CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020009001418 7 told
9/15
you, it got lost in
The shuffle
97
Ken
As per your request, here is the draft of my paranormal criteria thoughts.
I have Xeroxed your copy so that your comments are contained in this
copy. I would like to comment on some of your thoughts.
First of all your argument about the false hypotheses criterion being
untrue: you are right because I stated my proposition very poorly.
The idea I had to get across which I did not was that in "normal
science" (as opposed to "paranormal science") when there are competing
hypotheses, there can be performed a critical experiment which will
distinguish between the validity of the two assettions. Once
performed ( indeed once even verbalized ) a major hurdle is crossed
which will distinguish between the competing assertions. To use your
example, the concepts of gravity put forth by Einstein and Dicke are
not both right ( although they both may be wrong) but some day
one will be placed in higher credence than the other based on accumulated
observations and on experiments designed to distinguish between
salient features of the hypotheses. I did overstate the simplicity
of discerning between competing hypotheses. However, you will xxxxx
agree that the phlogiston hypothesis has been disprooved and it was
disprooved by demonstrating that the assumption of its validity led
to erroneous conclusions based on objectively collected data.
Regarding another point, I do not believe that the inability
of a "normal scientist" to explain experimental observation in all detail
should provide positive proof of paranormal phenomena any more than
you are willing to allow that the inability of"paranormal practitioners"
to produce identically reporducible resut1s under all circumstances
and upon demand is proof positive that paranormal phenomena are a sham.
Essentially, I feel that the proof of a "negative" is so difficult
that neither side of this controversy should be put in the position
of having to prove a negative assertion in order to demonstrate the
validity of their claims.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8
-2-
In my argument concerning the reproduceability of gravity, I did not
mean to imply that paranormal phenomena should indeed reach this level
of reliability before any utility could be perceived. Mi However,
it must be agreed that some high level of replication will have to
be demonstrated before there will be acceptance of the information by
customers for intelligence. The question in my mind is something like:
What background evidence would I want if I had to brief the President
that the Soviets had violated SALT and were planning a pre-emptive
strike if my information came from some astral projection kind of
experience? (Granted this is a loaded situation! But we must consider
the level of incredulity of customers for intelligence and the risks
associated with misleading XNXX% information vis a vis the obvious
positive benefits of paranormal xxxxxxxxx capabioity)
SG11
Regarding the statement of an Operational Criterion as per
argument, one must ask what level of credibility resides in the DD for
Operations and the DCI vis a vis remote viewing. This is because it
is those two humans who will approve or not approve operational plans/
entries/manuvers proposed by the
of the Agency. I
SG11
think you will agree that the non-stable nature of the occupants of
those seats along with the vagaries of human nature make this type
of defininton very difficult and maybe even impossible. Just in the
six years I've been here, there have been 4 DDO's and 4 DCI's. The
thought of finding commonalities in such definition for these eight
gentlemen is mind-boggling.
I am ordering for the Library a copy of a book called Fads and Fallacies
in the Name of Science. When it comes in I will let you know so you
can get it for your perusal. From its title, you know it is negative
in orientation but it does produce some thought provoking responses in
the reader vis a vis far out science.
Jack
jdf
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8