notes the impressive claims and practical usefulness found in areas like dowsing, psychic detection, and counseling. Truzzi suggests distinguishing between Experimental and Clinical Parapsychology, similar to Experimental and Clinical Psychology. He argues that for clinical efforts, the criterion of effectiveness is paramount, even more so than the validity of the underlying theory, focusing on whether the patient or client is helped. He introduces the concept of Type I and Type II errors in statistics, noting that while psychologists focus on avoiding Type I errors (false positives), parapsychologists are often more concerned with avoiding Type II errors (false negatives) due to the potential importance of psi phenomena.

Truzzi discusses extra-scientific factors that make avoiding Type II errors rational, such as military-political consequences or desperate personal needs (e.g., medical or water dowsing). He distinguishes between purely scientific pursuits and broader rational pursuits, suggesting that while evidence for psi may be unconvincing scientifically, it's not irrational for law enforcement or the military to explore it, nor for individuals facing dire circumstances to seek unorthodox methods. He advocates for learning from clinical psychology's evaluation procedures to assess effectiveness in parapsychology.

Special ZS Features

• Announcing the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR): A detailed announcement outlining CSAR's mission, goals, and its relationship with Zetetic Scholar. It lists the Director (Marcello Truzzi), Associate Director (Ronald Westrum), and initial Senior Consultants, including Prof. George O. Abell, Dr. Theodore X. Barber, Prof. Daryl J. Bem, Prof. Mario Bunge, Dr. Persi Diaconis, and Dr. Eric J. Dingwall.
• Reports From Two CSAR Projects:
• The Mystery Men From Holland, I: Peter Hurkos' Dutch Cases by Piet Hein Hoebens (p. 11).
• UFO Sightings Among Engineers and Scientists by Ron Westrum (p. 18).

Articles

• On the Sirius Mystery: An Open Letter to Carl Sagan by Robert K.G. Temple (p. 29). This article likely addresses the claims made in Temple's book about an ancient Sirius connection.
• Psychic Surgery: Hoax or Hope? by David Hoy (p. 37). This article examines the phenomenon of psychic surgery.

Humor

• The Case of Psiless Marner by Marvin Gardens (Charles Honorton) (p. 34). A humorous piece likely related to parapsychology.

Special ZS Bibliographic Feature

• Bibliography of Skeptical and Debunking Articles in Fate Magazine, 1975-Sept. 1981 compiled by Jerome Clark (Introduction by M. Truzzi) (p. 76).

New ZS Dialogues

• The Schism Within Parapsychology by Jeffrey Mishlove (p. 78).
• Critical Commentaries By: John Beloff, Richard Kammann, Stanley Krippner, Joseph K. Long, Andrew Neher, John Palmer, D. Scott Rogo, Gertrude Schmeidler, Roger W. Wescott, and Michael Winkelman (pp. 85-103).
• Jeffrey Mishlove: Scientific Logic, Rationality, and Subjectivity in Parapsychology: Responses to Comments on My Article (p. 105).
• On Conducting a Zetetic Dialogue by Leonard Usne (p. 118), with a Reply by M. Truzzi (p. 122).

Continuing ZS Dialogues

• On Theories, Hypotheses and Speculations on the Origins of UFOs, II
• Comments by Richard F. Haines (p. 47).
• J. Richard Greenwell Replies to His Commentators (p. 49).
• Evan Harris Walker replies to E.W. Karnes re Remote Viewing (p. 124).
• Edward W. Karnes responds to E.H. Walker (p. 128).

Regular Features

• Editorial (p. 3) - Discussed above.
• Letters: Contributions from Robert Sheaffer, Jerome Clark, J. Richard Greenwell, Aimé Michel (p. 5).
• Robert Sheaffer addresses Jon Beckjord's claims about Sasquatch photos.
• Jerome Clark critiques Morris Goran's review of Ron Story's "Guardians of the Universe?", particularly regarding the distinction between UFOs and ancient astronauts.
• J. Richard Greenwell clarifies his position on UFOs versus ancient astronauts.
• Aimé Michel discusses the implications of SETI's failure and the possibility of advanced civilizations.
• Random Bibliography on the Occult and the Paranormal (p. 114).
• Book Reviews:
• Review of James Randi's "Flim-Flam: The Truth about Unicorns, Parapsychology and Other Delusions" by Milbourne Christopher (p. 131).
• Review of Malcolm Dean's "The Astrology Game" by Don H. Sakloske (p. 133).
• Books Briefly Noted (p. 137).
• Errata (p. 2).
• About the Contributors to This Issue (p. 145).

Errata Section

The errata section provides corrections for articles in previous issues (ZS #7 and ZS #37), including mathematical notation, a correction from "psychics" to "physics," and a journal title correction from "Science News" to "Science Digest." It also notes a misspelling of James W. Moseley's name.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes a rigorous, scientific approach to anomalous phenomena, even while acknowledging the potential importance of exploring unconventional ideas. The establishment of CSAR signifies a move towards institutionalizing research and fostering dialogue. The editorial stance, particularly from Marcello Truzzi, highlights the need for careful evaluation, distinguishing between scientific validity and rational pursuit, and considering the practical implications of claims, especially in clinical contexts. There's a clear engagement with skeptical viewpoints, as seen in the letters and book reviews, but also an openness to exploring phenomena that might be considered fringe or unproven, particularly when there's a potential for significant consequences or when conventional methods fail. The dialogues and bibliographies suggest a commitment to critical analysis and a comprehensive understanding of the field.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as #8 and published in 1981, features a special project report titled "THE MYSTERY MEN FROM HOLLAND, 1: PETER HURKOS' DUTCH CASES" by Piet Hein Hoebens. The issue also includes information about the organization and purpose of CSAR (Center for the Study of Anomalous Phenomena) and an introduction to a report on UFO sightings among engineers and scientists.

CSAR: Organization and Purpose

The document details the formation and goals of CSAR, which aims to study and evaluate anomalous observations scientifically. It clarifies that CSAR's focus is on the phenomena themselves, placing the burden of proof on claimants and requiring a level of proof commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claims. The center seeks to promote open, fair-minded, and constructively skeptical inquiry, viewing anomalies as potential drivers for scientific advancement. CSAR is structured with two types of consultants: Research Consultants (professional scientists) and Resource Consultants (experts in anomalies from various fields). Membership is open to those who agree with CSAR's scientific goals and provides access to its journal and newsletter. The issue announces that membership enrollment would begin in early 1982. Correspondence regarding CSAR should be directed to Dr. Marcello Truzzi, Director, at P.O. Box 1052, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. CSAR is currently sponsoring research projects on alleged psychics in law enforcement and industry engineers' UFO experiences.

Peter Hurkos' Dutch Cases

Piet Hein Hoebens' article critically examines the claims made about Peter Hurkos, a Dutch psychic who gained international fame. The article focuses on Hurkos' activities and reported successes in the Netherlands before he became widely known in the US.

The "Radar Brain Man"

Pieter van der Hurk, known as Peter Hurkos, was born in Dordrecht in 1911. His early career in the US is well-documented, but his "native" period in Holland is examined here. The article relies on Hurkos' autobiography, "Psychic, the Story of Peter Hurkos," and other biographies, but notes that many claims are vague and difficult to verify.

Unsubstantiated Crime Cases

Hoebens investigates several cases attributed to Hurkos:

• Missing Girl Case: Hurkos claimed to have found the body of a missing girl, murdered and thrown into water, but no names, dates, or places were provided, and Dutch police files contained no record of such an event.
• Rotterdam Harbour Drowning: Hurkos stated he found the body of Captain Folken's son who had drowned. Despite efforts by the Rotterdam Municipal Police and press archives, no trace of this case could be found.

The Psychic War Hero Claims

Hurkos' autobiography portrays him as a heroic figure in the Dutch resistance during World War II, claiming to have used his ESP to aid the cause. He mentioned being part of an underground group led by "Hert Goozens." Mrs. Browning reported that Hurkos was decorated by Queen Wilhelmina.

• British Agent Prediction: Hurkos claimed that while recovering from a fall in hospital in 1941, he foresaw the death of a British agent on Kalver Street. However, inquiries with the State Institute for War Documentation (RIOD) in Amsterdam yielded no information about a British agent being shot by the Gestapo in Amsterdam or any other Dutch town in 1941, with the verdict being that the story is "a product of the imagination."
• Vught Camp Rescue: Hurkos recounted infiltrating a German camp in Vught to rescue his friend Yap Mindemon, posing as a German officer. The RIOD files for the Vught camp contained no evidence of this event, leading to the conclusion that the story was likely imaginary.
• "Sixteen Dutchmen" Case: Hurkos described a seance where he identified a prominent Dutch patriot, Mr. R., as a collaborator who betrayed sixteen members of the underground to the Gestapo. While Hurkos claimed this was later established, the RIOD files had no indication of such a drama or a patriot being exposed as a traitor. Drs. Stuldreher suggested this story, like the Vught case, was likely imaginary.

Psychic Detective Cases

After the liberation, Hurkos offered his services to Dutch authorities.

• Limburg Coal Miner Murder (1946): Hurkos claimed to have identified the murderer of a young coal miner by psychometrizing the victim's coat, leading to the discovery of the weapon. However, newspaper reports and authorities indicated that the suspect was arrested immediately due to prior quarrels, and the weapon was found later, not as described by Hurkos. The victim's wife played no role, contrary to some accounts.
• Limburg Coal Mine Sabotage (1955): Hurkos claimed to have identified the saboteur of a mine lift system. De Telegraaf learned from authorities that the incident was due to wear, not sabotage, and no suspect was ever arrested.
• Nijmegen Arson Case (1951): This case is presented as Hurkos' most impressive success in the Netherlands. Hurkos claimed to have identified the arsonist, Piet Vierboom, by examining a photograph of the Vierboom family. However, the article notes that Piet Vierboom had already been arrested and interrogated by the time Hurkos became involved. The police chief, Mr. A. Cammaert, stated that psychics were never successfully employed in criminal investigations. The article suggests Hurkos' performance may have relied on elementary techniques like muscle-reading.

The article concludes that while Hurkos' claims have been widely reported, especially in the US, independent verification often reveals discrepancies or a complete lack of evidence, suggesting many of his stories are imaginative rather than factual.

UFO Sightings Among Engineers and Scientists

This section introduces a report by Ron Westrum on the Anomaly Project's Industrial Research & Development UFO Sighting Poll. Westrum, a sociologist, expresses frustration with the inadequacy of existing UFO data, particularly the lack of detail regarding the nature of sightings and viewing conditions. He notes that Dr. Peter Sturrock's study of astronomers' sightings was one of the first to relate incidence statistics to actual events. The report aims to collect more comparable data on UFO sightings.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes a scientific and critical approach to anomalous phenomena. The CSAR statement highlights the importance of rigorous evidence and proof commensurate with extraordinary claims. The article on Peter Hurkos exemplifies this critical stance by meticulously investigating and often debunking sensational claims through a lack of corroborating evidence and official records. The overall editorial stance appears to be one of promoting skeptical inquiry and scientific methodology in the study of paranormal and unexplained events, rather than accepting anecdotal accounts at face value. The recurring theme is the challenge of verifying extraordinary claims and the need for robust, scientific investigation.

