1989 CIA Workshop Report on Experimental Parapsychology - International Security and Commerce Program

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Report of a
Workshop on Experimental Parapsychology

International Security and Commerce Program
Office of Technology Assessment
United States Congress

February 22, 1989

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2


Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
International Security and Commerce Program

Workshop

September 30, 1988

Professor James Alcock
Glendon College
Toronto, Canada

Daryl Bem

Professor of Psychology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY

Charles Honorton

Director

Psychophysical Research Laboratories
Princeton, NJ

Ray Hyman

Professor of Psychology
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR

Rapporteur
Courtland Lewis
Arlington, VA

Approved For Release 2003/09/09

Robert G. Jahn

Professor of Aerospace Studies
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

John Palmer

Institute of Parapsychology
College Station

Durham, NC

Theodore Rockwell
Chevy Chase, MD

Marcello Truzzi

Department of Sociology
Eastern Michigan University
Ann Arbor, MI

Jessica Utts

Professor

University of California, Davis
Davis, CA

Chairman
Alan Shaw
Office of Technology Assessment

: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

CONTENTS
-T. INTRODUCTION 2... i.e cece cee cee tence cnet ent eneneteeeneenenns 3
Historical Background .......... cece ccc e eee cece e rene cncneeeteeecunens 3
Nature of Research ............ See e eee eee cece te eneneeeeneeeennaees 3
Recent Controversy .... ccc eee eee e nee e eee n eee eneeteeeeeeeuneus 4
Purpose of the OTA Workshop ........... ccc cece cece cece eceeevceeeueanene 6
II. DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS ......... cc ccc cccecececccveeeueucevenes 7
Methodology 1... . ccc cece eee cece cee enue eee sent eneeesenbenseneeves 7
Replicability ..... ccc ccc ccc cece cee teen tence eee eaeteeneterenens 9
Criteria for Acceptable Experiments ........ 0. ccc cece ccc vcccucccccccce 11
IIT. ANALYSIS OF DATA 2... cece cece cece cece een eeneceteueunenenes 12
IV. THE MEANING OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ....... cc ccc cecececececvceueucvens 16
Assessments of Meaning and Meaningfulness .........0 cece ceecececeaees 16
What Would Constitute Proof of Psi? .... ccc cee ce cece eee cnc caeeneees 18
Conflicting Orientations ............ bocce e eee e eee eeeceeeucneeeentaees 19
Need for a Theory of Psi vo... ccc e eee cc ee cee cece tenets eee cneneenns 20
V. RELATION OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY TO THE BROADER WORLD OF SCIENCE ............ 20
Is Parapsychology a Science? ................ Tce eee cece cece veceeees 20
Resistance by "Establishment" Science ........ 0... cc cece cee e eee eccuas 21
Choices for the Future 1... .. ieee ccc cee tee cece eee eect nterenanes 22

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

I. INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The modern field of study known as parapsychology grew directly out of
19th-century "psychical research" into reported psychic phenomena such as
telepathy and clairvoyance. The field had its earliest roots in various
investigations into a wide range of supernatural, occult, and mystical topics
reaching far back into human cultural history. However, the field did not
become formalized as an arena of organized scholarly research until 1882, with
the establishment in London of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). A
U.S. counterpart, the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), was
founded in 1885. Both societies still exist today.

From the beginning, the field represented by these organizations has been
highly controversial. Although it has occasionally attracted and engaged
well-known scientists, it has generally encountered substantial resistance and
criticism from the scientific "establishment" on the basis of its aims and
methods. To its detriment, parapsychology has had difficulty in freeing
itself of association, in the minds of those outside the field, with extreme
and unsubstantiated claims, commercial ventures of questionable validity, and
a certain amount of quasi-scientific "research" carried out in its general
area of inquiry.

NATURE OF RESEARCH

Throughout this century a considerable body of parapsychology research
has been conducted in a manner that attempts deliberately to follow scientific
methodology. The research approaches most often derive from and resemble
research in psychology, although a few programs based on engineering and
applied science have recently appeared. A seminal example of academic
research in the field was the work of J.B. Rhine and Louisa Rhine at Duke
University, beginning in the 1920s. The Rhines established many of the basic
concepts and protocols of modern parapsychology. In 1937, they founded The
Journal of Parapsychology, which is perhaps the leading journal in the field
today.

The general focus of parapsychological research is on "psychic
phenomena," or "psi," which is defined as "processes of information and/or
energy exchange which involve animate consciousness in a manner not currently
explicable in terms of known science."2 The field can be divided into several
major categories and subcategories, as shown in Table 1. Most (but not all)
of the parapsychological research in laboratory settings involves categories I
and IT.

1 For a detailed examination of the development of parapsychology, see: Jahn,
R.G. & B.J. Dunne. Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the
Physical World, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1987.

2 Jahn, R.G. The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering
perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1982, 70(2): 136-170.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

RECENT CONTROVERSY

In 1957 a professional organization in the field, the Parapsychological
Association (PA), was formed. (Unlike the SPR, membership in the PA requires
formal recognition of professional status by the Association's Council.) It
was accepted as an affiliate by the American Association for the Advancement

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

TABLE 1

CATEGORIES OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA

I. Extrasensory Perception (ESP)

. Telepathy

Clairvoyance
Precognition/Retrocognition
Animal ESP

GAWP

II. Psychokinesis (PK)
A. Physical Systems (equipment, etc.)
B. Biological Systems

TII.Survival
A. Reincarnation

B. Apparitions
C. Mediumship

IV. Out-of-Body Experiences (OBE)

SOURCE: Jahn, R.G. The persistent paradox of psychic
phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the
IEEE, 1982, 70(2): 136-170.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
. 6

of Science (AAAS) in 1969, signaling a tentative new status and recognition of
the fleld. In 1976 a group of philosophers: magicians, science writers,
scientists, and others concerned about a widespread increase in popular interest
in the occult formed a Committee for thé ‘Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal (CSICOP) .3 CSICOP and a number of affiliated local groups have
since become a primary source of criticism and skepticism directed primarily at
highly publicized claims of the paranormal, but often extending more generally
to the field of parapsychology. A highly charged and long-running debate has
emerged, featuring charges and countercharges between members of CSICOP and the
scientific community, on the one hand, and members of the parapsychological
community, on the other.

