Terence Hines - Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

It is common in parapsychology for a new method of studying psi phenomena to be reported with much initial optimism that finally a way has been found to obtain a repeatable demonstration of the phenomena. Often the initial report is accompanied by seemingly impressive results. But when attempts are made by other laboratories to use the new technique, no hint of paranormal phenomena is found. Examples of this pattern of events will be discussed in the next section. Skeptics argue that the reason for the lack of evidence for psi phenomena when an experiment is repeated are such mundane things as better experimental controls and procedures and better statistical analysis. Proponents, however, are likely to say that others failed to obtain evidence for psi phenomena because they didn’t believe in them. And so, since such phenomena are jealous, they promptly went away.

A related finding in parapsychology is the oft-noted negative correlation between the quality of a parapsychological experiment (measured by the degree and rigor of controls, use of appropriate statistical tests, and so forth) and the probability of obtaining results favorable to the existence of psi phenomena. In other words, the better controlled the experiment, the less likely it is to show evidence for psi phenomena (see Hyman 1985b, for one example). The skeptical explanation of this correlation is quite simple: The better and more rigorous the controls in an experiment, the less the chance for artifactual findings to occur. If psi doesn’t exist, then when one removes the various sources of artifacts in an experiment, evidence for psi phenomena will also disappear. The proponent who accepts the “jealous phenomena” point of view (and not all do), has a different explanation: The use of strict controls is evidence of a lack of belief in the phenomena, and this causes the phenomena to go away. This approach is used to explain even the failure of believers to obtain good evidence of psi phenomena. Even for strong believers, the use of strict controls means they have at least some degree of doubt, and that doubt causes the phenomena to vanish.

A case in point is that of Susan Blackmore, an English parapsychologist of long standing who has recently become rather skeptical (Blackmore 1986b, 1986–87). In a 1986 article in Fate magazine, she outlined the reasons for her increasing skepticism, which constitute a familiar theme. In sixteen years of research in parapsychology, she was never able to obtain any evidence for psi phenomena. Another parapsychologist, the late Scott Rogo (author of a book called Phone Calls from the Dead ) replied to Blackmore’s article (Rogo 1986). In his reply, Rogo attributed Blackmore’s continued failure to find evidence of psi phenomena not to the nonexistence of such phenomena, but to Blackmore’s unconscious motives. “Is Blackmore using her own ESP to block her subjects’ functioning during her tests? Is she psychically sabotaging her own experiments?” he asked (p. 78). Later he stated that “I believe that a sense of deep personal conviction may be the key to achieving good results in the lab” and “In the course of my conversations with Blackmore I have come to suspect that she resists—at a deeply unconscious level—the idea that psychic phenomena exist” (p. 80).

The view that ESP and related phenomena are “jealous” has been carried even further by other writers. It has been argued that skepticism can act backward in time to change the initially positive results of parapsychological experiments (Collins and Pinch 1982). The argument runs that when good evidence for psi phenomena is found, it is written up and published. If, after publication, a lot of skeptics read the paper, their skepticism will act in the past to change the outcome of the experiment. It is a tribute to the lack of demonstrable psi phenomena that some proponents have had to resort to such explanations for their overwhelming failure to demonstrate the existence of the phenomena they believe in.

The work of J. B. Rhine and his wife, Louisa, at Duke University and of S. C. Soal in England marks the beginning of modern experimental parapsychology. This line of research, and its recent descendants, claim to have provided evidence for the existence of ESP and related phenomena. Such claims, however, do not stand up to critical evaluations.

The basic card-guessing method used by the Rhines and others failed to provide evidence for ESP. The major problem was the failure of the early successes claimed by the Rhines to replicate. There have been many reasons for the failures to replicate. For example, the cards that first gave such seeming success were poorly printed—the designs were often stamped on the cards with such force that embossing resulted and the design could actually be seen from the back of the card (Randi 1982; Zusne and Jones 1982). Some of the cards were transparent enough that the designs could be seen through the cards (Zusne and Jones 1982).

The methods the Rhines used to prevent subjects from gaining hints and clues as to the design on the cards were far from adequate. In many experiments, the cards were displayed face up, but hidden behind a small wooden shield. Several ways of obtaining information about the design on the card remain even in the presence of the shield. For instance, the subject may be able sometimes to see the design on the face-up card reflected in the agent’s glasses. Even if the agent isn’t wearing glasses it is possible to see the reflection in his cornea. Of course, this wouldn’t be possible all the time, and certainly not every subject would take advantage of such information. But remember that the Rhines’ results showed that only certain subjects were able to score above chance—and then not a great deal above chance, although the difference was significant statistically. This is just what would be expected if a few subjects, some of the time, were able to make use of a slight advantage based on information from such sources.

Other sources of information not controlled in the Rhines’ experiments were the facial expressions and tone of voice of the agent. Such clues can be valuable sources of information, even for nonhuman subjects. This is demonstrated by the famous case of the horse named Clever Hans (Pfungst 1911/1956; Sebeok and Rosenthal 1981). Hans was owned by a Herr von Osten in Berlin, Germany, in the early 1900s. Hans was able, or so it seemed, to perform arithmetical calculations and answer simple questions by tapping with one of his hooves. Thus, when asked for the square root of sixty-four, he would tap eight times. His performance amazed many, and it was concluded that he had the intelligence of an eight-year-old human. Herr von Osten swore he wasn’t cuing Hans in any way and, in fact, never attempted to make any money from Hans’s startling abilities.

One investigator, Oskar Pfungst, then a graduate student in psychology, was skeptical. In a series of experiments he demonstrated that if the person who asked the question didn’t know the answer, Hans was unable to reply correctly. Further, Hans didn’t reply if he couldn’t see the questioner. Pfungst discovered several subtle cues that started and stopped Hans’s tapping behavior. The questioner’s looking down at Hans’s hooves started the tapping. Raising the head and certain facial expressions stopped the tapping, even if no question had been asked. It so happened that, after asking Hans a question, most people would look down at his hooves. Hans obligingly started tapping. When Hans got to the “right” number of taps, the questioner would look up and Hans would promptly stop tapping. If the “stop” cue wasn’t given, Hans would tap right on past the correct answer. Hans was, then, no different from other horses; he had just learned, apparently by chance, a clever trick. The incident shows how even small cues can provide a considerable amount of information, even when people are not aware that they are giving the cues. Incidentally, J. B. Rhine’s first (1929) publication in the field of parapsychology was a report of a horse named Lady Wonder who could answer all sorts of questions. Rhine believed the horse was telepathic, although it was later revealed that the owner was using subtle signals to control the horse’s behavior.