People that sit on the both side what do you think about the propnet and skeptic?

The bowl of a spoon is shaped. The shaped structure is resistant to bending, just like the fluting in corrugated cardboard makes a soft paper material resistant to bending. But just like corrugated cardboard, once it goes past a certain level of stress, the form of the fluting which gives it form strength is broken. The corrugated cardboard collapses on a crease or bend. The same happens to the bowl of an annealed spoon. It is a soft material which has strength through its bowl shape, but quickly collapses once the shape is compromised. It’s like a chicken egg too, strong form, made out of weak material. However, unlike craft paper which forms the cardboard fluting, the annealed metal of the spoon will work harden with the bending.

Typical example is a length of copper pipe. It has strength through form, but if you bend it. It will resist. Then suddenly give way, then it will work harden. And require much greater strength to bend back.

So you would get resistance to bending from form/shape, which would suddenly give way appearing suddenly easily bendable when the form was compromised, the metal would bend, then work harden. So strength through form, form collapses, metal bends then work hardens.

Time ————- >
High resistance (shape strength) —-> low resistance (annealed metal) —- high resistance (work hardening)

Thanks. Radin's description prior to the bend doesn't indicate what he was doing to his spoon, only that he watching someone else with theirs. It would be good to know if that spoon bending party had everyone engage in the rubbing that Michael Crichton mentioned.

EDIT: I'm curious, Max - looking at the thread North linked to in the other thread, you seemed less skeptical of macro-PK a few years ago. What changed your mind, and what do you make of the event North mentioned where the silverware wasn't provided by the hosts?

<p><br></p>

[Laird]

I think one would have to read the book to decide how fair the summary is, and - perhaps more importantly - the extent to which Taylor's conclusions were based on the failure to detect electromagnetic fields in association with paranormal phenomena . The review says "His starting point is that if psychic energy is anything it must be electromagnetism which ought to be measurable." I think these days most people familiar with the literature would view that as a rather wild and old-fashioned assumption, and would be sceptical about any conclusions drawn from the failure to detect electromagnetic signals. But after all, we are talking about a book published nearly forty years ago.

I borrowed the book from the Internet Archive ("borrowing" electronic books - what a strange concept). I still have it on loan, so unfortunately anybody wanting to corroborate what I've written in my post here from that "copy" of the book will have to wait.

I read the first 76 or so pages, and then skimmed through to find substantial references to Uri Geller.

The extent to which his conclusions were based on the failure to detect electromagnetic fields is substantial. On page 28, he writes that, when it comes to explaining paranormal phenomena, 'it is a case of "electromagnetism or bust"'. On page 42, he explains that in his experiments on healing he was unable to detect any electromagnetic emissions, and this seems to be a major motivation for his skepticism towards paranormal healing. That said, he does try to augment these sort of failures-of-detection-of-electromagnetism with other supposed failures. For example, on page 69 he writes:

[R]adio waves will not explain telepathy either. We have therefore reached an impasse; distant viewing and telepathy have strong evidence in their support but definitely contradict modern scientific understanding. How can we reconcile these contradictory features? The next step would be to go back to the evidence for these phenomena and look at it more carefully. Is it, in fact, as good as it has been claimed by its proponents?

His answer is that, no, it is not, however, his elaboration on this is, in my view, unconvincing.

He seems, to an extent, to want to have it both ways, or at least to be willing to view the evidence in a positive frame, which is perhaps why the New Scientist reviewer wrote that "He will not make any converts among believers in the paranormal but, at the same time, he probably will not alienate many of them either".

For example, he devotes an early chapter (chapter two) to recounting various paranormal phenomena and events, and, at the start of the next chapter, on page 20, writes that the phenomena of the previous chapter "have all been authenticated to an extent that makes them worth considering seriously. All remain to some degree unexplained". And in his chapters devoted to various specific categories of phenomena, he devotes a fair bit of space to - not even grudgingly, apparently - outlining and even detailing the positive evidence for the phenomena in question, and he often doesn't seem to have convincing explanations for, or debunkings of, that evidence, at least in specific cases.

This brings us to Uri Geller. Raf999 wrote:

You don't really need to read the whole book to know the outcome. Just read a recap. This man found out that he was being tricked, and changed his mind.