One recent chapter of that debate appeared in the March 1985 issue of The
Journal of Parapsychology, in which a leading parapsychology researcher (Charles
Honorton) and a leading psychologist and critic (Ray Hyman) presented their
views on the nature of one category of parapsychology experiments .4 In the
December 1986 issue of the same journal, the two published a "joint communique"
in which they explored in a constructive manner areas of agreement and
disagreement regarding experiment design, documentation, and data analysis.°
(Both individuals participated in the OTA workshop.) Another landmark
publication appeared in 1987: a substantial portion of one issue of Behavioral
and Brain Sciences was devoted to articles and letters on the subject.

The most recent episode in the continuing controversy over the field
appeared in the form of a December 1987 report by the National Research Council
(NRC), which evaluated parapsychology along with other possible mechanisms for
enhancing the performance of U.S. Army personnel.’ The NRC's evaluation of the
potential of parapsychology was generally negative, prompting strenuous and
detailed claims of bias and unfairness from the parapsychological community .§

PURPOSE OF THE OTA WORKSHOP
It was in this context that the OTA workshop took place. OTA examined

parapsychology at the request of its oversight body, the Technology Assessment
Board, which expressed interest in the human potential aspect of

3 It should be noted that few scientists were involved in the creation of
CSICOP. Although today many of its Fellows are scientists, the organization
has always been led and operated by non-scientists.

4 Hyman, R. The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal. and Honorton,
C. Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response to Hyman. The Journal
of Parapsychology, 1985, 49(1): 3-91.

5 Hyman, R. & C. Honorton. A joint communique: The psi ganzfeld controversy.
The Journal of Parapsychology, 1986, 50(4): 351-364.

6 Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10(4).

7 National Research Council. Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories,
and Techniques. Report of the Committee on Techniques for the Enhancement of

Human Performance, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.

8 See, for example: Palmer, J.A., C. Honorton, & J. Utts. "Reply to the
National Research Council Study on Parapsychology." Special report prepared
for the Board of Directors of the Parapsychological Association, Inc.,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1988.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
7

parapsychological research. This workshop and report are OTA's response to that
interest. OTA's intention in holding the workshop was not to continue the
debate described above, but to illuminate it by identifying the main points of
contention and the reasons for them. For that reason, background materials were
researched to provide a fuller elucidation of some issues not adequately aired
in the course of the one-day meeting.

Discussion was limited to the area of laboratory parapsychology.
Participants represented three groups: researchers in parapsychology,
constructive critics of the field, and knowledgeable individuals who follow the
field from a position of more neutral interest or involvement. Although the
meeting was to some extent an occasion for spirited debate, no attempt has been
made to “score” that debate. This report will describe the controversies only
to the extent that they bear on OTA's inquiry into the status of the field.

II. DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS

Controversy in the area of experiment design and conduct appears to center
around the two issues of flaws in methodology and replicability of experiments.

METHODOLOGY

One of the most persistent and perhaps most damaging charges leveled by the
eritics is that various flaws in the design and conduct of nearly all
parapsychology experiments render their results scientifically less meaningful
than they are reported to be -- and, in fact, often account for the results.
Parapsychologists dispute this charge, saying that most of the alleged flaws
have little or no effect on the experimental findings that indicate "psi," and
that much research in psychology (the home discipline of many critics) -- and
indeed in many other fields of science -- exhibits similar flaws without
encountering comparable criticism and questioning of the results. They say the
question of flaws is highly subjective, with individual views differing widely
over what distinguishes an experimental "flower" from an experimental "weed."
Further, the parapsychologists claim, this criticism is a red herring intended
to tarnish the image of parapsychology within the scientific community and the
public and to impede broader awareness of findings and progress in the field.
Those at the workshop asserted strenuously that they and their colleagues make
every effort to conduct their experiments in the most rigorous manner possible.
The real issue, they say, is what constitutes a flaw. The types of flaws that
have been brought into question include purported procedural flaws such as:

° inadequate precautions against "sensory leakage" (for example, allowing
subjects in a telepathy experiment to examine the same "target", such as a
photograph, that had been handled earlier by a person serving as "sender")

o inadequate security provisions (e.g., to prevent tampering with equipment)
o improper randomization techniques (such as hand shuffling of cards)
o feedback (such as failure to randomize targets before presenting them to

the subject for judging)
incomplete documentation of experimental procedures
o inconsistency of conditions and procedures used in an experiment.

3°

Also at issue are various purported analytical and statistical flaws, including:
o multiple testing or analysis (i.e., to find the test or analysis that gives

the most positive "effect size" for psi)

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

© underestimation of the effective error rate and overestimation of the
actual significance level
© erroneous use of particular statistical procedures.

In their joint communique, Honorton argued that there is "no significant
correlation between indices of study quality [flaws] and study outcome." Hyman
agreed in most cases, but insisted that there is a positive correlation in the
case of poor randomization, feedback, and inadequate documentation. ? (This
assertion was rebutted in a later analysis. )10 Workshop participants generally
agreed that in any event the "flawless," perfect experiment is very rare in any
field, if it exists at all. The point of the issue, critics say, is that the
presence of a flaw usually implies inadequate controls for error. The most
stringent among them believe that an apparently successful experiment cannot be
considered to have demonstrated a true anomaly (i.e., a possible psi effect)
unless it can be shown that the experiment is completely flawless. The
parapsychologists counter that any such flaws should be an issue only if they
could have systematically influenced the result.

