Review of book: "Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, Other Pseudoscience"

[Mike D.]

Here is a link to physicist Freeman J. Dyson's review of a book entitled Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, Other Pseudoscience. Thought some here might find it of interest.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Here is a link to physicist Freeman J. Dyson's review of a book entitled Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, Other Pseudoscience. Thought some here might find it of interest.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991

Interesting reading Mike :) I'll make some more observations tomorrow perhaps.

[Clancie]

Hi Mike,

Yes, I agree the book sounds like a good read. The two physicist-authors have taken the task of showing some of the tricks deceivers use and Dyson (of course, a brilliant physicist himself) commends them for doing so.

Of course, what I found most relevant re: our discussions was Dyson's disagreement with the authors about paranormal phenomena. He applauds their efforts to expose frauds and charlatans, and to lay bare the tricks of deceivers who make paranormal claims, "Whether paranormal phenomena exist or not, the evidence for their existence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud."

Here is how Dyson describes the two different epistemologies of science, the first represented by the authors of this book, and the other, closer to his own:
From Dyson's review

There are two extreme points of view concerning the role of science in human understanding. At one extreme is the reductionist view, holding that all kinds of knowledge, from physics and chemistry to psychology and philosophy and sociology and history and ethics and religion, can be reduced to science. Whatever cannot be reduced to science is not knowledge.

At the other extreme is the traditional view, that knowledge comes from many independent sources, and science is only one of them. Knowledge of...human nature derived from history and literature or from intimate acquaintance with family and friends, knowledge of the nature of things derived from meditation or from religion...all are sources of knowledge that stand side by side with science, parts of a human heritage that is older than science and perhaps more enduring. ...

Charpak and Broch are close to the reductionist extreme, while I am close to the traditional extreme.

He goes on to add that how one feels toward this issue of the limits of science relates to how one views the possibility of paranormal phenomena generally.

Here is Dyson's view. (one which has few adherents here):

I claim that paranormal phenomena may really exist but may not be accessible to scientific investigation. This is a hypothesis. I am not saying that it is true, only that it is tenable, and to my mind plausible.
I think few here will agree with his hypothesis--that paranormal phenomena may really exist but are outside the scope of science to verify. I am sure many here will disagree with him that this hypothesis is supported by "a great mass of evidence", including that compiled by the SPR.

Dyson agrees with the reductionists that the SPR and other accounts are anecdotal (not laboratory-based), but considers it as "evidence" nonetheless. He continues his theory...

I am suggesting that paranormal mental abilities and scientific method may be "complementary" (as used by Bohr). It means that two descriptions of nature may both be valid but cannot be observed simultaneously.
Good reading, Mike, though I assume Dyson will quickly be branded a crackpot and "Dismissed!"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dyson said:
Charpak and Broch and I agree that attempts to study extrasensory perception and telepathy using the methods of science have failed.
...
I claim that paranormal phenomena may really exist but may not be accessible to scientific investigation.
...
Before we can begin to evaluate the evidence, we must get rid of the hucksters and charlatans who have turned unsolved mysteries into a profitable business.
It seems he can't quite make up his mind about it. If it's not accessible to scientific investigation, there's no reason to worry about the hucksters and charlatans.

~~ Paul

[Clancie]

Posted by Paul Anagnostopolous

It seems he can't quite make up his mind about it. If it's not accessible to scientific investigation, there's no reason to worry about the hucksters and charlatans.
Your irony meter is still on for this comment, right, Paul?

Because whether something can be scientifically investigated or not, we always should try every way to prevent hucksters and charlatans.

I still really like Dyson's idea of complementarity. And, again, this quote of his sums up the relationship I think of between science and the paranormal quite well:

From Dyson

I claim that paranormal phenomena may really exist but may not be accessible to scientific investigation. This is a hypothesis. I am not saying that it is true, only that it is tenable, and to my mind plausible.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Clancie said:
Because whether something can be scientifically investigated or not, we always should try every way to prevent hucksters and charlatans.
Sure, but Dyson implied that the reason we should do so was "Before we can begin to evaluate the evidence ...". However, prior to that he wondered whether evaluating the evidence is even possible. That's why I think he can't make up his mind. Not that he's obliged to, of course.

I claim that paranormal phenomena may really exist but may not be accessible to scientific investigation.
This seems an awful lot like "It really exists, but we can't know it." I wonder what's another example of something that really exists, but science can't touch it?

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This seems an awful lot like "It really exists, but we can't know it." I wonder what's another example of something that really exists, but science can't touch it?

~~ Paul

I don't think so, because he said "may really exist", not "really exists".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991 [/B]


The article states:


The history of the card-guessing experiments, carried out initially by Joseph Rhine at Duke University and later by many other groups following Rhine's methods, is a sorry story. A number of experiments that claimed positive results were later proved to be fraudulent. Those that were not fraudulent were plagued by the same three obstacles that frustrated our efforts. It is difficult, expensive, and tedious to impose controls rigorous enough to eliminate the possibility of fraud. And even after such controls have been imposed, the conclusions of a series of experiments can be strongly biased by selective reporting of the results. Littlewood's Law applies to experimental results as well as to the events of daily life. A session with a noticeably high percentage of correct guesses is a miracle according to Littlewood's definition. If a large number of experiments are done by various groups under various conditions, miracles will occasionally occur. If miracles are selectively reported, they are experimentally indistinguishable from real occurrences of telepathy.


He seems to be quite ignorant of parapsychological research. I do not believe that parapsychological research is in anymore of a sorry state than say psychology. If the same results obtained in parapsychology had been obtained in psychology, they would have been accepted without question. Sure, one or two results were achieved by fraudulent means, but certainly no worse than in any other area of science.

Parapsychology has tighter controls then any other area of science. The number of unreported experiments would have to be truly stupendous to offset the positive results. Indeed, a truly unrealistic number, which is simply not supported by the data. And besides there is an official policy in parapsychology to report all results (unlike any other area of science).

I absolutely do not disagree with anything else he says though. And it is the anecdotes plus my underlying philosophical interpretation of reality which convinces me of the reality of various paranormal phenomena. But I believe the scientific research supports those anecdotes, even though we cannot ever expect to achieve the same effects in the lab as spontaneous experiences.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Parapsychology has tighter controls then any other area of science.
Yeah, but so what? It doesn't have any theories, so the controls have to be perfect, which they can never be.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Parapsychology has tighter controls then any other area of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, but so what? It doesn't have any theories, so the controls have to be perfect, which they can never be.


~~ Paul

Consciousness doesn't have any theories, and therefore, a fortiori, neither will psi. Doesn't mean to say either consciousness or psi doesn't exist though.

Of course you could beg the question and say that consciousness is numerically identical to certain neurons firing, or numerically identical to a given function. {shrugs} You know my opinion here.

Fraud and/or sensory leakage can never be absolutely ruled out, this is true. But simply because something is remotely possible doesn't make it at all likely.