This document is a scanned issue of Industrial Research & Development, specifically the July 1979 issue, though the article discusses a reader-response poll conducted in February 1979. The poll surveyed readers' opinions on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The article focuses on the analysis of data obtained from approximately 1200 respondents out of 4000 who participated.

Reader Response Poll on UFOs

The poll asked readers, "Have you ever observed a UFO yourself?" The distribution of responses was: 268 (7%) answered "yes," 425 (11%) answered "perhaps," and 3350 (83%) answered "no," with a total of 4043 responses tallied.

To understand what respondents meant by "yes," a standard questionnaire was designed and sent to those who answered affirmatively. It was observed that "yes" respondents were three times more likely than "perhaps" respondents to know someone else who had had a sighting. This suggested that "yes" and "perhaps" sightings represented similar experiences, with "yes" indicating a more positive interpretation. An effort was made to elicit responses from non-respondents, and questionnaires were also sent to "perhaps" sighters. The analysis presented primarily covers the "yes" sightings, with 179 codable responses tabulated. A small number of respondents who initially indicated "no" sighting also returned codable responses.

The Context of the Sightings

The study details various aspects of the reported sightings:

When Did the Sightings Take Place?

• Year: Sightings were distributed relatively evenly across decades, without a significant concentration in recent years. Many sightings occurred when respondents were in their teens or younger.
• Season: Summer predominated, followed by Fall and Spring, with Winter being the lowest. This is attributed to people being more likely to be outdoors in warmer weather.
• Time of Day: The majority of sightings (61%) occurred in the evening.

Context of the Sighting

• Locale: Most sightings took place in suburban (38%) or rural (39%) areas, rather than urban (18%).
• Position: Witnesses were often outside (53%) or in a car (30%).
• Activity: The great majority of sightings (80%) occurred during leisure time activities.

Sighting Parameters

• Duration: The most common durations were 11-59 seconds (28%) and 1-5 minutes (28%).
• Estimated Distance: The most frequent estimated distances were 0.5 km-2 km (28%) and 2 km or more (41%).

Witnesses and Education

• Witnesses: In only 30% of sightings was the respondent the sole witness; 19% involved 5 or more witnesses.
• Education: Among respondents who answered "yes" to the sighting question, a significant portion had higher education degrees (38% B.S., 29% Master's, 20% Ph.D.), a distribution similar to non-sighters. The sample largely consisted of engineers and scientists.

Sample Bias

Younger respondents were more likely to report "yes" or "perhaps" sightings. The overall sighting rate of 17% in the sample was higher than the general population rate (about 11%), indicating that the sample was biased towards individuals who had had UFO experiences. This bias was considered fortunate for the study's purpose of analyzing sightings.

What Did The Respondents See?

The "average" UFO sighting was described as a distant light moving erratically in the night sky, at least 500 meters away, seen for about a minute. Close encounters (less than 500 meters) represented about 7% of the sample.

Many reported objects were described as luminous and unidentified, fitting no known natural or human phenomenon, rather than conforming to the "flying saucer" stereotype. The "nocturnal light" events were considered UFOs because they were unclassifiable.

Several case examples are provided:

• Case #4: A "nocturnal light" event involving rapid right-angle turns.
• Case #98: A long multicolored light moving in a straight line (probable meteor).
• Case #65: A disc-shaped object hovering and accelerating rapidly (possible advertising plane).

The motion of the objects, particularly rapid shifts in direction without banking, was often the anomalous factor leading to the "UFO sighting" classification. Some reports were identified as probable meteors or advertising planes.

Perceived shape was influenced by viewing conditions, with objects seen after dark more often described as a point source of light or "unable to determine." Objects further away tended to be seen less distinctly.

• Of the respondents' conceptions of their sightings:
• 7% (4%) were satisfied it was a normal event.
• 31 (17%) were sure it had a normal explanation.
• 118 (63%) felt the event represented processes unknown to current scientific knowledge.
• 30 (16%) provided no answer.

The high percentage of "unknown" responses was partly attributed to question construction but also to the fact that those with normal explanations were less likely to consider their experience a "UFO" sighting.

Some sightings were considered more unequivocally "UFO sightings," particularly those occurring in daylight and at a distance of less than 500 meters.

Several specific cases are detailed:

• Case #139: A hovering object resembling an aluminum lens on a beach, with flutter-like motion, 10-20 meters in size, disappearing after 20-30 seconds.
• Case #36a: A disc with a dome hovering above a ranch house for 10-15 minutes, then shooting off toward Pittsburgh.
• Case #168: An electronic magnetometer detected two aerial objects over Canyon Diablo, which then assumed a high-speed course toward Tucson. This is noted as a rare "physical effects" case.

No cases of abduction, being zapped, or vehicles being stopped were reported. No physical traces were left behind by the objects.

What Did They Do About It?

• Discussion: 88% of respondents discussed their sightings with family and friends.
• Reporting: 22% reported their sightings to the military, police, or mass media, a rate higher than the general population (13%).
• Interest: 38% of the sample indicated that the experience increased their reading about UFOs.
• Impact: No respondent indicated a serious impact on their lives from the experience, unlike reports from "close encounter" sightings.

Conclusion

The study aimed to explore the spectrum of UFO experiences among a group with high technical experience, rather than reach broad conclusions about the UFO phenomenon. The nature of these experiences was examined, though resources limited a full investigation of each case. Future reports will consider "perhaps" cases and compare them with "yes" cases. Subsequent reports will be published in ZETETIC SCHOLAR.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the detailed analysis of UFO sighting reports from a technically experienced readership. The magazine appears to adopt a neutral, analytical stance, presenting data and case studies without overt judgment on the validity of the sightings themselves. The focus is on understanding the characteristics and contexts of these reported experiences. The editorial stance is one of scientific inquiry into anomalous phenomena, encouraging further investigation and discussion, as evidenced by the "Further Reading" section and the call for comments.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: #8
Date: 1981
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of the Zetetic Scholar features a prominent open letter from Robert K.G. Temple to Carl Sagan, addressing Sagan's criticisms of Temple's influential book, 'The Sirius Mystery'. The magazine also includes articles exploring parapsychology and psychic phenomena.

Open Letter to Carl Sagan by Robert K.G. Temple

Robert K.G. Temple begins by expressing his flattery that Carl Sagan has engaged with the debate surrounding the astronomical knowledge of the Dogon tribe of Africa, first detailed in Temple's 1976 book, 'The Sirius Mystery'. Temple notes Sagan's contribution appeared in Omni magazine in August 1979, followed by reader letters and an article by Temple himself in 1981. Sagan's work also included a chapter in his book 'Broca's Brain'.

Temple outlines the difficulties he has faced in getting his responses published, citing instances with Omni and the magazine Nature, which he claims were reluctant to publish replies that might 'offend' Sagan. He expresses gratitude to the Zetetic Scholar for providing a forum for his response.

Temple then proceeds to correct several points made by Sagan:

1. Nationality: Temple clarifies that he is American, not British as Sagan had implied.
2. Dogon Astronomy Origin: Temple strongly refutes the suggestion that the Dogon's advanced astronomical information came from modern Western sources. He cites Dr. Germaine Dieterlen, a leading anthropologist who has lived extensively with the Dogon, who dismisses such suggestions as "Absurd!". Temple notes that a BBC-TV Horizon program featuring Dr. Dieterlen's strong opinion was apparently edited out for American television, potentially explaining Sagan's unawareness.
3. Missionaries: Temple states that missionaries had no contact with the Dogon before 1949, by which time the anthropological data had already been gathered.
4. WWI Conscription: Temple questions the claim that Dogon soldiers conscripted in World War I could have gained knowledge of Sirius's superdensity. He points out that this concept was only revealed in the West around 1926-1928, after the war, and that it would have been impossible for this knowledge to have filtered down to the Dogon and become embedded in their traditions and artifacts within the narrow timeframe before anthropologists arrived.
5. Dieterlen's Omission: Temple criticizes Sagan for not mentioning Dr. Germaine Dieterlen, co-author of the original anthropological report, who had rejected the thesis of Western origins on television years before Temple's book was published.
6. Sirius B Orbit: Temple corrects Sagan's assertion that he (Temple) claimed the Dogon believed Sirius B orbited Sirius A in an ellipse. Temple clarifies that this information comes from the anthropologists Griaule and Dieterlen themselves, citing specific pages in his book that detail diagrams and descriptions of elliptical orbits and even a planet orbiting Sirius C in an elliptical orbit.
7. 'Twin' Mythology: Temple argues that the Dogon's insistence on three stars in the Sirius system, rather than just two, contradicts the 'twin' argument for the origin of their knowledge, as it suggests a more complex tradition than a simple adoption of a twin motif.
8. Sirius B Visibility: Temple addresses Sagan's remark about the potential visibility of Sirius B in the past. Temple explains that even if Sirius B were a large 'red giant' star in the past, its minute parallax would have made it indistinguishable from Sirius A as a separate object, effectively destroying arguments for its naked-eye visibility.
9. 'Red Dog Star': Temple comments on the 'redness of Sirius' problem, suggesting that ancient references to Sirius being red were likely due to atmospheric reddening (like the setting sun) and mistranslations of the Greek word 'poikilos' (mottled), not its actual color.
10. Heliacal Rising of Sirius: Temple notes that while the heliacal rising of Sirius was used in ancient Egypt to signal the Nile inundation, this was a transitory aspect due to the precession of the equinoxes.
11. Dogon Creator and Basket Myth: Temple defends the Dogon tradition of the Creator and the plaited basket, suggesting it may be a survival of the sacred basket of Babylonian Oannes/Dagon and the Greek mysteries. He argues that the Dogon baskets, representing arks and space ships, are not primitive but rather indicative of advanced knowledge, including that of invisible moons of Jupiter.

Temple concludes by praising the Dogon cosmogony as one of the richest and most profound systems of thought in the world, asserting that their moral fiber, philosophy, and religion are not inferior to any other culture, and that they are a happy, fulfilled people who possess a deep connection to the stars.

The Case of Psiless Marner

This is a satirical fictional account by Marvin Gardens about a psychologist, Dr. Psiless Marner, and his associate, 'The Incredible Bambi', who found the PSI Foundation. They conduct a flawed ESP experiment, believing psychic phenomena to be impossible. The experiment involves a subject named Virgo Risene, who experiences a 'displacement effect' leading to an atomic detonation on Staten Island. The story humorously critiques the methodology and assumptions often found in parapsychological research.

Psychic Surgery: Hoax or Hope?

