(2017-09-10, 10:19 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I accept that, I'm still waiting for my copy of "The Psychology of the Psychic" to arrive... as I intended to do something similar... But you seem to have discovered something which in the Zetetic? which is concerning to me?
Actually, the Zetetic footnote is easy enough to post (the rest of the article is about some informal experiments in New Zealand):
[Image: ZeteticFootnote.jpg]
If anyone wants copies of the rest of that article or the chapter in the book, the offer still stands (though I now realise I omitted to photograph the figures in the book).
(2017-09-10, 01:31 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]This is gold, Chris.
There's an archived copy of another version of this document with responses by Randi added and some additional comments (by Steve Knights?):
https://web.archive.org/web/200312111508...k/fact.htm
I think it's fair to say that neither side comes out of the exchange unscathed, though Randi comes out worse, despite usually having the last word.
As is often the way, we're left with a situation of trying to assess two opposing and equally self-serving accounts. Trying to pick out some kind of truth is almost impossible.
Chris kindly sent me the link to read Marks and Kammann's capter, and it's sometimes very hard to tell what they're basing their statements on: documents, testimony or their own suppositions. They have some theories that sound plausible, but could be entirely fictional.
Targ & Puthoff's paper in Nature seems to deviate from what actually happened in a number of important points. There's the issue of the target word being changed, some sessions were actually passed but included in the results as a "hit" and that Geller was allowed to communicate with the experimenters during the session.
These we can be sure of, since Targ & Puthoff wrote these down themselves in the original report of Geller's work.
As for the other claims of Geller’s confederates somehow helping him, Geller apparently leaving the room during one session, or the issues with the wall are too difficult to pinpoint with any accuracy at this late date. I strongly suspect that they’re irrelevant, however.
(2017-09-10, 03:32 PM)ersby Wrote: [ -> ]Chris kindly sent me the link to read Marks and Kammann's capter, and it's sometimes very hard to tell what they're basing their statements on: documents, testimony or their own suppositions. They have some theories that sound plausible, but could be entirely fictional.
Yes, that was one thing I found frustrating. As you'll have seen, they also refer to a book by Wilhelm, entitled "The Search for Superman", which I haven't seen. But there seems to be a large element of sheer speculation in their theories, such as the one about Geller having been able to add pitchforks to one picture after he'd seen the target. I find it difficult to imagine that.
(2017-09-10, 02:23 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]There's an archived copy of another version of this document with responses by Randi added and some additional comments (by Steve Knights?):
https://web.archive.org/web/200312111508...k/fact.htm
I think it's fair to say that neither side comes out of the exchange unscathed, though Randi comes out worse, despite usually having the last word.
I agree. I generally find Randi execrable. Although he may come up with a few decent points, they are difficult to find.
I was mostly interested in Marks and Kammann because it brings to light that the tidy presentation by Targ and Puthoff was rather untidy in real life. I don't think their speculation should be taken as "this is how it was done". It merely serves as an example (when others' imagination fails them) of how improvisation can allow for trickery.
As I said before, I don't see much point in trying to come to a conclusion in this case, if what we are interested in is advancing the cause of psi among scientists. It can't be convincing to someone who is used to being doubtful.
Linda
Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - Uri Geller is claiming he was asked by the CIA to investigate (psychically) the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and discovered something "quite shocking". He speculates that it may be revealed in files that are about to be released, but the author of the article thinks he is "toying with us like one of his famous spoons":
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/10/ps...n-for-cia/
Courtesy of Carlos S. Alvarado, here's a University of British Columbia master's thesis by Jacob Older Green, about the Uri Geller controversy and how it influenced the attitude of sceptics to parapsychology:
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/colle.../1.0368989
The whole thesis is available at
https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/downlo....0368989/4 , but here's the abstract:
This paper investigates the controversy following the publication of work by scientists working at the Stanford Research Institute that claimed to show that the extraordinary mental powers of 1970s super psychic Uri Geller were real. The thesis argues that the controversy around Geller represented a shift in how skeptical scientists treated parapsychology. Instead of engaging with parapsychology and treating it as an incipient, if unpromising scientific discipline, which had been the norm since the pioneering work of J.B. Rhine in the 1930s, parapsychology's critics portrayed the discipline as a pseudoscience, little more than an attempt by credulous scientists to confirm their superstitious belief in occult psychic powers. The controversy around Geller also led to the creation of The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), one of the first skeptical organizations specializing in investigating supposed instances of paranormal phenomena. I argue that the shift in critics' attitudes and the creation of CSICOP were partially due to a fear among some scientists and their supporters that the scientific work on Geller would lend legitimacy to the "Occult Revival"—a term used to describe rising popular interest in the occult, astrology and psychic abilities in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Quote:I argue that the shift in critics' attitudes and the creation of CSICOP were partially due to a fear among some scientists and their supporters that the scientific work on Geller would lend legitimacy to the "Occult Revival"—a term used to describe rising popular interest in the occult, astrology and psychic abilities in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Yes because how dare people be interested in self improvement. Granted I get there was and still is a lot of feel good nonesense in all that, hell it's likely the majority from what I've seen. But much like any industry the pretenders will sink to the bottom, outshines by the passionate and hardworking. Hopefully we can bring that back and develop something amazing out of it.