                                  T H E

                               Z E P H Y R

                      __     M A G A Z I N E
                     {__]++++++++++++++++++++++++++[]
                     Issue #62                12-5-88

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                            THE ZEPHYR II BBS
                        (Mesa, AZ - 602-894-6526)
                    owned and operated by T. H. Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, our Sysop and I would appreciate.
     . it if you would let your friends know where they can log  .
     . in to find the magazine (and incidentally one of the      .
     . finest BBSs in the country!).                             .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1988

               On The Existence of Extrasensory Perception
                          by Margaret Mitchell

         The first article I will refer to is titled, "Psychic
    Powers," by Jennifer Boeth Donovan (Woman's Day, November 24,
    1987).  The author's position on psychic ability is that it does
    exist.  The stories used to illustrate the article were of an
    everyday variety, and rather "life-style" oriented.  Most of the
    stories cited were of the nature one might hear in a social
    setting, such as, "I had the strangest dream last night..."
         In one example given, Ms. Donovan tells of a woman who had a
    dream about buying a clothing store she had shopped in once or
    twice.  The dream was so detailed that she even knew the location
    of a roof leak.  About a week later, she pulled in to the parking
    lot of that store without knowing why.  Entering the store, she
    made the owners an offer to buy it (meanwhile noticing the roof
    leak -- which she later found out had only appeared a couple of
    days before.)  The owners were incredulous.  They had only
    decided to sell the store a few minutes before, and not another
    living soul knew of their decision.
         The tone of the article is one of positive reinforcement of
    the premise that extrasensory perception is real.  The author
    presents her case as a casual statement of fact that the
    phenomena of the paranormal is a fact of life that is pretty much
    accepted by everybody.
         I believe that the author holds this position because of the
    tone of the arguments given in the article.  She presents her
    case from a more common point of view and with the ease of one's
    own convictions on the subject.  The preponderance of evidence
    was given in favor of the existence of these phenomena, while the
    few negative arguments, i.e.:  "They have not yet had any
    research that stands up to scientific validation..." are quickly
    dealt with using comments from an expert, Dr. Jerry Solfvin,
    whose field is the research of ESP.  Dr. Solfvin is a staunch
    defender of the research methods used, and cites one particular
    experiment that has been replicated (repeated) nearly 50 times.
    He feels that this provides statistically significant results.
         There has been evidence over the years to convince certain
    researchers that there is some basis for this premise.  However,
    the biggest problem with making a solid foundation for it has
    been that no one can call upon this "extra sense" at will.
    Further complicating matters, there is a definite circus
    atmosphere that surrounds most discussions of this topic.
         The people who claim to have ESP never know where or when
    the next episode will occur.  Some have "visions" for several
    months, then never again.  Others would have you believe that
    they can see into the future at any time.  It appears to be a
    random phenomenon, not one that is controllable, to be used at
    will.
         The episodes cited in Ms. Donovan's article are those kinds
    of once-in-a-lifetime occurrences.  The subject has one brief
    experience with ESP, but no others.  It is very difficult to
    prove its existence with this type of proof.  No scientific data
    is offered in defense of the premise.  The author places the
    subject on a more popular, trendy aspect.
         My overall view of this material is that it does not really
    serve the purpose of persuading the reader of the existence of
    ESP.  It has more of the flavor of "pop culture" or "what's hip
    now" to it.  The article never really gives the reader an insight
    into the depth of the research being done in this field, nor does
    it adequately convince the reader of the existence of
    extrasensory perception.
         The article merely gives the topic a cursory going over, and
    then leaves the reader to form his own opinion based on the
    little information given.
         Writing in the May, 1986 issue of Health, author Laurence
    Miller takes great care to present data supporting the existence
    of psychic phenomena in a clear and professional manner.  In the
    article, "Weird PSI-ence," his approach is one of validating the
    studies conducted and using the points of view of several
    different experts in this field.  The author takes great care not
    to present the data in a circus format.
         Miller holds this positive position based on results of his
    research into the subject.  As an educator and journalist
    specializing in brain and behavioral sciences, he has done
    extensive research in the areas of extrasensory perception and
    parapsychology.  He has spoken with many expert proponents in the
    field, as well as the ones who don't believe in the existence of
    psychic ability.
         Great care was taken in the presentation of the material in
    a clear and concise manner, as opposed to the flippant attitude
    sometimes encountered concerning this subject.  The author has
    been convinced of the existence of the paranormal by his studies