Written by David Hoy, this article investigates alleged 'psychic surgeons' in the Philippines. Hoy, a student of stage magic, approaches the subject with skepticism and an open mind. He describes his observations of two healers: Brother Nemesio G. Taylo, whose 'operation' involves crude sleight-of-hand to produce red liquid on a patient's stomach, and Juan Blanche, who performs painful cauterizations and uses palming techniques to simulate surgical incisions. Hoy expresses concern about the pain inflicted on patients and questions the authenticity of these practices, suggesting they rely on trickery rather than genuine psychic ability.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Zetetic Scholar consistently adopts a skeptical yet open-minded approach to anomalous phenomena. The issue demonstrates this by featuring a detailed defense of a controversial topic ('The Sirius Mystery') against a prominent critic, while simultaneously employing satire and investigative journalism to question the validity of other claims within the fields of parapsychology and psychic phenomena. The underlying stance appears to be a commitment to rigorous examination and a debunking of pseudoscience, while remaining open to genuine, unexplained phenomena.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #8 and dated 1981, focuses on two primary areas: an in-depth critique of 'psychic surgeons' in the Philippines and a discussion of theories and hypotheses concerning the origins of UFOs.

Psychic Surgery in the Philippines

The author recounts their experiences as part of a research project investigating the so-called 'psychic surgeons' of the Philippines. The initial exposure involved observing a 'psychic surgeon' named Juan Blanche perform two operations. The first involved an 'incision' made with a coin and a burning cotton wad, which the author suspected was a trick involving palming and misdirection. The second operation involved Blanche crudely hacking off a growth from a patient's leg with a razor blade, followed by cauterization with flaming cotton swabs and adhesive tape. The author was unimpressed, noting the lack of sterilization, anesthesia, and the overall crudity of the procedures, which they believed relied on hand trickery.

The author expresses that this first exposure deepened their doubt about the authenticity of psychic surgery, though they were trying to remain objective. They suggest that the phenomena, while appearing as fakery, might have deeper implications for parapsychology research. The 'psychic surgeons' are described as descendants of a long line of witch doctors and medicine men, whose methods defy scientific explanation.

Despite the lack of rational basis, the author acknowledges that truly miraculous results might occur outside orthodox medicine, a view shared by many scientists. However, they emphasize that the practices observed in the Philippines involved deceptive practices. The author notes the lavish 'medical center' and resort operated by Antonio C. Agpao, a successful psychic surgeon, which includes a hotel, bars, and dining rooms, suggesting a commercial aspect to the industry.

The author recounts their attempts to reproduce some of the healers' tricks, including faking an incision and producing 'blood' using colored cotton wads and 'holy water' (tap water). They found that many of the effects could be duplicated using sleight-of-hand techniques. The author concludes that the 'cures' produced by these means were suspect and that the use of crude deception weakened the credibility of any potential supernatural forces.

This experience led the author to re-examine their own belief systems, as they had entered the project with an open mind. They found that the healers' methods were not based on metaphysical principles but on creating magical effects to provide false hope. The author criticizes the crude execution of sleight-of-hand techniques, which they felt offended even mediocre stage magicians, yet thousands of desperately ill people were placing their lives in the hands of these practitioners.

The author believes that this type of healing is a danger, not only to the deluded patients but also by undermining serious attempts to bridge orthodox medicine with the potential of unorthodox methods.

Unfortunately, the author's views were not warmly received by their scientific colleagues on the expedition. While acknowledging the spirit of inquiry and the willingness of colleagues to challenge established beliefs, the author suggests this openness made them susceptible to the faked performances. The author notes that photographic 'evidence' was often presented, but argues that a camera's 'eye' is limited to the photographer's perspective and cannot reveal misdirection or sleight-of-hand.

The author reiterates their commitment to parapsychology and extra-sensory perception, motivated to expose the methods of the Philippine 'healers.' They mention other researchers and physicians who have explored similar phenomena, including William A. Nolen, M.D., and Dr. C. Norman Shealy.

Theories, Hypotheses, and Speculations on the Origins of UFOs (Part II)

This section features comments by Richard F. Haines on an article by J. Richard Greenwell concerning UFO theories. Haines apologizes for an earlier omission of his comments. Haines critiques Greenwell's attempt to categorize UFO theories into 'conventional' and 'unconventional,' suggesting this approach invites disagreement. He raises points about the completeness of Greenwell's review, arguing that most serious students would find it incomplete.

Haines also questions the originality of a review article, suggesting it should raise critical challenges creatively. He finds Greenwell's format for discussing 'unconventional' theories mixes the identity of UFOs with their potential origins (e.g., inside the earth, underwater). Haines proposes that theories should be dimensioned along continua like kinetic and potential energy requirements or socio-cultural antecedents.

Regarding the 'Space Animal Theory,' Haines notes Greenwell's conclusion that it is unlikely due to the doubt that biological forms could evolve in space or the absence of oxygen. Haines points out that this argument relies on the assumption that all life forms are carbon-oxygen-hydrogen based, which is not definitively known.

Haines suggests that the core nature of the UFO phenomenon might be represented by a complex equation of multiple factors (UFO = a:b:c:d:e), requiring systematic comparison and correlation. He believes that continued scientific practice will uncover these factors and their relationships. Haines suggests that Greenwell's review might represent different views of the same fundamental phenomenon, or perhaps different phenomena altogether.

The section concludes with a list of references cited by Haines, including works on UFOs and annotated bibliographies.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards claims of supernatural phenomena, particularly in the context of faith healing and psychic surgery, and a critical examination of scientific and pseudoscientific theories, specifically regarding UFOs. The editorial stance appears to be one of rigorous scientific inquiry, emphasizing evidence-based reasoning, critical thinking, and the potential for deception in phenomena that lack clear scientific explanation. The author of the psychic surgery exposé advocates for a cautious approach, warning against the dangers of unverified claims and the exploitation of the vulnerable, while still acknowledging the broader field of parapsychology.

This issue of the Zetetic Scholar, issue #8 from 1981, is titled "REPLIES TO HIS COMMENTATORS" and features introductory remarks and responses from J. Richard Greenwell to various individuals who commented on his previous article concerning UFO theories. The publication is primarily text-based, with a focus on detailed argumentation and critique.

Introductory Remarks

J. Richard Greenwell expresses gratitude to the knowledgeable persons who participated in the "Dialogue on the UFO problem." He explains that his original article on UFO "theories" was condensed for "The Encyclopedia of UFOs" and that the preceding critiques offer an opportunity to expand his thoughts. He notes that some reviewers have addressed the UFO problem in broader terms, and he intends to do the same.

Response to George O. Abell

Greenwell addresses Dr. George O. Abell's critique, stating that Abell believes his list of eight "theories" is incomplete and presents eight additional ones. Greenwell clarifies that his article assessed "theories" advanced to explain UFO reports and that he was not aware of Abell's theories being previously proposed. He asserts he is not responsible for the existence of theories he did not advocate.

He agrees with Abell's subsequent four paragraphs but expresses reservations about scientists' reliability, suggesting they are often trained in specific disciplines without sufficient grounding in scientific thought and methodology. He highlights that scientists may not understand fields outside their expertise and that academic training does not guarantee rationality. Greenwell distinguishes between a scientist's "science hat" and "person hat," urging caution when interpreting their "scientific opinions."

Greenwell emphasizes that he is not attacking scientists but stating that they, like members of the public, can have subjective attitudes. He cautions against viewing scientists as infallible guardians of truth and refers to Mahoney (1979) for a critique of idealized scientific qualities.

Regarding the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH), Greenwell agrees with Abell that "believers" have an emotional commitment, but he disputes Abell's implication that he "errs" by suggesting scientists have strong anti-ETH feelings. Greenwell clarifies that while many scientists have strong anti-ETH feelings, it is a minority, as most are disinterested due to their work being unrelated to UFOs. He notes that astronomers and physicists are a small part of the scientific world, and the public misconception that these fields are solely about UFOs is not dispelled by the scientists themselves.

Greenwell takes exception to Abell's optimistic view on the number of advanced intelligences in the galaxy, suggesting Abell has fallen into a similar trap as many astronomers. He points out the irony of astronomers being called "believers" when discussing extraterrestrial intelligence, while labeling UFO proponents as "believers." He criticizes estimates of a million civilizations, calling them "uninformed guesses" based only on astrophysics and related fields, while ignoring evolutionary biology and ecological factors.

The Drake/Sagan Equation and Evolutionary Biology

Greenwell discusses the Drake/Sagan equation (N = R* fp ne f₁ f₁ f L), which estimates the number of communicative civilizations in the galaxy. He argues that there is a "curious belief" among some astronomers that life, once begun, will inevitably lead to intelligence, for which there is no evidence. He posits that extraterrestrial intelligence, if it exists, is likely rare.

He uses the human species as an example, highlighting that its evolution resulted from a long series of chance geophysical, climatic, ecological, biological, and social events. He notes that only mammals, with their long infant dependency, could produce intelligent species, and that millions of other organisms existed before primates evolved.

Greenwell criticizes the technical volumes on extraterrestrial intelligence for glossing over the problem of intelligence evolution. He points out that chapters on this topic were often written by physiologists, virologists, or computer specialists, not evolutionary biologists. He cites George Gaylord Simpson (1964; 1973) as an evolutionary biologist whose conservative appraisals have been ignored, and who noted the lack of consultation with evolutionary biologists.

Greenwell further analyzes Dr. Sagan's use of the Drake equation, noting how Sagan's factors for f₁ (planets where life evolves) and f (planets with intelligent beings) have changed over time, leading to estimates of millions of civilizations. He questions Sagan's statement that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of biological evolution, stating there is no evidence for this, and that Sagan reconciles this by suggesting extraterrestrial beings would be "general intelligent beings" shaped by favorable environments.

He then discusses critical evolutionary and ecological factors on Earth, such as the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (65 million years ago), which eliminated most large species and created new niches for mammals. He describes the late Miocene as another fortuitous event, where the thinning of tropical rainforests led to the adaptation of some primates to arboreal life, developing grasping hands and upright posture. The subsequent thinning of rainforests and spread of grasslands created conditions where some ape groups adapted to terrestrial locomotion, eventually leading to Homo sapiens.

Greenwell concludes that the likelihood of similar sequences of events occurring on other planets to produce technologically intelligent species is extremely remote. He suggests that if astronomers attribute "directed purposefulness" to evolution, they should not cloak these beliefs in scientific respectability while deriding UFOlogists. He asserts that the evidence for UFOs is much stronger than the evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence, questioning the rationality of believing in the latter.

Response to Jerome Clark

Greenwell disagrees with Jerome Clark's assertion that UFOlogy has not produced an interesting theory, finding the ETH and Time Travel Theory interesting. He agrees with Clark that extraterrestrials, if they exist, may not be "here in quite the same way" as many UFOlogists think, and that there's a tendency to anthropomorphize them. He notes Clark's abandonment of the Psychic Projection Theory and his new premise that UFOs do not touch psychological, mystical, or social chords, but are interesting due to novelty and exoticism. Greenwell agrees with many of Clark's points about the cultural UFO myth competing with other stimuli, and that continuing UFO reports are the reason for its survival.

He questions whether UFO reports persist because witnesses are enculturated to perceive "UFOs" or because observers see anomalous stimuli that appear similar to myth-generated reports when translated into written accounts.

Response to Daniel Cohen

Greenwell thanks Daniel Cohen for bringing to his attention the popularity of the Hollow Earth Theory in the early nineteenth century. He defers to published authors regarding Dr. Raymond Bernard. He regrets not including a quote by Ivan T. Sanderson, describing him as imaginative and colorful, and quoting a biologist's description: "He never let a fact get in the way of a good sentence."

