Was National Geographic Unfair to Telepathy?

[Wowbagger]

Here is my next question related to a book I am forcing myself to read. (The first question was here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138164 )

This one refers to a particular episode of National Geographic's Naked Science series, that aired February 2005, entitled "Telepathy".

I have not seen the whole episode, yet. All I have seen are the edited clips shown here: http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoclips/NatGeo/natgeo.html .

Those clips, unfortunately, leave out the critical analysis segments the book refers to.

That book is Outside the Gates of Science by Damien Broderick. And, here is what it says about the critics (on page 113):

The experts were unimpressed. All of this, they said dismissively, was undoubtedly nothing better than a coincidence. After all, Dr. May had one chance in six of selecting the target by absolute guesswork... The copious valid and surprising details were ignored. Because it couldn't happen, therefore it hadn't happened.


So, who is being unfair here?

1. The critics National Geographic chose to interview, for reasons quoted above.

OR

2. The quote is misleading. The critics actually gave a better explanation than simply "it was a coincidence". And, perhaps the author was not paying attention to them, or something.

Since I did not see the whole episode, yet, I can only speculate that number 2 is most likely correct. I am hoping someone else could shed some more light on this.

If you saw the whole episode, your input would be most appreciated.

If not, you can still contribute your own thoughts and critiques of the experiment: Act as a surrogate critic, until I am able to view the actual ones from the episode.

-------------
And one more question, tangently related: How can I acquire a copy of the whole episode (legally, please)? Nat Geo's store does not seem to have that show on DVD.

[fuelair]

Haven't seen the show, but as long as they indicated with clarity and resoluteness for all, that it was totally bogus they are fine!!

[Wowbagger]

Haven't seen the show, but as long as they indicated with clarity and resoluteness for all, that it was totally bogus they are fine!!I would think the quality of the arguments of the critics, would be more important than its "clarity" or "resoluteness".

[Limbo]

Maybe this is the full episode:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6014212716610409915&ei=xC_OScKzC6DA-AHFq9nQAg&q=National+Geographic+Naked+Science+telepathy&emb=1

[Wowbagger]

Maybe this is the full episode:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6014212716610409915&ei=xC_OScKzC6DA-AHFq9nQAg&q=National+Geographic+Naked+Science+telepathy&emb=1 Ah, good find!

I shall watch it all later, today.

[Limbo]

If you have the time you might find this relevant and interesting:

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

[Wowbagger]

Well, having seen the entire episode, from the Google Video link, I can't help but feel a little disappointed at both the show and the quote.

There were no hired critics of the experiment interviewed, here. The negative critiques were communicated straight from the narrator. It would have been better to have some expert: a statician, a scientist, or a "debunker" such as James Randi, on the show, explaining in detail how the results are considered insignificant in the realm of real science.

But, the quote is also somewhat wrong. The "copious valid and surprising details" were NOT ignored. They were rightfully dismissed as retro-fitting, and most of his "details" were actually very fuzzy.

It is strictly true that the 1-in-6 chance May would pick the right photos, was dismissed as mere coincidence, with little further explanation. But, the show also claims the test was not made under laboratory controlled conditions, so we will never truly know if there was any leak in knowledge. (Still, it would be nice if there were more interesting comments than that.)

Damien Broderick (see the OP) also gets something else wrong in his book. He claims Naked Science deliberately "...set up demonstrations that couldn't (by the producer's standards, or perhaps by any reasonable standards) prove the reality of psi." (page 114, author's italics)

However, it is clear from context that the protocols were the psi experimenter's chosen conditions. The producers were NOT setting up their own experiment. The angle of the show was to observe how psi experimenters do their own thing.
If a skeptic, such as James Randi, was in charge of the protocols, they would have been much stricter.

I am not going to comment much on the other segments in the show, except to say that even Broderick seems to agree that there could easily have been leakage in the young twin's experiment, since they were in the same house, and not completely isolated.
(Of course, Broderick uses that fact to claim this was the producer's own fault. But, again, it is clear that this is how psi experimenters normally seem to work. And, if the experiment was meant to be skeptical, it probably would have been tighter.)