CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8

ESP: Teaching
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787-2000200080051-8
"scientific method" by counterexample
S. L. Blatt
Department of Physics
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
(Received 4 March 1975)
Increasing the students' understanding of the methods
of science is often one of the goals of an introductory
course in physics for nonscientists. To supplement the
examples arising directly from the usual subject matter
and to stimulate clearer thought concerning the nature
of scientific inquiry, discussion of some subjects which
have a surface resemblance to science is proposed. The
history of research into extrasensory perception appears
to be ideal as such a counterexample, allowing for
explicit comparisons which illuminate the subject of
methodology in science while maintaining high student
interest. Lecture suggestions. including demonstrations,
are discussed.
I. PRELUDE
The following question appears at the beginning of a
final examination in introductory physics for nonscience
'students. The reader also is invited to answer the question
before proceeding.
Please write, in the spaces provided, the name of
one item in each of the following categories:
1. A color
2. A flower
3. A piece of furniture.
II. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of a course in introductory physics for
nonscience students often require that, in addition to the
basic subject matter of physics, an explicit attempt be
made to increase the students' awareness of the processes
through which scientific knowledge is obtained. While
century world-it is important to also present some coun-
terexamples. A study of the claims and methods of a
nonscientific area can provide, by way of contrast, a new
perspective in which to view the processes involved in the
development and advancement of physics.
Many areas of current interest and controversy may be
considered appropriate for the role of "nonscientific coun-
terexample," depending on the inclinations of the instruc-
tor and students. Astrology is one possibility that can be
logically discussed after a study of planetary motions or
other astronomical phenomena.12 Unidentified flying ob-
jects, catastrophic cosmological events in the recent his-
tory of the earth, and related lore could be introduced,
similarly, to compare with the nature of physical theory
and observation. The subject of extrasensory perception,
more familiarly known as ESP, has been found to be
especially good for this purpose. The remainder of this
paper is devoted to providing (a) some background on
ESP, with some of the contrasts between its historical de-
velopment and the methods followed by physicists, and
(b) an outline for a lecture on the subject, complete with
demonstrations. This lecture format has been used for the
past several years; it has never failed to capture the in-
terest of the students and has always generated long and
fruitful discussions concerning criteria for evidence, mod-
els of reality, and the whole gamut of science methodolo-
gy ..
III. BACKGROUND ON ESP
The subject of ESP has been, historically, a controver-
sial one. A new wave of interest has recently emerged,
accompanied by a host of new books and new claims
(both of authenticity and of fraud). The recent publication
of a study of the phenomena produced by one well-known
ESP practitioner, Uri Geller, appearing in a prestigious
scientific journal,3 has been countered by articles in the
general public media4 suggesting where the scientists may
have been misled. Photographic studies5 of a mysterious
"aura" surrounding living objects, said by some to be re-
lated to the "thought-transfer" process and by others to
be simple, predictable electrostatic effects, have been
made with impressively complicated apparatus. All the
appearance of conventional scientific investigation is pres-
ent, and it is truly a challenge to attempt to analyze
these new efforts in an old field objectively. However, the
interest generated by this revival of ESP research provides
an excellent opportunity to introduce the subject in its his-
torical context, and to contrast its development with that
of physics.
jug on. ESPshont
eld
idings of those researche;
sexpe
usuallyForour
hon for xin sussions of the character
the interplay of observations
o reicet these studies in the contes
cess or of professional \ magic. " All agree In linki
definition af ESP to the thought process, and sey
ustosony transfers
ments, moder binding, deductions,salid
coveries can be noted in laboratory sessions, lectures and
readings on historical developments, and all other aspects
of the course. However, if any development of a critical
facility is desired-such as the ability to sort out what is
science and what is not science in the modern twentieth
been given distinctive names:
(i) Clairvoyance is usually defined as the ability to
have knowledge of events which are taking place in the
present, but about which no sensory input can be had.
(ii) Precognition is defined as the ability to have
American JournaApproved For Release 2001/03/26 - CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
Copyright
1975 by the American Association of Physics Teachers / 1079

Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
knowledge of events before they happen.
(iii) Telepathy is defined as the ability to transfer
thoughts directly from one person to another, with no in-
tervening sensory means.