Regarding the "real point of debate" over the ETH, Greenwell states that Cohen ignores the "human" factor, focusing only on the quality of evidence. Greenwell argues that both believers and skeptics distort evidence to fit their explanations, and psychological mechanisms impede unbiased assessment. He reiterates his point that the sheer number of UFO reports creates an atmosphere where scientists are unlikely to take them seriously, and believers' mass publication of reports is unlikely to overwhelm scientific skepticism.

Greenwell agrees with astrophysicist Richard C. Henry that the primary UFO problem is psychological, not necessarily related to what UFOs are. He refers to other publications for further discussion on these topics.

He notes that, except for Flatwoods, he knows of no UFO reports involving "monsters" or the Virgin Mary, unless Fatima is accepted. He states that Bigfoot has sometimes been linked to UFOs, but the linkage is not reliably strong.

Addressing Cohen's objection about his light touch on the shift from ETH to the Ultraterrestrial Theory, Greenwell explains that his article's purpose was to cover eight "theories" concisely, allowing about 440 words per theory. He states he added about 30 more words to the Ultraterrestrial Theory. He agrees with most of Cohen's statements and notes that his own approach is more about the method of assessment rather than historical analysis.

Response to William R. Corliss

Greenwell expresses sympathy with William R. Corliss' comments and dissociates himself from those who "cluster around" anomalies while ignoring "shaky structures." He states his article's purpose was not to address other anomalies but acknowledges his interest in their historical evolution, psychology, and interaction with mainstream science.

He questions whether a "spectrum" of anomalies is an appropriate model, particularly if anomalies are genetically related rather than perceived as such by humans. He suggests that if anomalies are not genetically related, a spectrum can be a useful tool, but some should be recognized as "isolated phenomena" (e.g., meteorites, ball lightning, Loch Ness Monster).

Greenwell believes that for all anomalies on a spectrum to be genetically related, they would need psychological causes, a proposition he finds unlikely. He concludes that Mr. Corliss is likely not proposing this.

Response to John S. Derr

Greenwell agrees with Dr. Derr on the importance of examining transient geophysical phenomena as explanations for UFO reports. He recalls urging Derr to analyze earthquake light reports about 10 years prior.

He explains his classification of "theories" into "conventional" (no purposeful intelligence) and "unconventional" (purposeful intelligence). He acknowledges that insect swarms and birds are conventional despite having purposeful behavior, and that his classification scheme is not perfect. He notes that transient geophysical phenomena, like ball lightning, are unconventional from a current geophysics perspective but could be explained by "normal" science, unlike extraterrestrials or time travelers.

Response to Charles Fair

Greenwell finds Charles Fair's arguments about different "theories" reasonable. Regarding the ETH, he suggests that extraterrestrials would likely be far ahead of humans, making rationalization of their actions difficult. He posits that the SETI approach might be ineffective if electromagnetic communication is a temporary stage.

He reflects on why a large segment of the U.S. population is irrational, emphasizing the need to distinguish between "intelligence" and rationality, as highly intelligent individuals can be irrational, and less intelligent individuals can be rational.

Response to Roberto Farabone

Greenwell thanks Roberto Farabone for his comments, particularly the statement that "no other branches of knowledge have so many hypotheses made 'a priori.'" Greenwell questions whether UFOlogy is a branch of knowledge, suggesting the number of hypotheses might indicate it is not. He agrees that pet theories should be avoided but states that formulating testable working hypotheses is proper scientific procedure, even if testing is beyond the current state-of-the-art.

Response to Lucius Farish

Greenwell generally agrees with Lucius Farish's comments. Regarding the "Volume of Traffic" in the ETH, he states he does not attempt to judge which side is "right" but simply provides an explanation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue strongly reflects J. Richard Greenwell's critical and analytical approach to UFO phenomena and related scientific discourse. A recurring theme is the rigorous examination of evidence and methodology, particularly in contrast to what he perceives as speculative or unscientific claims. Greenwell consistently advocates for a cautious and evidence-based approach, questioning the assumptions underlying popular theories like the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and the optimistic estimations of extraterrestrial intelligence. He highlights the importance of distinguishing between scientific inquiry and personal belief, even among scientists. The issue also touches upon the role of psychology and evolutionary biology in understanding both human behavior and the potential for intelligence elsewhere. Greenwell's stance is one of intellectual skepticism towards grand, unproven theories, while remaining open to rigorous investigation of anomalous phenomena, provided it adheres to sound scientific principles.

Title: The UFO Investigator
Issue: Vol. 3, No. 1
Date: January 1981
Publisher: Mutual UFO Network, Inc.
Country: USA
Price: $2.00
ISSN: 0740-5111

This issue of The UFO Investigator features a collection of responses from the author to various researchers and proponents in the UFO field. The overarching theme is a critical re-evaluation of the UFO phenomenon from a scientific perspective, questioning the validity of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) and exploring alternative explanations, particularly those rooted in psychology and conventional phenomena.

Responses to UFO Researchers and Proponents

Response to Stanton T. Friedman The author addresses Stanton T. Friedman's assertion that UFO flight behavior and appearance indicate an extraterrestrial origin. The author argues that while these may 'indicate' such an origin, they do not 'demonstrate' it, and that 'indication' is an assumption or belief. The author clarifies that the 'Volume of Traffic' model was used to explain why scientists are skeptical of UFO reports, not to prove the unlikelihood of extraterrestrial vehicles. The author also disputes Friedman's claim that evidence indicates an extraterrestrial origin 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' calling it a contradiction in terms and reiterating the relevance of 'no proof' of ET visitation.

Response to Richard F. Haines This section addresses Dr. Haines' points regarding conventional and unconventional categories and the completeness of the article. The author acknowledges that the article was 'as complete as possible' for its intended medium (The Encyclopedia of UFOs) and that major UFO 'theories' were discussed. Regarding originality, the author apologizes if the article was not 'creative' enough but questions the capability to dimension theories based on energy requirements or socio-cultural antecedents. The author also defends the assumption that other life forms are carbon-based, given hydrogen's abundance in the universe.

Response to Allan Hendry The author discusses Allan Hendry's point about ball lightning as a potential explanation for UFOs. The author agrees that it's easy to solve one problem by creating another and that the comparison between the 'unconventionality' of flying saucers and ball lightning is a psychological problem. While acknowledging that both hypotheses might violate known laws of physics, the selection between them is based on psychological grounds.

Response to Elaine Hendry Dr. Elaine Hendry's emphasis on the repeatability of data is discussed. The author agrees that repeatability does not necessarily imply 'unconventionality,' as psychological and perceptual mechanisms can produce consistent reports. The author also concurs that science should not alter its methods for UFOlogy and that the lack of training among UFOlogists has led to unfounded edifices. The author notes the tendency of both proponents and skeptics to use pop-psychology theories.

Response to Richard C. Henry Dr. Henry's classification of 'unconventional' theories into categories of less, equally, and more intelligent is discussed. The author agrees that this classification scheme needs more thought. The author also engages with Henry's profound questions about the position of man in the Universe and the nature of a billion-year-old civilization, acknowledging the speculative nature of these inquiries.

Response to J. Allen Hynek Dr. Hynek's point about the relevance of reported UFO event details is highlighted. The author agrees that if human observers were as reliable as instruments, the answer would be 'yes.' However, the author emphasizes that human perception is subject to socio-cultural influences, including the 'cultural myth of flying saucers,' and questions whether a real physical phenomenon exists separate from this myth.

Response to John A. Keel The author expresses regret that John A. Keel finds the article obsolete and questions Keel's assertion about 'enormous advances' in the past decade, stating complete unawareness of them. The author implies that Keel should be more forthcoming with this information.

Response to Bruce Maccabee Dr. Maccabee's comments are described as straightforward. The author reiterates that classification schemes were discussed in the response to Dr. Derr. The author agrees with Maccabee's support for the ETH based on descriptions of objects appearing to be machines, but stresses the need for witnesses' descriptions of these 'machines' to be accurate, not just to the satisfaction of believers or debunkers.

Response to Paul McCarthy The author agrees with Dr. McCarthy that the 'conventional' and 'unconventional' categories, particularly the 'intelligence' criterion, can be misleading. The author refers the reader to a previous discussion on Identified Flying Objects (IFOs) and UFOs.

Response to Aime Michel Interesting questions are raised by Aime Michel regarding the lack of visibility of supposed supercivilizations. The author discusses arguments for and against extraterrestrial intelligence and Michel's postulate that UFO reports might be how these extraterrestrials are making themselves visible.

Response to Pierre Guerin Pierre Guerin's hypothesis that extraterrestrials direct the UFO phenomenon, making UFOs appear as plausible technological dreams of the moment, is presented. Guerin suggests that an intelligence, not our own, directs UFOs and knows our technological evolution.

Response to James W. Moseley Mr. Moseley's observation about finding one UFO case with all correct components, rather than 100 cases sharing components, is discussed. The author reports that a survey of UFOlogists revealed no consensus on the 'best' case, with many refusing to answer due to the risk of being made a fool of.

Response to James E. Oberg The author agrees with Mr. Oberg that 'Hollow Earth' and 'underwater' are postulated base locales, not necessarily 'theories' of origin. The author also notes that Mr. Oberg admits to being a 'believer' that UFOs do not represent extraterrestrial visitation, and suggests that the proper scientific approach is to wait and see, without rejecting the ETH.

Response to Robert Sheaffer Mr. Shaeffer's admission that the ETH has been unfairly criticized by scientists is noted with satisfaction. The author explores the 'aircraft-carrier hypothesis,' suggesting one interstellar mothership could dispatch many small craft, explaining numerous sightings. The author also agrees that the null hypothesis predominates and proponents must produce consistent evidence.

Response to Peter A. Sturrock Dr. Sturrock's proposal to formulate and compare UFO hypotheses according to normal scientific procedures is supported. The author emphasizes the importance of recognizing that data consistency might indicate patterns resulting from socio-psychological mechanisms, leading to a false picture of the phenomenon. Advancing understanding requires improving data acquisition and understanding human perception and memory.

Response to John Rimmer Mr. Rimmer correctly points out that the author may have confused the issue by dividing UFO reports into conventional and unconventional categories. The author acknowledges this and also addresses Rimmer's criticism of the review of the Psychic Projection Theory, explaining the response was directed at 'Jungian UFOlogists.' The author prefers to view UFO phenomena from a stimulus-response approach of experimental psychology.

Response to Michael K. Schutz Dr. Schutz's process of elimination leading to the ETH is discussed. The author finds interesting Schutz's comment that cases come in year after year globally, suggesting this might indicate an unconventional cause. However, the author counters that the existence of global UFO reports might demonstrate the opposite: that the UFO problem is caused by a global psycho-social phenomenon, propagated by media and cultural myths.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the critical examination of UFO phenomena through a scientific lens. The author consistently advocates for rigorous methodology, empirical evidence, and a cautious approach to interpreting data. There is a strong emphasis on distinguishing between 'indication' and 'demonstration,' and on the potential for psychological and socio-cultural factors to influence the perception and reporting of UFO events. The editorial stance appears to be one of open-minded skepticism, urging for further research and a deeper understanding of human perception and memory, while not outright rejecting the possibility of unconventional phenomena.