Another point made by parapsychologists is that, by and large, the critics
have done very little experimentation in parapsychology. Therefore, they have
little awareness of the difficulties encountered or of what the truly
significant flaws might be. Indeed, the parapsychologists note, there could be
additional flaws that have not yet been considered and which critics could
identify through actual experimentation.

The NRC report distinguished three types of criticisms relating to flaws in
experiment design and conduct.+1 First is what is called the “smoking gun," in
which observed findings are said to be definitely attributable to a specific
flaw or other factor (such as deliberate fraud) that is shown to be present.
Second, and more common, is the “plausible alternative" allegation that a
particular flaw is present and could have produced the reported results. Third
is the "dirty test tube" concept, which alleges not that a particular discovered
flaw produced the positive result but simply that the presence of flaws in the
experiment demonstrates a general sloppiness which brings the results into
question. In other words, if results have been obtained under conditions that
fail to meet "generally accepted standards" for scientific research (such as
clean test tubes), that fact alone casts doubt on the accuracy and validity of
the results. The authors of the NRC report claimed that, while they could find
no instances of the "smoking gun" or "plausible alternative," even the best
parapsychology experiments exemplify the “dirty test tube" problem (an
allegation that has been heatedly disputed by parapsychologists).

Participants agreed that the burden of proof in the first two categories
should be on the critic making the allegation, as it is in other sciences where
an experiment is challenged on these grounds. In the case of the "dirty test
tube," the critics feel that the burden of proof should be on the experimenter.
This position brings from the parapsychologists the objection that it is non-

9 Hyman & Honorton, op. cit., p. 353.
10 Harris, M.J. & Rosenthal, R. "Interpersonal Expectancy Effects and the
Human Performance Research." Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.

(p. 3) .
11 National Research Council, op. cit., pp. 199-200.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
9

falsifiable -- that is, that there is no definitive defense against the charge
of "general sloppiness". Without detailed criteria for what constitutes
acceptable research, they say, criticism of an experiment cannot be anticipated
or refuted. In their view, it is an example of the unfairly high standards that
are set for parapsychology research, in which no amount of care is ever
"enough."

The critics present at the workshop tended to agree in principle with the
unfairness of "“non-falsifiability," but they believe that the "dirty test tube"
charge is nevertheless valid because the success of the experiments rests on
whether a small but significant departure from some statistical norm or observed
norm has in fact been seen, making it essential to eliminate extraneous factors.
Parapsychologists object that the charge itself is irrelevant -- that if the
‘alleged flaws or "dirt" have no demonstrable connection with the experimental
outcome, it is capricious to argue that the experiment is invalid.

The litany of charge and countercharge could be detailed much further.
Suffice it to say that the controversy surrounding parapsychology is nowhere
more heated and complex than in the area of experimental methodologies.

REPLICABILITY

For critics of parapsychology, a key argument against the existence of psi
phenomena is the difficulty of replicating (repeating) successful experiments --
a difficulty that also plagues many accepted areas of the social and behavioral
sciences. If the same effect could be produced many times by different
experimenters using different equipment but the same procedures, then the
likelihood that an extraneous variable is producing the effect would be much
lower and the validity level of the anomalous results would be higher. However,
positive results are in most cases maddeningly (to parapsychologists) difficult
to replicate, even with the same operator. (Because the effects seem to be
highly operator-specific, results are even more difficult to replicate with
different operators or groups of operators.)

Parapsychologists attribute this replicability problem to the elusiveness
and weakness of the psi "signal," and to its vulnerability to subtle subjective
factors, most of them unknown. Critics contend that the near non-replicability
merely demonstrates the effects of randomness combined with multiple flaws in
experiment design and conduct.

The parapsychologists are well aware that experimental flaws, both actual
and alleged, become less important as a phenomenon becomes more replicable.
Therefore, in recent years they have placed great emphasis on replicability. As
one noted in his presentation, "The final criterion of the success or failure of
my research program is the extent to which I'm able to develop procedures that I
can articulate with sufficient precision that other people are able to obtain
similar results."

In the case of ESP-oriented experiments (such as remote perception or
"panzfeld" psi experiments) , the number of these more standardized experiments
is still not large. There, parapsychologists have relied upon what is termed
"meta-analysis" of many studies, taken as a group, to give statistical
confirmation for a pattern of positive results. The rationale is that “an

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

— rl

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
10

experiment or an effect may be considered replicated if a series of replication
attempts provides statistically significant evidence for the original effect
when analyzed as a series."12 It is also contended that this approach allows
the analyst to assess methodological flaws to determine their effect empirically
across the data base.

Using the meta-analytic approach, parapsychologists have calculated an
overall "success" rate, in achieving statistically significant effects (p <.05),
of 45% for ganzfeld ESP studies and 21% for random event generator (REG)
studies. However, critics have objected strongly to these findings, saying that
many of the studies included are not directly comparable due to differences in
methodology. They also claim that many unsuccessful experiments have not been
published and are therefore not in the data base. This "file drawer problem",
they assert, artificially increases the success ratio and the overall effect
size.13 They also cite a corresponding “retrospective study" problem, in which
small exploratory studies are included in the data base after the fact if their
results turn out positive. 14 Furthermore, they believe, the proliferation of
flaws in methodology simply perpetuates the same erroneous results.15

The debate over replicability, particularly in the context of
meta-analysis, has been heated and continues to be so. However, the nature of
the controversy is currently being outlined in detail and areas of agreement are
being identified. For example, the recent joint communique by two of the
workshop participants refers to "the growing role we believe meta-analysis will
play, both in the evaluation of research quality and in the assessment of
moderating variables. We urge parapsychological investigators to plan and
report their experiments with the idea that their single experiment will
contribute to a future meta-analysis, "16

This idea relies in part on guidelines for greater uniformity in experiment
design and conduct which the two authors specified in their article. Such
uniformity or consistency is viewed as crucial by many moderate critics, who
point to the fact that there has never been a successful parapsychology
experiment which any and all competent researchers, following the same
procedure, can replicate exactly. As one of the workshop participants noted in
a recent article, "Although one cannot set precise standards that evidence of
psi must meet, judgment should be suspended until there is at least some
consistency among research findings from a body of methodologically
irreproachable experiments, at least some of which are repeatable [by any other
researcher]."17

12 Rao, K.R. & J. Palmer. The anomaly called psi: Recent research and
criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10(4): 539-551 (p. 544).
13 It should be noted that at least one critic (Hyman) has acknowledged the
file drawer problem to be less evident in parapsychology than in other areas

of science. (Hyman, R. & C. Honorton, op. cit., p.359)

14 The selective reporting of “positive” results by either nonreporting or
retrospective reporting is prohibited by Parapsychological Association
policy.