    and a long association with the field of study.
         Miller persuades me to agree with his position because,
    again, of the professionalism he shows.  He exposed both sides of
    the argument, all the while having a verifiable "pro" statement
    to counter the "con" platforms.  Miller has researched the
    subject thoroughly, using many sources to compile the evidence in
    the article.  The studies he uses as platforms have been ongoing
    for years and have included thousands of case histories, thus
    giving substantial credibility to the position he takes.
         However, the fact remains that there is still no
    scientifically  accepted basis for proving the existence of ESP.
    The professionals involved with trying to prove its existence
    have not yet agreed among themselves upon a uniform profile of a
    human being who possesses these abilities.  The general public's
    fear of something it cannot see or control tends to make their
    job even more difficult.  It is difficult to accept something
    when the experts cannot even explain it to a precise conclusion.
         My overall view of the material presented by Mr. Miller is
    that he takes a more clear, better defined position on the issue
    of extrasensory perception.  He sets out to provide a more
    scientific foundation for the acceptance of these phenomena.
         I believe the author succeeds in giving the reader a
    balanced point of view, including both skeptics and supporters.
    The evidence provided supports the existence of ESP.  The author
    shows the path one can follow in pursuit of the paranormal, but
    makes clear that it is not the only one.
         Reading Pamela Weintraub, in the October 1987 of Omni
    magazine, gives a quite different impression.  Her position is
    that these phenomena do not exist.  Her platform is based on the
    fact that she can show that each case can be taken apart to
    render it inconclusive, and that the evidence given is based
    solely on the say-so of the researcher involved.  To accept the
    premise of the paranormal is to delude oneself.
         Ms. Weintraub holds this position because, as stated in the
    article, "By Their Account," the data that tends to try to prove
    the existence of extrasensory perception is always most prominent
    when not being scrutinized by others.  As soon as it is tried
    again while under more careful scrutiny, the results are not
    convincing.  It would appear that the ability is something to be
    hidden from the light of day.
         The reason that I must agree with this negative assessment
    is that there is no set of standards by which we may prove the
    existence of ESP.  The data cited in this article cannot be
    duplicated, it seems, to obtain the same positive results claimed
    by the researchers.  It would seem, that by this reasoning, all
    new studies of the subject will continue to fail to prove the
    existence of the paranormal because there can be no set
    scientific tests that cannot be proven false.
         I disagree with this position because to prove the existence
    of something as unknown as extrasensory perception, one cannot
    use the same criteria used to prove the existence of, say, a
    virus.  As the author herself points out, using a statement from
    one of her own sources, perhaps new and different methods will
    have to be created in order to try to prove the existence of
    these phenomena.
         There have been many historic incidents were the tests had
    to be created to prove out a theory, where none existed before.
    One must always keep an open mind, especially when the unknown is
    involved.
         My view on this material is that, based on the information
    given here, ESP cannot exist.
         People have been fooled for many centuries into believing
    that it does.  When hard-pressed to prove the information given
    is indicative of true extrasensory powers, it cannot be done.
    There are no "scientific" studies that cannot be refuted, and no
    standards seem to exist by which one could accurately judge the
    issue anyway.  It would appear that the human race has tried to
    prove the existence of the paranormal for centuries and is no
    closer now than it was 300 years ago.
         Next we come to a very entertaining piece published in the
    January, 1986, issue of Science Digest, written by a "Dr.
    Crypton."  Using many references to the popular '60s TV show,
    "Mr. Ed," the good doctor takes the position that through the use
    of mathematics, it can be proved that ESP does not exist.  The
    one "true" science, mathematics, can prove the non-existence of
    any "untrue" science.
         The basic test applied is one involving a deck of 25 cards,
    which consists of 5 groups of 5 symbols from which the subject is
    supposed to choose.  Dr. Crypton maintains that any statistician
    could guess a higher level of correct choices than someone who
    "sees" the hidden symbols on the cards.
         The author holds this position on the basis that it is more
    the subconscious cues picked up by the study subject or by the
    mathematical application used by the study subject that allows
    for high scores in ESP testing.  The doctor is of the opinion
    that there is no true extrasensory perception, and that all tests
    and studies done to date can be shown to be seriously flawed.
         I cannot find fault with this because the particular studies
    the author uses to build his case are those that have been, or
    can be, proved to be of a false nature.  Almost anyone, including
    animals, can learn to read physical cues and appear to possess
    ESP.  The author shows most "studies" are unable to prove that
    paranormal phenomena are real.
         However, the author has only used examples that can easily
    be disputed.  He makes no attempt to explain other valid testing