The author frequently engages with proponents of the ETH, such as Stanton Friedman, while also addressing skeptics like James E. Oberg and Robert Sheaffer. The responses highlight the complexities and ongoing debates within the field of UFOlogy, underscoring the challenges in reaching definitive conclusions. The issue suggests that while many UFO reports may have conventional explanations, the fraction that remains unexplained warrants continued investigation, albeit with improved scientific tools and a better understanding of human psychology. The author's personal approach leans towards a stimulus-response model and a careful consideration of all evidence, rather than premature acceptance of extraordinary hypotheses. The importance of distinguishing between scientific procedure and personal belief is also a recurring point.

This issue of The Zetetic Scholar, identified as #8 and published in 1981, focuses on the intersection of scientific inquiry, skepticism, and the study of anomalous phenomena, particularly UFOs and parapsychology. The publication aims to foster an interdisciplinary and objective approach to controversial topics, encouraging diverse voices and relying on data.

Articles and Discussions

The UFO Problem and Scientific Analogy

The issue opens with a discussion comparing UFO research to astrophysics, drawing parallels in the challenges of acquiring direct data. Dr. Sturrock, an astrophysicist, is highlighted for his application of Bayes' theorem to UFOlogy. The author notes the difficulty in assigning UFOs to a specific scientific discipline, leading to its characterization as a 'bastard' or 'illegitimate' science due to this lack of a parent discipline. The concept of 'initial probability' in scientific hypotheses is discussed, emphasizing that while ideally subjective, in practice, a scientist's reputation can heavily influence the weight given to their statements.

Dr. Jacques Vallee's Theories Critiqued

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a critique of Dr. Jacques Vallee's work, particularly his 'ultraterrestrial' ideas presented in books like 'The Invisible College' and 'Messengers of Deception.' The author finds Vallee's thoughts inconsistent, poorly researched, and at times irrational, arguing that Vallee ventures outside his expertise in computer science and astronomy into social and behavioral sciences. Vallee's categorization of UFO 'strangeness' and his proposed 'control system for human consciousness' are examined. The critique questions Vallee's application of behavioral psychology to societal belief modification, asserting that behaviorism focuses solely on observable actions, not internal beliefs or attitudes.

Divisions of Labor in UFOlogy and Science

Dr. Sturrock's proposal for dividing UFOlogy into case-study, statistics, and theorist groups is discussed. The author suggests that an integrated approach, where individuals experience different aspects of research firsthand, might be more beneficial, drawing a parallel with archaeology, which deals with social processes. The article contrasts this with the specialized divisions found in observational and theoretical astrophysics.

Skepticism and Debunking

Marcello Truzzi, the editor, provides an introduction to a bibliography of skeptical and debunking articles published in Fate magazine between January 1975 and September 1981. He argues that critical literature is often found within journals that also promote paranormal claims, and that Fate magazine, despite its occult orientation, has a surprisingly good record of publishing such articles. Truzzi emphasizes the importance of examining good research efforts from all sources to gain a better understanding of anomalous phenomena.

The Schism Within Parapsychology

Jeffrey Mishlove's article, "The Schism Within Parapsychology," addresses the public's confusion between the scientific study of psi phenomena and popular occult abuses. He highlights the tendency for terms like 'parapsychology' and 'ESP' to be appropriated by mystical and occult enthusiasts. Mishlove criticizes the stance of some parapsychologists who seek to distance themselves from occultism, viewing this as an 'insidious hubris' that damages the field. He argues that while a desire for distance is understandable, it has stifled the development of ethnographic and sociological studies within parapsychology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue consistently emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific methodology, critical thinking, and the objective evaluation of evidence when dealing with controversial and anomalous phenomena. The editorial stance, as represented by Marcello Truzzi, advocates for an open yet critical approach, encouraging the publication of diverse viewpoints and the examination of both pro-paranormal and skeptical arguments. The publication positions itself as a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue, aiming to let the data guide the discussion rather than succumbing to preconceived notions or popular sensationalism.

This issue of the Journal of Parapsychology, dated October 1980, delves into the complex and often contentious relationship between parapsychology and the broader field of the occult, as well as the internal debates regarding methodology and scope. The issue features articles and commentaries that explore the challenges of maintaining scientific rigor while acknowledging subjective experiences and less conventional areas of inquiry.

The Schism in Parapsychology: Subjective vs. Objective Approaches

The central theme of the issue is the ongoing schism within parapsychology, particularly concerning the integration of subjective disciplines and the popular perception of occultism. The author argues that many parapsychologists have a personal interest in psi but that controversies have stifled the development of subjective aspects, unlike in fields like music or drama. This is exemplified by R. A. McConnell's (1973) article, which identified popular occultism as a competitor to academic parapsychology. McConnell's stance, however, is criticized for its hesitancy to critically examine subjective occult disciplines, preferring a posture of "aloof disdain" and suggesting that efforts "must be creative rather than critical." Ironically, McConnell also raised existential questions that parapsychology might help answer, blurring the lines he sought to maintain.

McConnell's position has been widely accepted, while skeptics continue to point out the similarities between parapsychology and occultism and the failure of parapsychologists to differentiate between scientific and other approaches to psi.

Rex Stanford's Evolving Views

Rex Stanford's presidential address to the Parapsychological Association in 1974 is discussed, where he advocated for investigators to "endeavor personally to experience as many psi phenomena as they can" and to "study the practices and beliefs of magic, religion, and mysticism." He argued for a new conceptual framework and "process-oriented research" to correlate variables with psi, encouraging "inputs" from personal experience and mystical traditions. However, in a 1980 paper, "Are We Shamans or Scientists?", Stanford reversed his position, suggesting that experimenters with psi talents might contaminate data. He urged the use of fixed random number lists to reduce experimenter PK. The author finds Stanford's newer position to be "wishful thinking," arguing that he has not fully addressed the limitations of the "experimenter effect" in objective parapsychology. The author suggests that subjective disciplines could offer deeper answers and turn the experimenter effect to advantage.

Integrating Esoteric Traditions and the Paranormal

The issue highlights the difficulty for parapsychologists in exploring esoteric traditions. David Read Barker's (1979) report on Tibetan culture is cited, where there is no concept of the "supernatural" or "paranormal," as the entire world is seen as psychokinetic. Barker describes an apparent PK incident involving weather control in Dharamsala, India, which had a profound personal impact on him.

John Beloff, a respected figure in parapsychology, is presented as acknowledging that subjects like acupuncture, astrology, UFOs, and psychotronics should be considered within the legitimate domain of parapsychology. Beloff's article, "The Limits of Parapsychology," reflects a shift from his previous contempt for astrology, influenced by research like Michel Gauquelin's. He cautions against treating occult material dismissively, comparing it to how orthodox scientists treat parapsychological evidence.

John Palmer (1979) further elaborated on this, suggesting that the "correspondence paradigm" of psi could lead to new inquiries and force a reexamination of prejudices about the "occult." He urged parapsychologists to resist linking parapsychology with popular occultism and to avoid avoiding research due to political risks.

Rhea White's Plea for Subjective Exploration

Rhea White is presented as a strong advocate for subjective disciplines. Her presentation at the 1979 Parapsychological Association convention argued that the most appropriate methodology for understanding psi is for researchers to learn to use psi themselves. She suggested that experimenters should focus on their personal interests, working "from within and work outward," and not be overly concerned with the opinions of colleagues or skeptics. White argued that parapsychology has suffered a "malaise" by being forced into a defensive corner by skeptics, and called for a new spirit, urging researchers to "behave as frontier scientists."

The Author's Doctoral Program and Perspective

The author details their creation of an interdisciplinary doctoral program in parapsychology in 1972, which defined the field as encompassing both subjective and objective dimensions. This program aimed to synthesize early case history methodology with Rhinean experimental parapsychology. The author's intention was to extend the history of parapsychology into prescientific traditions, evaluate popular psychic programs, and develop models for experiential ESP education.

The author advocates for subjective disciplines, clarifying that this does not mean abandoning scientific agnosticism. Agnosticism, in this view, implies suspending belief and disbelief, and is compatible with respecting traditions that share an interest in psi. The ideal researcher, the author suggests, balances reverence and irreverence with good humor.

Critical Commentaries

Comments by John Beloff

John Beloff clarifies his position, stating that his article did not advocate for accepting all topics like acupuncture or astrology at the Parapsychological Association convention. Instead, he argued that parapsychologists should not ignore claims from neighboring paranormal territories. He emphasized that his purpose was to draw a line between legitimate parapsychology and the wider paranormal field, not to accept all claims but to maintain a "watching-brief." Beloff expresses suspended judgment on acupuncture and astrology, noting that while acupuncture is integrating with medicine, Gauquelin's astrological findings make him uncomfortable. He suggests synchronicity as a possible explanation for astrology and views ufology as distinct from parapsychology, dealing with psychical rather than physical phenomena. He concludes that the case for "psychotronics" (unknown forms of energy in nature involved in psi) has yet to be made.

Comments by Richard Kammann

Richard Kammann argues that Mishlove's essay presents a choice between scientific investigation and a faith-based stance. Kammann states that Mishlove offers no new evidence for psychic phenomena and that the testimony of authority figures is not evidence. He outlines three reasons for skepticism: the "fizzle-effect" (disappearance of effects upon replication), the lack of lawful properties in psychic results, and the discovery of fraud or methodological loopholes in past experiments. Kammann considers ESP unsubstantiated due to the failure to achieve repeatable effects. He proposes that belief in paranormal phenomena stems from three psychological domains: motivation (e.g., desire to eliminate uncertainty, gain control), social influence (media attention creating a social consensus), and cognitive factors (limitations in perception, memory, and inference, and "Koestler's fallacy" of misinterpreting coincidences). Kammann suggests that belief systems become self-perpetuating and immune to disconfirmation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the definition and boundaries of parapsychology, the tension between subjective experience and objective scientific methodology, and the challenge of integrating fringe topics like occultism and UFOs into a legitimate scientific framework. The editorial stance, as expressed through the author's narrative and the critical commentaries, reflects a cautious but open approach. There is an acknowledgment of the limitations of purely objective methods and a call for exploring subjective avenues, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for critical evaluation and rigorous evidence to counter skepticism. The issue highlights the ongoing struggle within the field to establish its identity and credibility in the face of both internal disagreements and external criticism.

This issue of the Journal of Parapsychology, Volume 44, Number 1, published in 1980 by the American Society for Psychical Research, delves into the internal debates and "schisms" within the field of parapsychology. The primary focus is on the tension between scientific objectivity and subjective experience, and how this impacts the legitimacy and direction of parapsychological research.

Main Article: Confronting a Schismatic Parapsychology

The main article, likely authored by Jeffrey Mishlove (as indicated by the comments and references), addresses the "schisms" within parapsychology. The author suggests that parapsychologists should believe their personal subjective experiences, which is seen as potentially leading to "Koestler's fallacy" and subjective validation, moving the field away from science and towards religion. This approach is criticized for potentially closing the door to disconfirmation by objective data and rejecting Popper's insight that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable. The author questions whether parapsychologists are consciously increasing religiosity within the field and calls for clarity on their stance to facilitate debate.