15 Hyman, R., op. cit., pp. 8-15.

16 Hyman, R. & C. Honorton, op. cit., p. 361.

17 Alcock, J.E. Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the
soul? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1987, 10(4): 553-565 (p. 559).

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
. 11

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE EXPERIMENTS

One challenge that parapsychologists face as they strive for greater
uniformity and more cleanly defined experimental methodologies is the variety of
(putative) phenomena and corresponding experiment types that are being pursued.
In the psi ganzfeld experimental regime, for example -- which focuses on ESP
effects -- the experimental setup, equipment, and methodology are quite
different from those employed in REG experiments, which attempt to measure
psychokinesis. Other types of remote viewing and PK experiments have still
other setups and protocols. Within each category, moreover, different
researchers use different setups, equipment, and methodologies from each other
and over time. This is true, of course, in any field of research; but the
critical scrutiny applied to parapsychology militates against the customary
flexibility.

The current movement in the direction of greater uniformity and cleaner
methodologies is thus, in large part, an attempt to strengthen the case for
parapsychology in defense against its critics. In their joint communique, Hyman
and Honorton made several recommendations for the design and conduct of future
psi ganzfeld experiments. In general, they said, such experiments should strive
for:

elimination of possible means of sensory leakage;
better procedures and documentation for the randomization of targets;
more thorough documentation of judging and feedback procedures;
avoidance of arbitrary multiple analyses;
avoidance of selective reporting of statistically significant results;
correct use of valid statistical tests and methods; and
painstakingly thorough documentation of experimental procedures and other
information on experimenters and subjects as well as certain raw data,

ooo coo oO

Detailed suggestions were made in each of these areas.19 The authors noted that
many of the recommendations would apply equally well to other types of
parapsychology research besides ganzfeld.

During the workshop, Robert Jahn described several criteria or "tactics"
that he and his colleagues had found to be "useful in helping us to understand
the phenomena that we are examining." While some were general suggestions for
improving the standing of the field as a whole, others were specific
recommendations for strengthening parapsychology experiments, particularly in
the PK area. The latter are:

o employ impeccable experimental equipment and technique, using the highest
possible 'precision;

o work with the largest possible data base (to separate the marginal effects
from background noise) ;

© concentrate on operator-specific, statistical replicability;

18 Ganzfeld, or "whole field," ESP experiments place the receiver in an
environment of reduced external stimuli for attempted receipt of a visual
image "transmitted" telepathically by a sender located remotely.

19 Hyman, R. & C. Honorton, op. cit., pp. 355-361.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
12

o use a "tripolar protocol," i.e., collect data under three interspersed
conditions (e.g., intention to raise the number of events, intention to
lower the number of events, and baseline); and

o within the experimental program, maintain equal respect for the
aesthetic/impressionistic and rigorous/analytical aspects of the research on
this unusual topic.

One additional point that was made repeatedly in the workshop regarded the
necessity of distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory (proof-
oriented) experiments. The former are generally shorter, more broadly defined,
and not reported. There was general agreement that the explorational objectives
should be clear and the temptation to report positive results as “proof" of a
hypothesis should be resisted. Instead, exploratory studies should be used to
suggest and develop hypotheses for later proof-oriented experiments which should
be highly defined and constrained. Exploratory studies can also be used to
develop and refine experimental procedures.

III. ANALYSIS OF DATA

As was noted earlier, the scientific evidence for psi consists chiefly of
statistically significant deviations from a theoretical chance expectation or
experiential baseline. Consequently, the validity of statistical analyses
employed is crucial to the strength and acceptability of parapsychological
claims.

According to Jessica Utts, a statistician participating in the OTA
workshop, parapsychologists in general tend to be more careful with statistical
methodology than researchers in other fields. They are generally more
responsive to criticism on this score than other researchers are, she said.
There is general understanding among them, Utts said, that human responses
cannot be assumed to be statistically random. It is also well understood that
selection of targets with replacement is preferable because it allows
independent trials. She also referred to the formal policy of parapsychology
for reporting negative results. However, it was noted, not all statistical
analysis by parapsychologists (or by their eritics) is of high caliber.

Much of the discussion centered around a single broad topic: how to inject
the maximum robustness and power into the empirical data base. It was
recommended that parapsychologists should confine themselves to methodologies
that yield such robust data that the outcome does not depend largely on subtle
statistical points. There was general agreement on the various suggestions that
were made to this end.

For example, there was considerable discussion of the traditional notion
that a "successful" experiment has a significance level (p value) of .05 or less
(meaning that there is no more than a 5 percent chance that the results are due
to chance). Partly as a result of this concept, Utts noted, nonsignificant
results (that is, where p >.05) are too often interpreted erroneously by critics
as insignificant results. An example was given to demonstrate that sample size
(n) has a substantial impact on the sta istical outcome; if n is small there is
very little chance for a "successful" outcome, even if relatively high actual
probabilities of success based on ESP are assumed. Meta-analysis of all the
forced-choice precognition experiments conducted from the 1930s on showed that

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
13

those with significant results had, on average, two and one-half times larger
sample sizes than those with nonsignificant results. Thus, large values of n
impart considerably greater "power" to the analysis. Power is, essentially, the
probability that the experiment is going to succeed. (This concept of power is
now being taught at the graduate level in statistics.) Table 2 illustrates how
power increases with increasing n.

