Deception And Self-Deception: Investigating Psychics. - Review - book review

Journal of Parapsychology, The, June, 2000 by Rex G. Stanford

In terms of substance, Wiseman's Feilding Report critique seems better balanced than much of the past criticism of other reports by other critics, and it is somewhat less accusative in tone. As an example of the former, Wiseman applies his wonderfully analytic mind to question specific prior efforts to criticize the conclusions of the Feilding Report.

Because it is not always easy to discern problems under the pressure and exigencies of the planning or execution phases of research, all research warrants careful retrospection. Wiseman's critical work on the Feuding Report is, in my view, a worthwhile example of an outsider doing precisely that, excepting his occasional lapses into an accusative mode.

Chapter 4, "Testing the ESP Claims of SORRAT" by Wiseman, John Beloff, and Robert L. Morris (material first published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 1992) may elicit a yawn or two from readers, as it did for me. It simply is not very interesting, for some of us, at least, to read about farfetched claims and to learn that they have not been supported by careful research. On the other hand, a psi skeptic might have particular interest in sensational claims of alleged psi events, such as those of The Society for Research in Rapport and Telekinesis (SORRAT), a spiritualist group in Missouri. A large variety of startling claims, of both the psychokinetic and extrasensory kinds, have been made by SORRAT on behalf of supposed spirit entities.

These authors' test of SORRAT claims about extrasensory card guessing is perhaps most intriguing as an essay in incredibly elaborate and burdensome precautionary methodology. It failed to produce a statistically significant outcome. Another negative outcome was a failure to have psychically rearranged the cards of the test deck, which the "entities" had claimed they had done.

A unique element in this report is that Ed Cox, who was an on-site facilitator in this work, and Tom Richards, one of the latter-day leaders of SORRAT, were asked "to approve of and sign an agreement that clearly outlined the experimental protocol" (p. 115). The purpose of this was stated as an effort to obviate any subsequent claims that "the experimental conditions were not favorable to the production of psi" (p. 115). Among other things, this agreement clearly stated what would happen if the experiment were successful in terms of correct guessing, in the absence of signs of the protective package having been damaged or otherwise violated. The authors would then state that "we are impressed by the results, that we have no ready conventional explanation for the results (sic, omitted comma) and that we feel further research is warranted" (p. 122). The signed agreement included, "However, we will not issue any statement to the effect that we believe the claimant to have 'psychic' ability" (p. 122). It is good that the participants should know this in clear and unequivocal terms.

Fair enough, but this agreement still seems a bit incomplete. Should not something be said in such agreements about what would be published should there be a failure to find evidence of paranormality? I am not suggesting any constraint on what the investigators should say about negative results, if they should occur. My suggestion is that investigators should make this very clear to participants before beginning research with them. A psychic claimant, even a fully honest one, might want to demand such a statement because scientists sometimes overgeneralize or overstate the implications of their results. The actual agreement made minimal concessions if the study should be successful, and it apparently did not ensure the research participants against over-general conclusions if it should not be. (This is not at all to suggest that these investigators would have overstepped legitimate boundaries, only that, as a general practice, it would be good to clarify these matters for research participants before they be gin participation.)