Comments by Stanley Krippner

Stanley Krippner acknowledges the historical "schisms" in parapsychology, noting that the field has seen divisions since the 1950s. He identifies three "schisms" mentioned by Mishlove: the philosophical/religious interpretation of data, the objective vs. subjective approach, and the scope of research (narrow vs. broad, including UFOs and other anomalous data). Krippner argues that the distinction between "objectivity" and "subjectivity" has become less heated, and scientists should be encouraged to discuss the implications of their work. He also notes that the division between "objectivity" and "subjectivity" has tended to evaporate in social and behavioral sciences, citing Rychlak's work on "rigorous humanism." Krippner views Mishlove's third "schism" as more serious, suggesting that parapsychology might benefit from restricting its scope to clearly delineated phenomena to avoid ridicule.

Krippner also discusses the advent of sophisticated computer data analysis, which has made investigations into anomalous phenomena more feasible. He suggests that phenomena like "ghost lights," "poltergeists," and UFO sightings might be symptoms of a natural organization at a global level. Ignoring a systems approach to psi could keep parapsychologists stuck at a lower level of understanding.

Comments by Joseph K. Long

Joseph K. Long, an anthropologist, finds Mishlove's comments highly relevant. He agrees that some of Mishlove's assertions are correct, particularly regarding the idea that some parapsychologists believe the philosophical structure of science can provide a total understanding of reality. Long criticizes this view, aligning with Margaret Mead's perspective that science does not offer absolute truth. He notes that his own anthropological research into the paranormal has been met with criticism from laboratory-oriented parapsychologists who demand experimental testing, a requirement he finds exclusionary for ethnologists and participant observers. Long suggests that many parapsychologists are merely giving ESP tests to non-Western peoples, mistaking this for anthropology. He highlights that few parapsychologists have produced work of significant interest to anthropologists.

Long also critiques "skeptics/debunkers," stating that some have produced more flagrant violations of honesty than parapsychologists. He points out that anthropologists have not demonstrated the defensiveness seen in parapsychology. Long has directed his publishing efforts towards anthropological publications, noting an increased interest in the anthropology of the paranormal and the emergence of a subdiscipline focused on the adaptive nature of paranormal beliefs and practices. He concludes that anthropological work on parapsychology benefits from the structure of anthropology departments, allowing their parapsychological interests to be seen as natural outgrowths of other interests.

Comments by Andrew Neher

Andrew Neher addresses Mishlove's claim that parapsychologists have forsaken "subjectivity." Neher analyzes different kinds of subjectivity: application of findings to practical affairs (valid only if psi exists), significance to philosophical issues (premature if psi doesn't exist), personal experience as a hypothesis source (valid), experimenter bias (damaging), folk beliefs as hypotheses (valid), anthropological/sociological studies (partly subjective, but irrelevant to parapsychology's status), and spontaneous experience as proof of psi (not needed if it doesn't allow for eliminating normal explanations). Neher concludes that the issue is not "more" or "less" subjectivity, but which kinds are characteristic of parapsychology and their consequences. He identifies investigator bias as the most serious "sin" of subjectivity in parapsychology, leading to non-replicable findings.

Comments by John Palmer

John Palmer agrees with Mishlove that the relationship between occultism and parapsychology is an emotional and controversial issue. He believes parapsychologists should not "throw out the baby with the bath water" and that studying occult traditions as a source for hypotheses is appropriate given parapsychology's primitive stage. He notes that anecdotal evidence of psi effects in occult traditions exists, and some prescriptions for facilitating psi have received support in scientific research. Palmer supports ethnographic and participant-observer studies and acknowledges personal experiences as a source of insights for investigators. However, he finds objectionable the tendency in occult traditions to accept claims without adequate verification, emphasizing the need for objectivity and critical discrimination.

Palmer also addresses the experimenter effect, stating that social psychologists have dealt with it by treating the experimenter as another variable. He believes parapsychologists are capable of doing the same and that this has been demonstrated in recent experiments. He questions how "subjective disciplines and modes of inquiry" can solve the experimenter effect problem, stating that specific viable alternatives are needed.

Comments by D. Scott Rogo

D. Scott Rogo comments on Mishlove's points about the "schism" and the role of personal experience. He agrees that parapsychologists may have a myopic attitude towards their field and that personal experience is important. Rogo notes that the definition of parapsychology has shifted historically, from including hypnosis and mesmerism to focusing on ESP and PK. He argues that researchers should not be criticized for studying offbeat phenomena like radionics or pyramid power, as long as it is done experimentally and scientifically. Rogo has turned his attention to UFO studies, "monster" reports, and religious miracles, areas not typically covered by established parapsychology. He poses hypothetical scenarios involving UFO witnesses, Bigfoot, and religious miracles to illustrate the potential for overlap between these phenomena and parapsychology.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the ongoing debate within parapsychology regarding its scientific status, methodology, and scope. There is a clear tension between those who advocate for rigorous, objective, and narrowly defined experimental approaches, and those who believe in the importance of subjective experience, broader inquiry, and the integration of parapsychology with other fields like anthropology and the study of anomalous phenomena. The editorial stance, as inferred from the publication of these diverse comments, appears to be one of encouraging internal debate and exploration of these critical issues, rather than imposing a singular viewpoint. The journal serves as a platform for these discussions, highlighting the challenges and controversies that shape the field of parapsychology.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, number 8, published in 1981, features a lengthy article by Jeffrey Mishlove titled "SCIENTIFIC LOGIC, IRRATIONALITY, AND SUBJECTIVITY IN PARAPSYCHOLOGY: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON MY ARTICLE." The issue also includes comments from various individuals, including Gertrude Schmeidler, Roger W. Wescott, Michael Winkelman, Richard Kammann, Andrew Neher, John Beloff, and John Palmer, responding to Mishlove's original article.

Mishlove's Article: Scientific Logic, Irrationality, and Subjectivity in Parapsychology

Mishlove's article is a response to comments on his previous work, addressing what he perceives as a schism within parapsychology. He argues that while parapsychology is an experimental science, its roots are in natural observation, and spontaneous case studies are becoming increasingly important. He emphasizes that personal psychic experience, while not having direct scientific value, can be valuable for researchers in understanding the field and generating testable ideas.

Mishlove contends that parapsychology is a nebulous field and no parapsychologist should dismiss any area of "anomalistic science" that might shed light on the psi process. He criticizes the narrow-mindedness of some scientists and the gullibility of laymen, suggesting that a balanced approach is needed.

He addresses specific criticisms from commentators like Richard Kammann and Andrew Neher. Kammann, whom Mishlove describes as a "superpatriot of scientific rigor," is accused of irrationality and misinterpreting Mishlove's stance as advocating for a religious approach rather than an agnostic one that combines empirical testing with other disciplines. Mishlove defends the legitimacy of his perspective, which he believes is directed toward resolving issues of repeatability and reliability of psi.

Mishlove refutes Kammann's claim that psychic results reveal no lawful properties, pointing out that the decline effect, where scoring decreases within an experiment, contradicts this. He also criticizes Kammann's tendency to overgeneralize and his failure to grapple with existing parapsychological data.

Regarding Andrew Neher, Mishlove notes that Neher's objections are similar to Kammann's but slightly more reasonable. Neher insists that practical applications of psi research are not valid as long as psi's existence is unsettled. Mishlove counters that this logic is flawed and that the debate over psi's existence is colored by many unrelated issues. He argues that Neher's skepticism, while presented in a book on the psychology of transcendence, often fails to address the strongest cases and overlooks the logistical impossibility of millions of non-significant experiments needed to counterbalance significant studies.

Mishlove also addresses the role of subjective experience, suggesting that it is a source of confusion in parapsychological debates and that humanistic disciplines like self-awareness are necessary. He advocates for ethnographic and participant-observer studies, similar to those used in anthropology and ecology, to understand the social and cultural adaptation to psi phenomena.

Comments by Gertrude Schmeidler

Gertrude Schmeidler views the dilemmas and problems described by Mishlove as showing a basic unity behind diversity, with methodological differences but no schisms. She uses a metaphor of different paths heading toward the same goal: understanding life and consciousness. While parapsychologists aim for a firm, straight roadbed, occultists may travel easier but potentially wilder routes. She believes their paths will eventually converge. Schmeidler acknowledges differences in methods and the parapsychologist's delay in drawing firm conclusions compared to the occultist's certainties. She also notes that occultists deplore parapsychologists' limited findings, and vice versa.

Schmeidler critiques Mishlove's comparison of parapsychology to disciplines like physical education or music, stating that parapsychology is a science with different rules. She agrees that the schism Mishlove discusses is between experimental parapsychology and the occult, but she views it as two separable issues: the proper function of parapsychology as a science and individual choices. She asserts that parapsychology is limited to scientific methods, from observation to experimentation, but conclusions should only be drawn from well-controlled research.

For individual parapsychologists, the decision to study a topic depends on its interest and the availability of a well-controlled method. She sees no schism, only differences in personal preference and varying degrees of mutual tolerance and disapproval. Schmeidler uses an analogy of developmental psychologists studying children, where different approaches yield different insights but do not necessarily conflict.

Comments by Roger W. Wescott

Roger W. Wescott notes the joke that "mysticism begins in mist and ends in schism," acknowledging its relevance to psychic phenomena. He interprets Mishlove's schism as being between experimental parapsychologists and fellow-traveling occultists. Wescott agrees with Mishlove that the schism is at least partly due to the narrow-mindedness of scientists. He argues that investigators who repeatedly observe cryptesthesic behavior but never experience it are missing a significant part of parapsychological knowledge. He believes that if only replicable events are considered scientifically reportable, then much of life's reality becomes unreportable, leading to a truncated version of reality. Wescott advocates for a blend of skeptical imagination and imaginative skepticism to achieve a balanced and broad picture of psychic phenomena.

Comments by Michael Winkelman

Michael Winkelman states that the schism Mishlove addresses is not so much within parapsychology as between academic parapsychology and paranormal beliefs and practices. He believes Mishlove's paper documents a growing recognition of the need for a wider perspective in parapsychology. Winkelman suggests that the accommodation of parapsychology to behaviorism has acted as a blinder, confining research within a psychobiological paradigm. He argues that parapsychologists are recognizing fundamental conflicts between their findings and mainstream Western science. Winkelman supports Mishlove's suggestion that parapsychology become immersed in subjective explorations of psi and social systems involving psi. He believes parapsychology has "lost its roots" and needs to recover them to allow theoretical and methodological advance. He draws an analogy to academic psychologists studying intelligence, noting that both fields have formulated concepts based on artificial laboratory settings rather than everyday life. Winkelman suggests that progress requires basing investigations on phenomena that adapt to psi principles, with popular occult practices being obvious candidates. He advocates for ethnographic and participant-observer studies, characterizing them as integral to parapsychology, and suggests that all experiments should be treated as field studies to understand subjective factors.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the definition and practice of scientific inquiry within parapsychology. There is a clear tension between a strict, traditional adherence to empirical controls and repeatability, and a more inclusive approach that incorporates subjective experience, anecdotal evidence, and the study of occult practices. The editorial stance, as represented by Mishlove's article and supported by some commentators, leans towards a broader, more humanistic, and introspective approach to understanding psi phenomena, while acknowledging the need for rigor. The issue highlights the ongoing debate about what constitutes valid evidence and methodology in a field that challenges conventional scientific paradigms.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: #8
Date: 1981
Type: Academic Journal/Magazine

Content Summary

This issue of Zetetic Scholar focuses on the methodologies and philosophical underpinnings of discussing paranormal phenomena, particularly within the field of parapsychology. The articles critically examine the nature of scientific inquiry, the limitations of the experimental method, and the challenges of conducting productive debates and dialogues on controversial topics.