At least one of the critics present argued that there is no correlation
between sample size and the probability of obtaining a significant outcome, but
Utts refuted that claim. It was agreed that the spread of data -- for example,
one or two "outliers" (data points far outside the general cluster) -- can
greatly weaken the correlation.

The statistician recommended that parapsychologists stop focusing on the
arbitrary, "sacrosanct" Dp <.05 and begin focusing, instead, on more meaningful
measures such as estimating the magnitude of the observed effect, looking for
consistency, and studying patterns across many studies. Meta-analysis is a way
to obtain much larger sample sizes and "hits." In an analysis of ganzfeld psi
studies with hit probability of .25 but which were nonsignificant (and thus
"failures"), combining the studies gave a p of .02 ("success"). This
recommendation met with general agreement.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
14

TABLE 2

"POWER" AS A FUNCTION. OF SAMPLE SIZE
FOR DIRECT HIT GANZFELD ANALYSIS
WITH CHANCE p=.25

Power
True_p n=10 n=100
.30 .047 .29
.33 .073 54
.40 . 166 94
.50 .377 9998
( = .02) ( .04)

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

15

It is well established that some individuals achieve greater effects than
others in psi experiments. Figure 1 shows the distribution of results across 33
operators (subjects) in a series of REG runs.29 Given this correlation of
individual operator identities and characteristics with some of the alleged psi
phenomena, it is also important to understand how individual operator effects
are related to collective effects. The point was made that, in seeking larger
data bases and greater (collective) significance levels, researchers should not
lose sight of individual effects by combining many operators. Scientifically,
the individual and group effects pose two distinct sets of questions.

Effect size is another crucial issue in parapsychology. From the
standpoint of practical significance, the effect appears to be quite small. In
the largest REG data base of over 750,000 trials (150 million bits), compiled at
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory over the past decade,
the overall means were shifted in the intended direction by only 0.035%. Figure
2 plots graphically the total cumulative deviations from baseline of all 33
operators in the program (accounting for 250,000 trials in each direction). 21
It can be seen that, while the deviation is well beyond the .05 significance
_ level, it is not an enormous effect -- although it is said to be beyond the
tolerance level of many contemporary microelectronics processors, communications
discriminators, and dedicated computational arrays.

Nevertheless, parapsychologists point out that psi effects, if indeed that
is what they are, could be amplified by information theory techniques such as
"majority vote counting." It is said that the effect size in the best ganzfeld
psi research is approximately equal to that found in the recent studies of
aspirin in heart attack prevention. And small effect sizes in physical
phenomena (e.g., the bending of light by gravity) have been very important in
the evolution of human knowledge in the past. Indeed, the evolution of life
itself depends on genetic mutations which occur at very low rates. In other
words, significance (in the "real world" sense) and effect size are two separate
considerations. It is not the magnitude of an event, but its centrality and
relevance to established beliefs or processes, that determines its importance.

Effect size means different things in the context of different types of
experiments. The average effect sizes found in psi ganzfeld experiments (about
.17 in one series of experiments described at the workshop) are several times
larger than those found in the REG work. The anomalies being displayed (if
indeed they are true anomalies) may well be of fundamentally different types.
The primary value of using effect sizes appears to be in compensating for
differences in sample size.

The key to satisfying proponents and critics of parapsychology may, in the
end, be replicability. If a "recipe" for replication of successful
parapsychology experiments could be developed, it would render moot many of the
issues of statistical analysis. However, failure to replicate does not disprove
the existence of psi; and the criteria for replicability can be difficult to

20 Dunne, B.J., et al. Individual operator contributions in large data base
anomalies experiments (Technical Note PEAR 88002). Research Report.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, July 1988.

21 Jahn, R.G. & B.J. Dunne, op. cit., p. 110.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
a

OVERALL WEAN

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

100.3
(a) HIGH INTENTION
+
100, 2} +65
og
68
+ 93
100. 1b Le +++ + o
GRAND MEAN + + * X 19209005 42
100 +++ *2159%
+ EXPECTED MEAN
90. 9b ae
+ +
33 49
99.8F
+
“a
L A i L
0.75 6 20 25 30 x3
100.3
(b) BASELINE
100.2}
++%
405 80
100. t+ + +
+ + + * 9705 5°
GRAND MEAN 4 + F294070
100 atte? 108
+ +55 104162 °°
etett EXPECTED MEAN
+ 53 $9 42 42
++ +7
90.9} + * 5002
92 6
+ +
9-7 5 20 25 30 x3
100.3
Ce) LOW INTENTION
100, 2}
+
+as
21
100. iF 4+
+ F 650692
EXPECTED MEAN + + +,,36 49
00 + 19019 20
1 r + + +4393
weoneecweerezsscweecr eee eseenere 20 63 6t eevee
ee ett tt 95% GRAND MEAN
99.97 + 470598
+ +10
8014
90. 6+
+ +
16 64
rT i i rt A
99-75 5 20 25 30 33

NUMBER Of OPERATORS

AGLGURE rb; reROQs Soummbgio#E Gin ABGEADIMSorQRERATABOUEANS


Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

, 10000 :

2 +,01

M

, 2: ee |. 05

. oot fA

= sof

es ey Cy he

» BL

—— pred rn, ntl ae

. ok |

r Me,

I Wee

A nat nA

T feta

ee i A eer agree ne

wef eS ~|. 05
(BITS) .