And I had responded:

If you reread the quote I shared, you might find, as I do, that it is difficult to see how a trick could have been played - there are, for example, cases where objects were affected without Uri's contact - even where John had his hand between Uri and the object to prevent contact - and there are also cases where the applied force was measured, and not only that but where the object bent in the opposite direction to the force. So, if the explanation is trickery (and I don't know that that is exactly what John Taylor later claimed - it's not clear from Wikipedia), then it is not reasonable to be satisfied with that assertion alone. I'd want to see an explanation of how the trick was performed.

The explanation I sought was, as I expected, not forthcoming. Not only in this book does John Taylor fail to explain in specifics how trickery might have been behind the feats he described Uri Geller performing under controlled conditions in his earlier book, but he even includes, early in the book, between pages eight and nine, a glowing description of an inexplicable feat which initially caused him to become interested in Uri:

Initial results with various subjects, including Geller, left me in no doubt that there was something worth investigating. As one example, I have myself held the bowl of a teaspoon as its stem was rubbed gently by Geller till it broke gently into two pieces within a minute. The spoon, as well as I can recall the case without an exact videotape record, had come that instant from my pocket and I see no way in which it could have been tampered with beforehand. Excess pressure could not have been applied since I would certainly have sensed it as I held the bowl of the spoon. No duplication by an already bent spoon could have occurred since I held the spoon throughout until it broke, and in any case it was a rather special one with certain marks I could recognize. Nor could enough temperature have been applied to melt it, since if it had I would have smelled burning flesh - my own! The use of chemicals was ruled out by the absence of the characteristic discoloration and cracking observed in such a situation. In all, it was a case very difficult to understand unless I had hallucinated or not recalled all that happened correctly.

Nowhere in those parts of the book that I have read - which I think include all substantial references to Uri but, having not read the whole thing, can't be 100% sure - does he return to this incident to offer a suggestion as to how Uri might have tricked him.

He also writes this on page 117: "The evidence for paranormal spoon bending presented up to now is suggestive but certainly not watertight". "Suggestive but not watertight" does not sound to me like a definitive "I was tricked by Uri".

Here, between pages 117 and 118, is what he does write about the earlier tests with Uri, and about the further tests which he tried to perform:

The conclusion I have now arrived at is based on various criticisms which could be (and have been) made of earlier tests of the phenomenon, in particular that of inadequate documentation of the amount of force being applied to the spoon by a subject during a test. Both videotape and direct recordings of the pressure being used during any spoon-bending session are necessary for authentication. I set out to collect such documentation several years ago.

One of the methods I used was the "letter balance" method, with the metal strip to be bent being screwed down to the top of a letter balance. The pressure applied was monitored continuously during the test by a video camera focused on the needle of the balance. This camera also gave a close-up of the subject's finger gently stroking the strip and recorded a clock used to prove continuity of the record. Another video camera was used for a wider shot to detect suspicious movements. At the same time a range of radio-wave detectors was used.

This method was inspected by various sceptics, including "the Amazing Randi," who commented afterward that the setup would be satisfactory provided the second video recorder was remote enough from the scene of the crime; this was accordingly ensured. Having set up a suitable test, and enlisted the aid of several colleagues, we invited various subjects to perform.

The first to be put under our scrutiny was Uri Geller himself, who happened to be in London launching a record he had been involved with. He came to the laboratory for one and a half hours. In spite of the very friendly atmosphere he did not succeed at all during that period. Nor has he returned to be tested again under these (or any other) conditions, in spite of several warm invitations to him to do so. One could suppose that his powers desert him in the presence of sceptics, but during that test at no time did I or any of my team express any form of scepticism; I do not think we even thought a harsh thought! As far as I am concerned, there endeth the saga of Uri Geller; if he is not prepared to be tested under such conditions his powers cannot be authentic.

So, basically, the only criticism he has found of the original experiments is that the second camera was too close. How this might have enabled trickery is left unspecified, as is any description of any specific tricks that might have been performed. Again, I encourage you to reread the quote from his first book and see what possibilities you can imagine for trickery. The possibilities seem to me to be... somewhat limited, to put it mildly.

And, getting back to the role of electromagnetism in his rejection of the paranormal, here's what he writes on page 120 (emphasis mine):

There is no question in my mind that electromagnetism is not at all involved with spoon bending. With my colleague Eduardo Balanovski, I have spent many, many hours working with subjects, with absolutely no success. Indeed I can only conclude from the complete absence of firm results that there is nothing paranormal at all in spoon bending. This leaves unanswered the question as to why subjects have come forward who are apparently honestly convinced that they can achieve paranormal effects.

I think it's pretty clear from the emboldened that his conclusion that spoon bending is not paranormal is largely based on his failure to detect electromagnetic effects.