(iv) Psychokinesis is defined as an interplay of
thoughts and material objects, most often the ability of
thought to influence the behavior of an object.
can then The suggestion br the possibility of Extrasensory per-
man bicepcion probably firsthardset flom"@ consideration of re-
expectinposts of spontaneously vedrNing events which, upon re-
pected rhodrion Happear to be instances of clairvoyance or pre-
phcognition " Forickamplethe mothalenthas a feeling" that
Her child, In some distant place, is suffering pain, later,
she learns that at that moment the child had been in-
volved in an accident and is now hospitalized. Such
events seem too real and personal, to those involved, to
be dismissed as mere coincidence. Consideration is rarely
given to those numerous times when a similar "feeling"
turns out to be unrelated to any happening-such occur-
rences are forgotten at once. Furthermore, the lack of
specific details of the actual event in the premonition is
usually ignored or even altered in the retelling to indicate
a more accurate "vision" than that which may have, in
fact, occurred.
Further indications of the existence of an extrasensory
facility appeared in the form of demonstrations of appar-
ent telepathic communication. In the late 1800s, scien-
tists reported enthusiastically on exhibitions of telepathy
by the four teen-age daughters of a Rev. Andrew Mac-
reight Creary: contents of closed boxes were divined,
selected cards named, and selected people's names cor-
rectly identified by any of the girls who were out of the
room when the selections were made.º Controversy
raged, but it was not until many years later that the full
truth was revealed: the sisters had been signaling each
other through coughs, sniffles, and a variety of subtle
body motions. It had all been a joke, but by that time
there were dozens of imitators, and thousands of believ-
ing spectators, and the ESP movement had begun. (Scien-
tific American has a recent note10 pointing out that, ear-
lier, Michael Faraday spent some time uncovering the de-
ceptions of the so-called psychics of his day, without dis-
suading any confirmed believers.)
Research into ESP was put into a laboratory setting by
J. B. Rhine of Duke University. The most common ex-
periments are conducted with a special set of 25 cards,
containing five each of five different symbols: a circle, a
cross, a square, three wavy lines, and a star. These cards
can be simply turned facedown in a stack; the subject
tries to determine what symbol is on each card without
seeing the faces (thus testing the subject's clairvoyance
and/or precognition). Alternately, one subject (or the ex-
perimenter) can look at the cards, one at a time, and at-
tempt to "send" the symbols, via telepathy, to another
subject. Tests of psychokinesis are usually performed
with dice.
Due to the lack of a theoretical model of the ESP pro-
cess, performance of any subject on these experiments is
ordinarily compared with the null hypothesis, that is, the
results to be expected if no special phenomena were oc-
curring. However, the inevitable subjects scoring above
one or two standard deviations from the mean expected
on a random basis are traditionally subjected to further
testing, and some seemingly incredible runs of correct
calls have been recorded in this fashion. A high-scoring
subject who later faltered was usually explained by ad
hoc "interfering factors" attributed to the delicacy of
ESP: tiredness, skeptical observers, etc. Certain subjects
were found to be "forward targeting"; that is, their
scores were improved if one assumed they were calling
the symbols on the card after the one in use. Unfortunate-
ly, it was never possible to determine in advance when
forward targeting was taking place. Probabilities were
thus used in a somewhat cavalier fashion.
Rf A final shortcoming of these experiments, a throwback
To the earliest days of ESP, is the ever present possibility
for cheating either consciously or unconsciously, Tests of)
various experimenters tended to show that those favorably
disposed toward ESP sometimes reported higher scores
for a given subject than did skeptical experimenters, and
the subjects were often able to cheat directly. Some pre-
cautions were taken to reduce this possibility, but, as Dr.
Rhine reports, 6 "Elaborate precautions take their
toll
. . " In other words, ESP ability drops, owing to
the delicacy of the phenomenon and the sensitivity of the
subjects, when precautions against cheating are used. The
suggestion that perhaps, in fact, some cheating had been
suppressed apparently was not seriously considered.
A final point on the history of ESP should be noted.
Throughout the past half-century, professional magicians
have often reproduced so-called extrasensory effects by
undetectable, but wholly physical methods. While produc-
ing an effect by one means does not rule out its produc-
tion by another, a proper test of ESP must rule out, as far
as possible, the clandestine use of any physical process.
Often, scientists are not sufficiently versed in the methods
of deception to properly rule out certain innocuous-
seeming ploys, and employing persons trained in fooling
the public as observers might be beneficial. In this re-
gard, it should be noted that Uri Geller, the ESP expo-
nent mentioned earlier, was a nightclub magician before
he achieved his present notoriety.
IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR A LECTURE
A lecture on ESP can be based on some of the points
made in the previous section. Reading a few quotations at
the lecture's opening by those who have experienced par-
ticularly dramatic spontaneous "ESP" occurrences sets
the mood appropriately. After talking about the early ESP
experiments, it is well to do some demonstrations, just as
would be done for a discussion of some physical
phenomenon. The form of the demonstrations should fol-
low closely, although in a much abbreviated form, the
typical experiments done in the past in the search for
ESP. At least one experiment should utilize a statistical
analysis; the class should be prepared for this from earlier
lectures in kinetic theory or atomic structure. A variety of
ESP phenomena should be touched on, and one experi-
ment should purposely be done in a manner that seems to
rule out "cheating."
The following three demonstrations have been found to
work well in this context. All are performed with a stan-
dard set of ESP cards.
A. Group experiment in clairvoyance/precognition
The instructor places five cards facedown, one at a
time, without looking at their faces. As each is set down.
the students write one of the five ESP symbols on a sheer
of paper, as their "hunch" for that card. The instructor
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
S. L. Blatt

y
S
Latmosphere"
"For tifoni ard targeung i) the probability of guessing any one
goes from and sound the probability ter yourtrong
down to 3/5.
B. Experiment in telepathy
The instructor holds up cards, one at a time, with their
faces to the class, asking them all to think of the symbol
on that card. The first symbol is correctly called by the
instructor, even though he cannot see it. The students are
asked to keep score of how well the instructor does-
these scores can later be compared to see if any "experi-
menter bias" has crept in. In this demonstration, the in-
structor hits on four out of five cards, much to the
amazement of the class. Of course, to assure that result,
some subterfuge is employed (as explained in the Appen-
dix), but all will be admitted later, during the discussion
period.
C. Psychokinesis/clairvoyance effect
Since the possibility that the instructor is "cheating"
may come to the students' minds at this point, a third
demonstration is done that is apparently out of his hands .:
One card of each symbol is taken from the set and placed
out of sight behind the lecture table. Each of four stu-
dents is allowed to select one symbol and seal it in an
envelope while the instructor is at the back of the room.
The envelopes are mixed, and the instructor then proceeds
to tear open one envelope at a time, gaze at the symbol,
and point out the student that had selected it. After three
students have thus been matched with their chosen sym-
bol, only one student remains; the instructor therefore ob-
viously knows which student chose the last symbol.
However, he demonstrates a final telepathic flash by nam-
ing, instead, the symbol, while it is still sealed in the en-
velope. Again, a page has been taken from the magician's
manual, but the effect at that moment is sheer incredulity.
The straightforward approach of the physicist demands
that the fact that trickery was going on be revealed, but
the gullibility of the public in the face of the famous
"mind readers" and "clairvoyants" of the past can most
easily be appreciated when one has, himself, been "gul-
led." Any "magic" effects can be employed for these
purposes, but those described above have been found to
lend themselves particularly well to the ESP format. Their
modus operandi is described in the Appendix, together
with some suggestions on their presentation.
D. Analysis
The demonstrations are now analyzed. A discussion of
the expected probabilities for the distribution of correct
guesses in the first experiment should be presented, not-
ing the increased chances for success when "forward
targeting" is allowed (see Table I). Trickery on the sec-
ond experiment is then admitted ("I even have, right here.
in my lecture notes, 'Get four out of five,' since getting
all five would appear too suspicious!"). A list of several
possible ways the "cheating" could have been ac-
complished may be presented: having an assistant among
the students sending signals; using a small mirror to catch
a glimpse of the faces of the cards; using cards whose
backs are marked to indicate the symbol on the front;
having a prearranged order to the cards; etc. It is not
necessary to reveal which method you actually employed;
this list shows how easily the effect could have been
achieved. The final "experiment" is also revealed as a
fraud, since purely physical means were employed here,
too; however, after this disclaimer, leaving the students
with one remaining bit of mystery is much more effective
than a complete explanation of the method employed.
Following the discussion of the experiment, the com-
parisons with physical science methodology can be made
explicitly. Material from Sec. III can be used as a start in
this direction. The analysis can conclude with remarks on
some of the current controversial aspects of ESP study, as
outlined at the beginning of that section. The recent dis-
missal11 (for faking experimental results) of the director
of the research institute founded by J. B. Rhine may be
pointed out as an example of the continuing difficulties of
this field of investigation.