PK-
- 0 | | |
10000 * 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

NUMBER OF TRIALS

FIGURE 2: CUMULATIVE REG RESULTS, ALL OPERATORS (33), ALL SERIES (87)

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Pepa wha

KHHPHoO Pp DOWD


Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
: 16

establish. What is needed is consensus among the various camps on the ground
rules for replicability. For example, individuals must rigorously apply the
same criteria to themselves that they do to others, and apply to others the same
criteria that they themselves use elsewhere.

One approach that might move parapsychology out of the quagmire of
statistical significance levels could be to control for desired conditions --
i.e., for large effect size -- stripping away in advance the "noise" injected by
those subjects with low capability. It may be that replicability will hinge on
getting large effect sizes. But even replicability in operators with large
effect sizes is often problematical across time and changing experimental
conditions. ,

In the end, some parapsychologists believe, it may be that replicability
will follow from the development of theory in parapsychology. In this view, the
priority should be to pursue process-oriented research that can elucidate the
mechanisms controlling these anomalies. It will then be possible to design
experiments and conditions to produce the desired effects, rather than relying
on experiments designed to produce statistical significance and satisfy a
critical audience. (Critics, if they are given the last word, retort that
parapsychologists should not bother presenting their case to the sctentific
establishment until they have succeeded in developing an adequate theory.)

IV. THE MEANING OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
ASSESSMENTS OF MEANING AND MEANINGFULNESS

Leading off the "Findings and Conclusions" on parapsychology in the recent
NRC report was a provocative assertion:
"The Committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a
period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena. "4
Although the treatment of parapsychology in the body of the report was generally
more moderate in tone, this finding was. taken by the media and many readers to
be the "bottom line" of the report with respect to parapsychology. It produced
considerable distress and resentment among parapsychologists and others, who
felt that the field had been dealt an unwarranted blow. 3 24

However, the statement did clearly delineate the view of many of those who
monitor the field. Some critics are willing to concede that parapsychology
research has demonstrated definite anomalies, but they believe that these
reflect statistical or experimental artifacts, not psi. In their view, the

22 National Research Council, op. cit., p. 22.

23 See, for example: Palmer, J.A., C. Honorton, & J. Utts, op. cit.

24 This statement was based on a previously published assertion by Ray Hyman,
chairman of the NRC subcommittee which authored the report (Proc, IEEE, June
1986, 74(6): 823-849). At the workshop, Hyman said that the precise wording
of the NRC's statement was not his. Discussion ensued over the semantic
differences between Hyman's statement and the NRC report statement. Hyman
said that he would have phrased the statement differently. He later referred
to any differences between the wording he would have used and the wording in
the report as a matter of style, not substance (personal communication with
Dr. Alan Shaw, 28 December 1988).

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
17

anomalies are just anomalies -- mere "puzzles" -- and nothing more. The more
conservative parapsychologists tend to agree that nothing more than anomalies
have been demonstrated; but they point out that the anomalies are structured
statistically in very interesting ways, suggesting that something more
significant is at work. Critics, in turn, counter that if a "successful"
experiment has been cleanly run and the results are well above chance, then most
scientists would agree that something truly puzzling has been manifested, That
is why methodology and replicability are so important for parapsychology
experiments. But, they conclude, it is not a puzzle that has high priority when
viewed against the other questions facing scientists. They assume that the
explanation for the puzzle, when found, will not be very interesting after all.

One reason (of several) for the critics’ skepticism is the “experimenter
effect," which is seen in the fact that certain investigators obtain
consistently positive experimental results while others get only chance results.
So pervasive is this phenomenon that it has been called "the only confirmed
result of parapsychology."2° The experimenter effect lends force to criticisms
of parapsychology, seeming as it does almost to imply fraud -- or at least a
lack of objectivity. Parapsychologists point out that the identity of the
experimenter is also positively correlated with the placebo effect in clinical
medicine. It may be, they suggest, a function of belief in the phenomenon under
investigation. According to this view, some of those who believe in psi are
somehow able to elicit the phenomenon in their subjects. But, if true, this
presents a problem for the experiments, since the investigator can influence the
experiment subjectively and perhaps involuntarily. In other words, it might
demonstrate the existence of psi while making it even more difficult to prove
scientifically.

Stringent requirements for proof are placed on parapsychology. The editor
of Science has stated that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Some parapsychologists object that the burdens of proof in this field are
unique, and unfairly so. In their view, the critics of the field have an
arbitrarily high threshold for what constitutes scientifically acceptable
evidence, and everything falling below that threshold is dismissed as
insignificant. Indeed, the NRC committee recognized only two successful
experiments over 15 years in all of parapsychology -- one in remote viewing2/
and one using the random number generator -- as meeting "most of the minimal

25 Parker, A. A pilot study of the influence of experimenter expectancy on
ESP scores. In J.D. Morris et al. (Eds.) Research in Parapsychology 1974.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975.

26 Abelson, P.H. “A stepchild of science starts to win friends." U.S, News &
World Report, 31 July 1978.

27 Schlitz, M. & J.M. Haight. Remote viewing revisited: An intrasubject
replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 48: 39-49.

28 May, E.C., B.S. Humphrey, & G.S. Hubbard. Electronic System Perturbation
Techniques (Final Report). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1980.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
; 18

criteria of scientific acceptability."29 30 In this connection,
parapsychologists point to the unreasonableness of requiring extraordinary
proofs and, when such proofs are provided, dismissing the results as a "mere
puzzle."

Critics, for their part, reply that the stringent requirements are
warranted because the field itself is unique. One workshop participant listed
several. ways in which, in his view, parapsychology is different from other
fields:

o It lacks boundary conditions specifying when psi phenomena should and
should not be expected to be present.

o Only the experimenter effect has been definitively established.

o There is no easily replicable paradigm for experiments.

o Debates are about primary phenomena (i.e., does psi exist or not) rather
than about its "lawfulness."

o The concept of demonstrating anomalies is different -- in parapsychology
the "successful" results are not strikingly different from the baseline
model.