The Nature of Scientific Inquiry and 'Ameaningful Thinking'

The issue opens by challenging the idealized image of the parapsychologist as a purely objective scientist. Drawing on the work of Michael J. Mahoney and Paul Feyerabend, it suggests that actual scientific practice often deviates from strict rules, with Feyerabend arguing that major scientific advances require the violation of normal standards. Sigmund Koch's concept of 'ameaningful thinking' is introduced, describing a syndrome prevalent in modern scholarship where knowledge is treated as a product of methodology rather than discovery. This approach, Koch argues, leads to the trivialization and evasion of significant problems.

In contrast, Koch describes 'meaningful thinking' as a more intuitive, holistic process where the mind 'caresses' the problem or object, leading to a merging of the person and the subject of study. This form of thinking is characterized as 'ontologistic' and deeply engaged.

Critiques of the Experimental Method in Parapsychology

The articles question the exclusive reliance on the experimental method in parapsychology. It is argued that the notion of 'well-controlled experimentation' in this field is often a myth, particularly when dealing with process-oriented secondary hypotheses. The potential for 'experimenter psi' to confound results is highlighted, suggesting that conclusions drawn from such studies may not be firmer than those from 'softer' methods. While acknowledging the value of controlled experiments in establishing the existence of psi and demonstrating measurement systems, the author questions their efficiency and effectiveness beyond these specific goals.

Synthesis of Methodologies and 'Hidden Variables'

There is a call for a unified synthesis of different approaches within parapsychology, integrating both scientific and subjective methodologies. The issue references Gardner Murphy's view that cultivating paranormal gifts is akin to cultivating any other skill, requiring motivation, persistence, and a degree of intuitive exploration, which can be combined with systematic record-keeping. The concept of 'hidden variables' is explored as a potential explanation for the uncertainties in measuring psi reliably. The author proposes that these hidden variables might be the researchers themselves ('experimenter psi') and suggests that if this cannot be eliminated, it should be understood, improved, and utilized. This approach could lead to a fusion of scientific, humanistic, and mystical traditions to establish standards for reliable psi research.

Debates and Divisions within Parapsychology

The issue addresses the apparent schisms within parapsychology, noting that while some researchers like Dr. Schmeidler and Dr. John Palmer maintain that no fundamental divisions exist, operational criteria (like research funding and publication) might suggest otherwise. Schmeidler's efforts to limit the definition of parapsychology to exclude applied educational approaches are criticized. The controversy surrounding topics like Carlos Castaneda and parapsychology is raised, with examples of researchers being cautioned against pursuing such issues due to potential controversy and lack of perceived gain for the field. The reluctance of some parapsychologists, such as Dr. John Beloff, to present papers on overlapping topics is also noted, raising questions about the openness of the community to diverse research areas.

Conducting Zetetic Discussions

Leonard Zusne's contribution, 'On Conducting a Zetetic Discussion,' addresses the fundamental issues involved in dialogues and debates about paranormal claims. He points out that the division between proponents and opponents is complex and overlaps with the believer-disbeliever division. Zusne emphasizes that while the scientific method itself is not problematic, each specific science has its own body of knowledge and stated limits. He suggests that productive discussions require participants to operate within the same reference framework and abide by the same rules, even when disagreeing on methodological points or interpretations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of scientific methodology, the philosophical underpinnings of research into paranormal phenomena, and the challenges of fostering open and productive dialogue within the parapsychological community. The editorial stance appears to advocate for a broader, more inclusive approach to parapsychology that acknowledges the limitations of purely empirical methods, embraces the potential role of subjective experience and 'hidden variables,' and encourages a more nuanced understanding of scientific practice. There is a clear emphasis on the need for rigorous yet open-minded inquiry, moving beyond strict adherence to traditional scientific paradigms when investigating phenomena that may lie at the fringes of current understanding.

This issue of "ZS Dialogues" (Issue #7, 1981) is a collection of responses and replies concerning the nature of scientific discussion, particularly within the field of parapsychology. It features contributions from Edward W. Karnes and Evan Harris Walker, along with a reply from editor Marcello Truzzi, discussing the challenges of conducting and interpreting research, especially in areas like remote viewing.

The Nature of Dialogue vs. Debate

The issue opens with a discussion on the fundamental differences between dialogue and debate. It posits that dialogues are decidable when participants share the same conceptual framework and decision rules. However, when believers and disbelievers operate from incompatible frameworks, the discussion devolves into a debate centered on matters of value, faith, and belief rather than objective fact. This can lead to discussions that have little prospect of being settled and may never end, serving no useful purpose. The text uses the example of Flat Earthers to illustrate this point, suggesting that while ZS might not host such a debate, discussions involving figures like Stanley Krippner and opponents of paranormal explanations are more likely.

The concept of "emic" and "etic" viewpoints, as named by Pike (1967), is introduced. The emic viewpoint represents how things appear from within a group's value system, while the etic viewpoint is that of an outsider. The text argues that a belief in phenomena like levitation or telepathy can be seen differently depending on one's perspective, highlighting the necessity of setting limits in discussions involving opposing persuasions.

Philosophical Underpinnings of Worldviews

The issue delves into the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry, noting that human theories are often a function of personality and worldview. It contrasts extreme subjectivity with objectivity, with rationalism and empiricism representing these broad attitudes. William James's pragmatism is mentioned as an attempt to bridge these differing worldviews. The text suggests that an individual's stance on anomalies and parapsychology is intimately connected to their worldview, and that William James's attitude towards psychical research aligns with a particular worldview that the editor of ZS might find congenial.

Anomalistic psychology is discussed as a field that considers not only extraordinary behaviors but also the psychology of believers and disbelievers. The text concludes that discussions, even those that do not change minds, serve latent and manifest functions, but emphasizes the importance of identifying exchanges that are clad in linguistic trappings but are fundamentally debates between differing belief systems.

Remote Viewing Experiments: A Methodological Debate

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to a detailed critique and defense of remote viewing experiments, primarily focusing on the work of Puthoff and Targ and the attempts to replicate their findings by Karnes et al.

Evan Harris Walker presents seven arguments against the acceptability of the Karnes et al. (1980) study, "Failure to Replicate Remote-Viewing Using Psychic Subjects." These arguments include deviations from the original protocol without justification, the use of too many judges which could trivialize the experiment, potential sensory leakage between experimenters and judges, the use of a non-standard rank ordering procedure, failure to establish the significance of a failed replication, designation of subjects as psychic without testing, and the failure to include control tests.

Edward W. Karnes replies to Walker's criticisms, arguing that Walker's points are post hoc rationalizations for negative results. Karnes contends that procedural sensitivity is not the issue, and that the remote viewing phenomenon is not as robust as claimed. He disputes Walker's claims about the hazards of statistical procedures and the number of judges, suggesting that these are not genuine flaws but excuses for failed replications.

Karnes also addresses the issue of subject adequacy, criticizing Walker's insistence on pre-testing subjects. Karnes points out the controversy surrounding the validity of paranormal capabilities and the differing results obtained by believers versus skeptics. He notes that unlike normal sensory capabilities, psychic abilities are not easily verifiable.

Specific Criticisms and Rebuttals

Karnes specifically refutes Walker's argument #3 regarding sensory leakage, stating that it is only criticized when positive results obtain, but bad experimental design affects the entire conduct of an experiment. He acknowledges that Karnes et al. intend to repeat their experiment with provisions to avoid sensory leakage.

Regarding argument #1 (deviations from protocol), Karnes argues that the changes made should not have adversely affected the judges' ability to handle the material. However, Walker counters that the protocol was altered without justification, and this is a critical issue. Walker highlights that a judge visiting only one site against which all transcripts were judged, without knowing what features distinguish target sites, can lead to misinterpretations.

Karnes defends his statistical procedures against Walker's criticism of "sifting" or selecting data, stating that Walker is confused. Walker, however, insists that the problem lies in the departure from the complete rank ordering of all data used by Puthoff and Targ, and that Karnes et al.'s statistical analysis is an "odd balled statistical analysis."

Karnes also addresses argument #6, concerning the designation of subjects as psychic. He quotes Puthoff and Targ stating they have worked with "about twenty participants, almost all of whom came to us without any prior experience," and that "almost all" succeeded to their own satisfaction. Walker dismisses this as qualitative and argues that initial results are often marginal, and that experimenters should not have license to select subjects based on self-evaluation.

Protoscientific vs. Pseudoscientific Efforts

Marcello Truzzi, in his reply, clarifies the position of Zetetic Scholar. He states that while he hopes authors persuade each other, the primary audience is the general readership, who can better understand positions through open discussions. He believes that poor arguments or evidence will be displayed publicly. Truzzi acts as a referee, aiming to keep his own reactions out until dialogues are complete.

Truzzi clarifies that ZS does set limits, restricting space to protoscientific efforts that seek to operate within science's ground rules. He has rejected metaphysical essays and will reject claims not supported by a positive scientific program. He uses the example of Creationism, which he sees as coupling anti-evolutionism with no positive scientific research program, thus being pseudoscientific.

He addresses the Flat Earthers, stating that while arguments for a flat earth are not "scientific enough" for ZS, it's not just because the claim is outrageous, but because there is no group of scientists arguing for it as a protoscientific case. He notes that the Flat Earth Society is largely composed of members who see the claim as a joke.

Truzzi emphasizes the importance of patience and tolerance in the zetetic posture but does not share pessimism about the final outcome of scientific inquiry. He believes science as a whole is an etic enterprise, and any use of emic perspective must be intersubjectively verifiable.

Finally, Truzzi comments on Dr. Krippner's willingness to consider the hypothesis of human tissue turning into animal tissue. He clarifies that Krippner was not seriously suggesting this as an alternative but was discussing the need to examine underlying assumptions and inventory logically possible alternatives. Truzzi states that Krippner does not take this alternative seriously as an empirical matter.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the definition and practice of scientific inquiry, the challenges of interdisciplinary or inter-belief system communication, and the rigorous evaluation of experimental methodology. The editorial stance, as articulated by Marcello Truzzi, favors openness to protoscientific endeavors that adhere to scientific ground rules, while firmly rejecting pseudoscience. The issue highlights the importance of critical examination of evidence, methodology, and the underlying assumptions and worldviews that shape interpretations of phenomena, particularly in the controversial field of parapsychology.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, dated 1981, is primarily composed of critical reviews and scholarly analyses of topics related to parapsychology, pseudoscience, and astrology. The content delves into experimental methodologies, the validity of claims, and the scientific versus pseudoscientific approaches to understanding various phenomena.