V. REPRISE OF PRELUDE
When I wrote the prelude, I was thinking red, rose,
and chair. What did you write down? Among the hun-
dreds of subtle hues, flower varieties, and items of furni-
ture, did you hit any of those I thought of? The vast
majority of students having that question on an exam in
the past hit at least one; many hit two, and a few even
got all three! Is this a demonstration of ESP? Discuss.
APPENDIX: THE "MAGIC SHOW"
The second and third effects suggested as demonstra-
tions for a lecture on ESP are performed by using very
simple methods. However, the mode of presentation is
very important; any similarities between the appearance of
these demonstrations and a typical magic show will de-
stroy the atmosphere which is such an important part of
the lecture. Thus all words and gestures must be com-
pletely natural.
Any of the methods listed in the discussion of the
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
Am. J. Phys. Vol. 43, No. 12, December 1975
S. L. Blatt | 1081 ..
r
1
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787000200080051-8
then shows the cards, one at a time, and the students note
which one they matched properly. The scores of all stu-
dents are tabulated on the blackboard! "These are dis-
cussed briefly. In a moderate-sized class, several students".Number guessed Fraction of population
.d
>f
ts
ir
g
will have gotten three out of five correct, which violates
the students' sense that one out of five is the best that
'n
could be expected; one or more students may have four or
"forward targeting'
can then be Introduced."producing ca further movejos ue
many of the scores away. froni What ithe inaiseid ghance sanius
expectations die While comparisons's wathuthe true cem so
pected Landom distribution can be made int this times the om
eightened if further evidencen.scon ESB.
Table I. Probabilities for randomly guessing ESP symbols. There are
five symbols, and five cards are guessed.
Correctly
achieving this number
Fraction of population
with forward targetinga
0
0.33
0.08
1
0.41
0.26
$12.20.
0.35

Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
experiment may, in fact, be employed.
order, of course) by looking at their cards, it is a simple
matter to note subtly the unselected symbol card remain-
ing behind the table. Having thus accounted for all but
one symbol, that one must be in the fourth student's en-
velope, and you announce the symbol before tearing open
the envelope and showing that you were, indeed, correct ..
However, the simplest by far is to have a subtle method
of marking on the backs of the ESP symbol cards: The
symbols themselves suggest an easily memorized proce-
dure: the circle is drawn with one stroke; the cross with
two; there are three wavy lines; the square has four sides;
and the star is five-pointed. Thus, marks. representing;
The effect of the last trick is usually so striking that it
would be anticlimactic to explain it. A blanket admission
of guilt, of trickery by pure physical means, is enough to
1-5, respectively, are needed. In fact, using no mark at:
all in place of the 5 produces a further simplification.
(Note: Behsure the market atteshiple, ffuse tan tinkischichy paremove any feeling that it was done by ESP, while leav-
matches the desighath thesbacks of the cardsusand mark of ring a lasting impression that something special has trans-
both ends ofeachricardoulty presentation, be sure not toon pired. The whole lecture will beremembered better with
peer obstously atpthe back ofistheccardi butirglimpse it, prthis bit of residual mysteryf ESP.
Yeither before picking (it upnotewhenplaying it facedown on
the table.)
the over present po
that
"of creating, either consciously or unconscious
The other effect, guessing correctly which student
picked each symbol, is equally simple, although it looks
much less possible for the instructor to "cheat." The
method depends not on markings on the cards, but rather
on markings on the envelopes! Simple fingernail marks
on one edge indicate the four envelopes-zero, one, two,
and three marks. In order to avoid suspicion, the en-
velopes are taken to each student, separately, by the in-
structor as he selects them for the demonstration. He then
simply remembers the order the students were chosen,
which corresponds exactly to the markings on the en-
velopes. The instructor can then move on to the back of
the room while the students, one at a time (apparently to
avoid collusion, but in fact to prevent the exchange of
envelopes) select and seal their cards in the envelopes. It
is a good precaution always to talk about "the en-
velope," not "your envelope." After returning to the
front and identifying the first three students (in arbitrary.
'M. Zeilik II, Am. J. Phys. 42, 538 (1974); 41, 961 (1973).
2E. E. Snyder, Physical Science for Today (Merrill, Columbus, OH,
1973), Chap. 1.