    that doesn't seem to fit into the neat, clean cubbyhole that he
    has created to encompass all extrasensory testing.  The "knowing"
    that some subjects have shown can not be explained through
    mathematics and apparently could not find their way into the
    research material of the author.
         I hold that Dr. Crypton had a prejudicial view to begin
    with, and only uses cases and facts which prove out his case.  He
    did not explore other sources of testing or cases that did not
    conform to his preset ideas.  The author does make the case,
    however, that a lot of the test results can be explained by the
    subconscious of the subject picking up the physical cues of
    others.  Unfortunately, he goes no further with this.
         Taking a much more moderate tone is Phyllis Battelle, who
    did an article for the July 7, 1987 issue of Woman's Day, titled
    "Intuition -- When You Just Know."  She holds that there is a
    possible "sixth sense" and that human beings can learn to develop
    it.  The author's position is that no matter what it's called,
    e.g. "gut reaction," all people have the capacity for such
    extrasensory awareness.  The important thing is learning how to
    covert the intuitive "knowing" into practical "knowledge."
         The author holds this position because she has reasoned that
    people have had this experience of suddenly just "knowing" that
    something was wrong or was about to happen, but have failed to
    recognize the feeling as precognitive or simply dismissed it
    completely.  Our society places more emphasis on the cold, hard
    facts instead of perceived intuitive senses.  Only the "nuts"
    listen and act upon that small voice or strange "feeling" that
    the mind is sending out.
         I agree with this because the "knowing" that you suddenly
    have must have come from somewhere.  It's true that this
    "knowing" could partly from previously learned knowledge, but
    some of it seemingly must be coming from some other source.  How
    else could one explain the 3-year-old child prodigy who could
    read, write and play music, when he had never had any musical
    training?   How can one explain the sudden urge to pass up a bus
    -- after waiting a half hour for its arrival -- only to learn
    that a disaster later befell that same bus?  There must be some
    higher level where this "knowledge" comes from.
         Flaws exist because the author utilizes too few experts in
    this field, and cites no pertinent studies that are ongoing.  The
    majority of the article is used to cite individuals' experiences
    with extrasensory perception, rather than exploring the hard
    study of the subject.
         My view on this material is that the author does succeed in
    raising several valid points in favor of the existence of ESP.
    There is no definite place or thing to point to and say, "That is
    ESP," but extrasensory phenomena do appear to exist.  It seems
    that it may be necessary to come up with a new set of guidelines
    in order to prove the existence of these phenomena, as the older
    criteria do not seem to fit.  Ms. Battelle points out that people
    are afraid of things that do not come from hard data or proven
    facts.  By definition, intuition is just the "immediate knowing
    of something without the conscious use of reasoning; therefore,
    it is irrational and does not exist."
         Another opinion on the negative side of this issue comes
    from "Exploring the Paranormal," by David F. Marks (World Press
    Review, May, 1986).  The author's position is that paranormal
    phenomena flatly do not exist, and says so pretty emphatically.
    Marks says, for example, "Parascience is a pseudo-system of
    untestable beliefs steeped in illusion, error, and fraud."
         He feels that man's belief in ESP is based on centuries of
    cultural traditions steeped in magic and religion, many features
    of which lend themselves to that belief.  There is no scientific
    explanation for the paranormal that cannot be proved invalid,
    according to Marks.
         The author's premise for this position is that there is no
    scientific method that could provide an accurate environment in
    which to test for the paranormal, or ESP.  He states that even
    the recognized experts in the field agree that the research
    methods and evidence gathered so far are too weak to conclusively
    establish its existence.  They admit that not one single
    experiment has been error free.
         I tend to agree with this because all of the studies into
    these phenomena utilize methods that have already been shown to
    be easily discountable.  True science cannot prove anything using
    faulty data-gathering mechanisms.  In one instance, without
    actually claiming to be one, Marks pretended to be a "psychic"
    and did an "ESP" experiment in front of a very large class of
    psychology students.  After doing a series of simple magician's
    tricks, 90 percent of the class was left with the impression that
    he had some sort of psychic powers.
         However, I disagree with Marks' position because he
    summarily dismisses all studies of the paranormal from all
    sources.  To the author's point of view, ESP is only the pursuit
    of fantasy, illusion, pseudo-religion and magic.  He holds that
    it can come to no practical conclusions whatsoever.
         My view of this material is that author simply will not
    accept the existence of the paranormal ("parascience" as he
    refers to it from time to time) until it can be proved to his
    satisfaction.  "Parascience has all the qualities of a magical
    system while wearing the mantle of science," Marks says.  "Until
    any significant discoveries are made, science can justifiably
    ignore it."

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.