Article 1: Response to Comments on Remote Viewing Experiments

This section addresses comments made by Evan Harris Walker regarding earlier reports on remote viewing experiments, likely conducted by Edward W. Karnes. The author clarifies distinctions between experimenter sifting of data and judge sifting, and retracts an earlier example of alleged data selection in the Hammid series, regretting its use. The author also clarifies the methodology used in their own experiments, emphasizing that judges visited only one target site and matched transcripts to it. The author defends the distinctiveness of their target sites, countering Walker's concern about judges being confused by similar features. A key point of contention is Walker's vague reasoning regarding the equation of significance levels and information measures, specifically how a .05 probability relates to 4.32 bits of information and the number of relevant matching statements.

Article 2: Review of 'Flim-Flam! : The Truth about Unicorns, Parapsychology, and Other Delusions' by James Randi

Reviewed by Milborne Christopher, this section discusses James Randi's book, which aims to debunk paranormal claims. Randi is described as a 'peppery Canadian magician, escapologist, and crusader against irrational thinking.' The book tackles topics such as fairy photographs, the Bermuda Triangle, UFO sightings, Stanford Research Institute's remote viewing ventures, biorhythm theories, and psychic surgery. Randi's approach is characterized as direct and sometimes blunt, with strong criticisms of figures like Uri Geller, Russell Targ, and Harold Puthoff. The review highlights Randi's dissection of Uri Geller's feats, including confessions from Geller's former manager, Yasha Katz, who admitted to assisting Geller. The review notes Randi's critique of SRI's mind-reach experiments, suggesting poor controls and faulty observations. It also mentions Randi's confrontations with other alleged psychics like Suzie Cottrell, Jean-Pierre Girard, and Sue Wallace. The reviewer suggests that Randi's book may extinguish the 'last spark' of interest in such 'miracle mongers,' though acknowledges that they appeal to the gullible. An editor's note adds controversy surrounding the book's accuracy and suggests further reading.

Article 3: Review of 'The Astrology Game' by Malcolm Dean

Reviewed by Don. H. Saklofske, this section critically examines Malcolm Dean's attempt to vindicate astrology. The review points out the ambiguity in Dean's definition of astrology, which shifts between a broad study of relationships and a more specific focus on 'planetary influences.' The review criticizes Dean's acceptance of evidence, noting his willingness to agree with results that support astrology (like the Gauquelins' findings) while balking at negative data. Dean's arguments for astrology's validity are deemed unpersuasive, including his reliance on anecdotal evidence and the claim that one must work with horoscopes to observe their powers. The review also discusses Dean's arguments for archaeoastrology, dismissing the idea that ancient prevalence equates to validity. It highlights Dean's discussion of 'promising techniques' in astrology, such as the 'Jupiter-Saturn cycle,' which the reviewer suggests are based on methodological flaws and arbitrary data manipulation. The review concludes by agreeing with Dean's statement that science and astrology are 'light years apart.'

Books Briefly Noted

This section provides concise annotations for several books related to the themes of the magazine. These include:

• *The Parapsychological Impact of the Accident at Three Mile Island* by Larry E. Arnold, noted for its provocative cases but weak methodology.
• *The Structure of Magic, I: A Book about Language and Therapy* by Richard Bandler and John Grinder, described as a remarkable linguistic analysis of counseling.
• *Psi Trek* by Laile E. Bartlett, a journalistic tour of psi activities, but criticized for being uncritical of psychics.
• *The Oceans* by Robert Barton, a survey of oceans, noted for its nice sections on Atlantis and continental drift but an uninformed section on the Bermuda triangle.
• *Impromptu Magic from the Magic Castle* edited by Leo Behnke, a conjuring collection with effects simulating paranormal abilities.
• *Alien Animals* by Janet and Colin Bord, an excellent introduction to cryptozoology.
• *Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology* edited by Jean-Louis Brau, Helen Weaver, and Allan Edmands, called a useful book for its coverage but strictly uncritical.
• *The Gemini Syndrome: Star Wars of the Oldest Kind* by R.B. Culver and P.A. Janna, described as a critical but well-informed look at astrology by astronomers.
• *The Ragged Edge of Science* by L. Sprague de Camp, a collection of essays on mysteries and pseudoscience, noted for its entertaining debunking efforts.
• *The Etherean Invasion* by John De Herrera, a narrative that superficially appears pro-UFO but ends up debunking the case.
• *Death and the Magician: The Mystery of Houdini* by Raymond Fitzsimons, a biography concentrating on Houdini's spiritualist activities.
• *Casebook of a UFO Investigator* by Raymond E. Fowler, described as sensational and unconvincing but fascinating.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of claims in parapsychology and astrology, with a strong emphasis on scientific methodology and evidence. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of pseudoscientific claims, advocating for rigorous analysis and debunking unsubstantiated assertions. The magazine actively engages with and critiques popular beliefs and the works of authors who promote them, while also highlighting the importance of scientific criteria in evaluating such phenomena.

This document is page 139-146 of "Zetetic Scholar", issue number 6, published in English. It primarily consists of book reviews covering a wide array of topics related to the paranormal, skepticism, and the sociology of science.

Book Reviews

The issue features reviews of numerous books, offering critical and descriptive summaries. The reviews cover works on:

• Ufology and Anomalies:
• "Polywater" by Felix Franks, an analysis of a "pathological science" episode.
• "Paranormal Borderlands of Science" edited by Kendrick Frazier, a collection from "The Skeptical Inquirer".
• "The Dyfed Enigma: Unidentified Flying Objects in West Wales" by Randall Jones Pugh and F.W. Holliday, which presents a flying saucer wave from 1974-77.
• "The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence" by Robert Sheaffer, which is slated for a future review.
• "The UFO Encyclopedia" by Margaret Sachs, a compendium of the international UFO scene.
• "Psychic Nexus: Psychic Phenomena in Psychiatry and Everyday Life" by Berthold Eric Schwarz, a psychiatrist's work on psychical research and ufology, noted as uncritical.
• "UFOs and the Limits of Science" by Ronald D. Story and J. Richard Greenwell, a survey of UFO cases.
• "Signs of the Gods" by Erich von Däniken, viewed as more fiction than evidence for ancient astronauts.
• "Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon" by Kenneth Wylie, a sympathetic look at the phenomenon and the Patterson-Gimlin film.

• Psychic Phenomena and Parapsychology:
• "Further Confessions of a Psychic" by Uriah Fuller, an expose of pseudopsychics.
• "The Structure of Magic, II: A Book about Communication and Change" by John Grinder and Richard Bandler, on verbal and non-verbal communication in psychotherapy.
• "Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence" edited by Marjorie M. Halpin and Michael M. Ames, a scholarly look at Sasquatch.
• "Science, Pseudoscience and Society" edited by Marsha P. Hanen, M.J. Osler, and R.G. Weyant, discussing the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience.
• "The Metal Benders" by John Hasted, on psychokinetic investigations.
• "Revolutions & Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science" by Mary Hesse, relevant to social processes in science.
• "Miracle Mongers and Their Methods: A Complete Expose" by Harry Houdini, a reissue noted as having pseudo-explanations.
• "Planet X and Pluto" by William Graves Hoyt, a history of planetary discovery.
• "Glimpses Through a Looking Glass: Four Psychics and Their Readings on the Subject of Unexplained Cattle Mutilations" by Peter A. Jordan, an investigation into cattle mutilations.
• "Psychoenergetic Systems: The Interaction of Consciousness, Energy and Matter" edited by Stanley Krippner, on parapsychology with an emphasis on Soviet efforts.
• "Human Possibilities: Mind Exploration in the USSR and Eastern Europe" by Stanley Krippner, on psychic healing and suggestology in the Soviet bloc.
• "The Talking Ape" by Keith Laidler, about teaching speech to an orangutan.
• "Folk Tales and Fairy Lore in Gaelic and English" collected by James MacDougall.
• "The Elusive Science: Origins of Experimental Psychical Research" by Seymour H. Mauskopf and Michael R. McVaugh, highly recommended.
• "Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science" edited by Helga Nowotny and Hilary Rose, including papers on "Is Anti-science not Science? The Case of Parapsychology".
• "The Invisible Picture: A Study of Psychic Experiences" by Louisa A. Rhine, a study of spontaneous psychic experiences.
• "Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death Experience" by Kenneth Ring, on near-death experiences.
• "In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America" edited by Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony.
• "Self-Suggestion and Its Influence on the Human Organism" by A.S. Romen, on self-suggestion and preventative medicine.
• "Psychic Nexus" by Berthold Eric Schwarz, on psychical research and ufology.
• "The Rediscovery of Ireland's Past: The Celtic Revival, 1830-1930" by Jeanne Sheehy, on Irish identity and occult interests.
• "No Good-byes: My Search into Life Beyond Death" by Adela Rogers St. Johns, a personal testimonial on survival.
• "A Practical Guide to Death and Dying" by John White, a work on coping with anxiety and fear of death.
• "The Satanic Cult" by Gerhard Zacharias, on the Satan-Cult and the Black Mass.

• Philosophy and Skepticism:
• "The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza" by Richard H. Popkin, a revised edition of a classic work.

• Sociology of Science and New Religions:
• "The New Vigilantes: Deprogrammers, Anti-Cultists, and the New Religions" by Anson D. Shupe Jr. and David G. Bromley, a sociological study.
• "Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science" edited by Helga Nowotny and Hilary Rose.

• Other:
• "The Rainmakers: American "Pluviculture" to World War II" by Clark C. Spence, a history of attempts to produce rain.

About the Contributors

The issue also provides a list of contributors to "Zetetic Scholar," including their academic affiliations and areas of expertise. Notable contributors include John Beloff (psychology), Milbourne Christopher (conjurer), Jerome Clark (author on paranormal), Richard F. Haines (NASA scientist), Charles Honorton (parapsychology researcher), Stanley Krippner (parapsychologist), Aime Michel (ufologist), and D. Scott Rogo (parapsychologist).

Coming in Future Issues

Future issues of "Zetetic Scholar" are announced to include a dialogue on the "Mars Effect," a look at "Patterns of Belief in Religious, Psychic and Other Paranormal Phenomena," new observations on cold reading by Ray Hyman, reports on psychic detectives, information on Edgar Cayce, a bibliography on U.S. and Soviet psi research, and the role of conjurors in psychical research.

A Plea for Your Help

The publication makes a plea for reader support to ensure its survival, noting that only 600 copies are published and seeking 500 regular subscribers to eliminate its deficit. It emphasizes its goal of bringing responsible dialogues between critics and proponents to a science-oriented audience.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of paranormal claims, the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, and the sociology of scientific belief. The editorial stance appears to be one of encouraging rigorous, fair-minded dialogue and critical evaluation of evidence, as evidenced by the selection of books reviewed and the publication's stated mission. There is a clear interest in both skeptical analyses and in understanding the phenomena and research within parapsychology and ufology, often from a scientific or sociological perspective.