3R. Targ and H. Puthoff, Nature (Lond.) 251, 602 (1974); see also G.
M. Walker, Electronics 37, 82 (7 February 1974).
4C. Reynolds and Y. Joel, Pop. Photogr. 74, 74 (1974); see also edito-
rial accompanying publication of Ref. 3, above.
5The Kirlian Aura, edited by S. Krippner and D. Rubin (Anchor, Gar-
den City, NY, 1974).
8J. B. Rhine and J. G. Pratt, Parapsychology (Thomas, Springfield, IL,
1957); Parapsychology, from Duke to FRNM, edited by J. B. Rhine
(Parapsychology, Durham, NC, 1965).
7L. Le Shan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist (Viking, New
York, 1974).
8P. Davidovits, Communication (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York, 1972), Appendix II.
."M. Christopher, ESP, Seers and Psychics (Cromwell, New York,
1970).
10Sci: Am. 232, 52 (January 1975).
11Sci. Am. 231, 68 (September 1974).
1082
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080051-8
S. L. Blatt

. inquiry, discussion of some subjects which
face resemblance to science is proposed. The
research into extrasensory perception appears
il as such a counterexample, allowing for
mparisons which illuminate the subject of
'' in science while maintaining high student
cture suggestions, including demonstrations,
ed.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-0078ZR00029008005f-8
wing
gestion appears at the beginning of a
introductory physics for nonscience
nation
ie read
also is invited to answer the question
eding
rse write, in the spaces provided, the name of
m in
ich of the following categories:
A cofor
A flower
A piece of furniture.
DUCTION
tives
D a course in introductory physics for
tudents often require that, in addition to the
matt
of physics, an explicit attempt be
case the students' awareness of the processes
ch scientific knowledge is obtained. While
codif Rations of these processes under the
[ "scientific method" result in too incom-
re to
& very useful, the experiences of the
selvecoduring the course usually provide a
tion @ discussions of the characteristics of
"
To interplay of observations, experi-
building, deductions, and "accidental" dis-
be noted in laboratory sessions, lectures and
istorical developments, and all other aspects
However, if any development of a critical
ired-such as the ability to sort out what is
what is not science in the modern twentieth
jects, catastrophic cosmological events in the recent his-
tory of the earth, and related lore could be introduced,
similarly, to compare with the nature of physical theory
and observation. The subject of extrasensory perception,
more familiarly known as ESP, has been found to be
especially good for this purpose. The remainder of this
paper is devoted to providing (a) some background on
ESP; with some of the contrasts between its historical de-
velopment and the methods followed by physicists, and
(b) an outline for a lecture on the subject, complete with
demonstrations. This lecture format has been used for the
past several years; it has never failed to capture the in-
terest of the students and has always generated long and
fruitful discussions concerning criteria for evidence, mod-
els of reality. and the whole gamut of science methodolo-
gy.
III. BACKGROUND ON ESP
The subject of ESP has been, historically, a controver-
sial one: A new wave of interest has recently emerged,
accompanied by a host of new books and new claims
(both of authenticity and of fraud). The recent publication
of a study of the phenomena produced by one well-known
ESP practitioner, Uri Geller, appearing in a prestigious
scientific journal,3 has been countered by articles in the
general public media4 suggesting where the scientists may
have been misled. Photographic studies5 of a mysterious
"aura" surrounding living objects, said by some to be re-
lated to the "thought-transfer" process and by others to
be simple, predictable electrostatic effects, have been
made with impressively complicated apparatus. All the
appearance of conventional scientific investigation is pres -.
ent, and it is truly a challenge to attempt to analyze
these new efforts in an old field objectively. However, the
interest generated by this revival of ESP research provides
an excellent opportunity to introduce the subject in its his-
torical context, and to contrast its development with that
of physics.
Background reading on ESP should include works by
investigators in the field itself,6. proponents of the scien-
tific merits of the findings of those researchers,7 and crit-
ics who reject these studies in the context of the sci-
ences8 or of professional "magic."9 All agree in linking
any definition of ESP to the thought process, and several
manifestations of the nonsensory transfer of thought have
been given distinctive names:
(i) Clairvoyance is usually defined as the ability to
have knowledge of events which are taking place in the
present, but about which no sensory input can be had.
(ii) Precognition is defined as the ability to have
Copyright 1975 by the American Association of Physics Teachers / 1079
`of Physics Vol. 43, No. 12, December 1975
...