In general, then, from the perspective of critics the criticisms of the
field and its results can be summarized as follows: (1) there has been no
"conclusive" experiment; (2) there is no truly repeatable parapsychology
experiment; (3) the "significant" results are isolated and disconnected
observations of no obvious scientific interest; (4) the results are nonsensical
in that they do not suggest any lawful relationships or progressive research
programs; and (5) even if real, psi is too weak to be of any practical
importance.

Each of these points is countered by parapsychologists. Nevertheless, given
that harsh assessment by the critics, it is relevant to ask them what would
comprise acceptable proof of psi.

WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE PROOF OF PSI?

Parapsychologists often maintain that the critics have been unwilling or
unable to specify detailed criteria that would lead them to accept the psi
hypothesis. In their view, this enables the critics to continually shift their
ground in generating criticism -- in effect, presenting a "moving target" that
moves faster than parapsychologists can adjust their research protocols and
aims.

29 National Research Council, op. cit., pp. 184, 190.

30 Some critics point to a third study as another example of a well-run,
tightly controlled experiment giving significant results that are difficult
to explain. (Schmidt, H., R.L. Morris, & L. Rudolph. Channeling evidence for
a psychokinetic effect to independent observers. Journal of Parapsychology,
1986, 50: 1-6.) This study was favorably reviewed in a background paper
prepared for the NRC committee, but was omitted from the report's
conclusions. Parapsychologists claim that there are many other more recent
studies, not reviewed by the committee, which would also satisfy any
reasonable standard of acceptability.

31 Rao, R.K. & J. Palmer, op. cit., p. 541

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2 19

Based on the list of differences above, one workshop participant presented
a list of criteria that, in his view, would need to be satisfied before "proof"
of psi could be achieved. These included both local criteria (i.e., those
focused on the particular experiment) and global criteria (those that cut across
experiments). Local criteria have to do with statistical significance and
power, and with the experimental methodology and controls. In this critic's
view, if a proof relies entirely on statistics, it is probably not science. (It
was noted, however, that a full application of this position would eliminate
several well-established fields of science, such as particle physics.)

Global criteria are those which, taken together, present an overall pattern
that the scientific community is forced to recognize and accept. They include
replicability, lawfulness, consistency of effects, and cumulativeness across
time. The latter idea -- that parapsychology represents a series of fits and
starts over the long term, with each generation of researchers beginning anew --
generated considerable discussion. A number of the parapsychologists described
how their work is built on the foundation of work that came before. For
example, Charles Honorton's ganzfeld work evolved out of earlier research on ESP
and altered states of consciousness such as dreaming and hypnosis. Robert Jahn's
research is built on the earlier work of Schmidt (with random number generators)
and Puthoff (in remote viewing).

CONFLICTING ORIENTATIONS

A major challenge that parapsychologists face is the insistence by many of
their critics (particularly the psychologists among them) that all "normal"
explanations -- those based on known science, such as neurological or
psychological mechanisms, or those based on the charge of poor methodology --
for experimental results must first be considered and discarded before psi, the
paranormal effect, can be entertained. In this view, psi is the residuum when
all other possible explanations have been eliminated.

This issue goes to the heart of the problem that skeptical scientists have
with parapsychology, which is that, in their view, parapsychologists begin with
a hypothesis in which they believe (viz., that there is interaction between
consciousness and the physical world) and then run experiments until they get
results that tend to confirm the hypothesis and the belief. Critics contend
that, since the existence of psi has not been demonstrated, and since, indeed,
there is not even an adequate theory that could support its existence, the
presumption that psi explains any anomalous result cannot be supported.

Yet, the parapsychologists insist, this tendency to believe in a certain
explanation for the effect they are demonstrating through experiment does not
disqualify the experiment. Indeed, such belief is quite common among scientists
in every field. It is the interpretation of results that is open, they say, and
it is not their job (nor are they qualified) to eliminate all possible
physiological and other explanations outside their field of expertise. They
have simply demonstrated an anomaly in which science ought to be interested.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2 20

NEED FOR A THEORY OF PSI

Although many theoretical models of psi have been proposed, 22 both groups
agree that a fundamental problem in psi is the lack of an adequate theory of
paranormality to test by experiment. It leaves parapsychologists in the
unscientific position, their critics contend, of trying to demonstrate a
phenomenon that they have no real basis for seeking. Conversely (or perversely,
in the view of parapsychologists), they are also criticized for premature
theorizing without having first demonstrated that a phenomenon exists.

It is here, the participants agreed, that more process-oriented research is
needed to better define the nature of the phenomenon -- when it is manifested,
under what conditions, in individuals of what characteristics, etc.. With a
positive theory of psi in hand, parapsychologists would escape the present
demand that they eliminate every other plausible explanation for their results
until only the residuum, psi, remains.

V. RELATION OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY TO
THE BROADER WORLD OF SCIENCE

IS PARAPSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE?

Disagreements about the meaning of experimental results in parapsychology
and its aims, and the general agreement that a theory of psi is sorely needed,
all converge on the basic question of whether or not parapsychology can be
considered a science. The discussion in the previous section is neatly
encapsulated in a single sentence from a recent critical article:33
“Although many parapsychological research projects have been carried out under
what have been described as well-controlled conditions, this does not by itself
make a science, for unless and until it can be demonstrated that paranormal
phenomena really exist, there is no subject matter around which a science can
develop."

As was noted earlier, parapsychologists consider this view a form of Gatch-
22, since conditions, they believe, are preset so that no such demonstration
will be acknowledged, But the underlying implication of the assertion -- that
science cannot study nothing -- also draws objections from parapsychologists.
In their view, one of the purposes of science is to investigate whether there is
nothing (or something) present in an empirical situation. Whether the
motivation for the investigation comes from prior observation or subjective
expectation is irrelevant, they maintain. They cite sociology, economics, and
even astronomy as analogous fields in which "experimentation" consists
essentially of observation and measurement guided by an imperfect or non-
existent theory. While it may be argued that each of these fields, unlike
parapsychology, has real and obvious subject matter, parapsychologists cite
human experience and the voluminous anecdotal record of paranormal occurrences.
They point out that gravity, like psi phenomena, has long been observed without
benefit of an accepted scientific explanation.