In trying to answer his unanswered question, he essentially offers two potential explanations: firstly, that spoons are bent by an involuntary muscular effect (a mechanical force), and, secondly, that the bending is achieved by deliberate fraud. No attempt is made to explain how either of these apply in the successful experiments with Uri which he documented in his earlier book - some of those experiments in which, I remind you, Uri did not even touch the bent/destroyed objects.

his subjects failed to replicate what they did under seriousl controlled condition.

The only additional control that he imposed was moving the second camera further away from Uri. If in your view that changes the experiment from one that was not "seriously controlled" into one that was, then... well, all I can suggest is that that's an exaggerated view of the relevance of this control, because to me it seems to be a little flimsy as a distinction between the two experiments.

Note: if I go on to read bits of this book that I haven't (yet) read, and discover anything that materially changes the views I've expressed in this post, then, assuming I continue to have the means to, I'll report back.

[Laird]

So, basically, the only criticism he has found of the original experiments is that the second camera was too close.

The only additional control that he imposed was moving the second camera further away from Uri.

To be fair, on rereading these parts of both books, I might have gotten this wrong: it might be that the original experiments did not have two cameras, or perhaps did not even have a single camera. It's hard to tell from the quote provided by Smithy. The criticism seems to be of a proposed methodology rather than an extant one.

I borrowed the book from the Internet Archive ("borrowing" electronic books - what a strange concept). I still have it on loan, so unfortunately anybody wanting to corroborate what I've written in my post here from that "copy" of the book will have to wait.

Thanks for taking the trouble to check up on this.

Setting aside subtleties of interpretation, I think this certainly illustrates the dangers of relying on a "recap" from a biased source, which Wikipedia can be presumed to be, as far as parapsychology is concerned.

Incidentally, another book that can be borrowed from the Internet Archive is the 1977 "Handbook of Parapsychology," edited by Benjamin Wolman. An illustration of the fact that even more than 40 years ago, the extent of the scientific literature on this subject was already vast:
https://archive.org/details/handbookofparaps00wol_h3x

There is surely a logic error. If the 'paranormal' is explained by electromagnetism, it becomes, by definition, the 'normal'. It is the absence of conventional explanation which makes it of interest in the first place, and indeed serves to validate it.

What is necessary of course is to confirm that (a) a particular phenomenon exists and (b) it definitely does not have a conventional explanation. If one concludes that (b) is true, then that is in its favour. Conversely, if (b) is false, then the phenomenon is 'debunked'.

There is surely a logic error. If the 'paranormal' is explained by electromagnetism, it becomes, by definition, the 'normal'. It is the absence of conventional explanation which makes it of interest in the first place, and indeed serves to validate it.

What is necessary of course is to confirm that (a) a particular phenomenon exists and (b) it definitely does not have a conventional explanation. If one concludes that (b) is true, then that is in its favour. Conversely, if (b) is false, then the phenomenon is 'debunked'.

Precisely what occurred to me too. But I've come across similar statements before - i.e. that psi can't be real because, if it were we would be able to detect some kind of energy or force with our sophisticated instruments. Once again, the locked-in materialism of modern scientism.

[EDIT] I did a quick search and came up with this from the Wikipedia (where else?) page on parapsychology:

The ideas of psi (precognition, psychokinesis and telepathy) violate well-established laws of physics.[183] Psychokinesis violates the inverse-square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum.[184][185] There is no known mechanism for psi.[186]

On the subject of psychokinesis, the physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that both human brains and the spoons they try to bend are made, like all matter, of quarks and leptons; everything else they do emerges as properties of the behavior of quarks and leptons. And the quarks and leptons interact through the four forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. Thus either it's one of the four known forces or it's a new force, and any new force with range over 1 millimetre must be at most a billionth the strength of gravity or it will have been captured in experiments already done. This leaves no physical force that could possibly account for psychokinesis.[187]

Physicist John G. Taylor who investigated parapsychological claims has written an unknown fifth force causing psychokinesis would have to transmit a great deal of energy. The energy would have to overcome the electromagnetic forces binding the atoms together. The atoms would need to respond more strongly to the fifth force while it is operative than to electric forces. Such an additional force between atoms should therefore exist all the time and not during only alleged paranormal occurrences. Taylor wrote there is no scientific trace of such a force in physics, down to many orders of magnitude; thus if a scientific viewpoint is to be preserved the idea of any fifth force must be discarded. Taylor concluded there is no possible physical mechanism for psychokinesis and it is in complete contradiction to established science.