32 See, for example: Jahn, R.G. & B.J. Dunne. On the quantum mechanics of
consciousness with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of
Physics, August 1986, 16: 721-772 and the bibliographies of works listed as
Notes #1 and #2 above.

33 Alcock, J.E., op. cit., p. 553.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
21

At bottom, the question of whether parapsychology is a science runs up
against philosophical questions that challenge the prevailing world-view of
contemporary science. To quote again from the article cited above:

"The dispute about psi reflects the clash of two fundamentally different views
of reality. The first of these is the materialistic, monistic view that the
human mind is some sort of emergent manifestation of brain processes, whereas .
the second is the dualistic position that maintains that the human
mind/personality is something beyond the stuff of atoms and molecules."

The issue of psi thus seems, to many, to transcend ordinary scientific
controversy and to take on overtones of philosophy and even religion. This fact
seems to account, in part, for the unusually strong resistance the field has met
with from the scientific establishment.

RESISTANCE BY "ESTABLISHMENT" SCIENCE

This report has made repeated reference to the difficulty that
parapsychology has encountered, throughout its long history, in gaining
acceptance within the scientific community. This resistance by the scientific
establishment appears to have taken three forms: (1) the loosely defined but
stringent criteria for proof imposed on parapsychology experiments; (2) a nearly
total rejection by mainstream scientific journals of articles or research
reports supporting parapsychology; and (3) the more derisive and more public
form of criticism practiced by some members of the CSICOP.

One workshop participant documented a long series of exchanges with the
management of the journal Science and its parent organization, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, over the issue of publication. No
report of research conducted by a parapsychologist has ever been published in
Science, although criticisms of parapsychological research have been published
from time to time. According to this participant, parapsychology research
reports submitted to Science have been reviewed by reviewers from outside the
field and rejected on often arbitrary and irrelevant grounds. Positive reviews
by parapsychologists are evidently discounted on the basis that the reviewers
are biased by their belief in psi. Repeated efforts to bring this situation to
the attention of Science and AAAS management apparently failed to gain a
sympathetic hearing. This individual recommends (1) that editors and grant-
givers be required to define publicly the qualifications of their reviewers for
any given paper or proposal and (2) that reviewers be required to sign their
evaluations.

Also heard during the workshop was the suggestion that there is a hierarchy
of sciences, in which psychology and the other social sciences rank below the
physical sciences and, indeed, from the most conservative perspective are still
only barely established as being legitimate. According to this view,
psychologists (generally the most active in criticism of parapsychology) do not
wish to be tarnished by association with a field that resembles psychology but
which they consider unscientific and "flaky." They are therefore anxious to act
as the "gatekeepers" of science with respect to parapsychology, partly in order
to reinforce their own sense of legitimacy and acceptability. Those who hold
this rather harsh view suggest that there may also be an underlying motivation
to suppress potential competitors for the same limited pool of research funds,

34 Alcock, J.E., op. cit., p. 565.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
22

Thus, parapsychologists claim that the issue is not the validity of psi
research, but the integrity of the scientific process as it deals with
controversial findings. They believe that the scientific gate-keepers should be
willing to trust the normal scientific process to arrive at scientific truth,
and not. rely on reviewers who are not scientifically qualified in the discipline
being reviewed. They note that the idea of disqualifying an entire discipline
from reviewing work in its field is unprecedented in modern science.

CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE

Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that parapsychology continues to
face strong resistance from the scientific establishment. The question is, How
can the field improve its chances of obtaining a fairer hearing across a broader
spectrum of the scientific community, so that emotionality does not impede
objective assessment of experimental results? Whether the final result of such
an assessment is positive, negative, or something in between, the field appears
to merit such consideration.

From the standpoint of the experiments themselves, some of the answers to
that question have already been outlined in Section IV (i.e., replicability,
better controls, more process-oriented research, etc.). On a higher level, the
need for an acceptable theory of psi (one accepted by a large number of
parapsychologists) has been emphasized repeatedly. It would probably improve
the outlook for the field if such a theory were more hospitable to current
models of mechanisms in physics and psychology than the idea that the mind can
operate outside the realm of known physical laws -- although, indeed, some
aspects of psi suggest recent advances in quantum theory such as nonlocality.

On an individual level, it was suggested that researchers in parapsychology
must begin to make certain basic choices. Workshop participants referred
several times to the fact that parapsychologists began in the 19th century by
investigating something experiential and "real" -- instances of paranormal
phenomena. Gradually, they adapted their experimental approaches to the
methodologies of conventional science. But in doing so, and in attempting to
demonstrate the phenomena scientifically and statistically, they have lost touch
with the powerful experiential base that gave the field its impetus. By
"looking under the lamppost" using a rigorous scientific methodology, it was
suggested, parapsychologists may be ignoring more promising avenues of
investigation. Thus, each experimenter must decide whether to pursue research
designed primarily to satisfy the critics of the field, or to follow his or her
instincts as to where the most fruitful and powerful findings might be made. It
was suggested that one way parapsychology might be released from the constrained
situation in which it currently operates would be to demonstrate practical
applications of psi. (Some studies in this direction have already been
attempted.?5) This would required working toward a better understanding of the
conditions and characteristics under which different kinds of psi operate,
finding or cultivating individuals with unusually strong capabilities, and
mounting controlled demonstrations of the uses of ESP and PK. If such a
strategy were to be successful, public opinion and the interest of potential
users -- rather than the strictures of the scientific establishment -- would
begin driving progress in the field.

35 See, for example, the discussion of "Potential Applications" in Palmer,
J.A., C. Honorton, & J. Utts, op. cit., p. 17.

Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2