Uri Geller - What do you think?

I think Max's questions have been answered. Marks and Kammann described what they found on their investigation, but also noted that they unable to confirm what was present during the experiments, if different (they mention other possibilities including a curtain and a board which could be shifted).

I agree with Laird that there probably isn't much more to get out of this. Proponents are willing to take it on faith that the experiments were performed without error. I don't take any of that on faith, since my experience has been much different in this regard for all areas of research, not just parapsychology. I don't give a rat's ass about Randi's speculation (so don't care that Rogo chose to explain it away). Regardless of whether you think that Marks and Kammann's explanations are sufficient for every case, I think the discrepancies that they found between the reporting of the conditions and the actual conditions are too worrisome for any but a committed believer to ignore.

So, as usual, it comes down to which way your individual preferences lead you when all you have to go on is "trust me". Proponents will still believe and scientists/skeptics will still be skeptical.

Linda

With respect to the Farraday cage, the speculation was that one of Geller's assistants could see the picture and then signal to Geller from outside the cage, not that Geller could see anything. Which makes sense, because the drawings from those sessions didn't look like the pictures.

The only drawing which matches the picture was the grapes and that was the only picture which was hung directly across from the window. None of the remaining drawings match in the way that you would expect from someone who saw the picture. They look more like someone following a description (like "solar system") or hand movements.

Linda

Regardless of whether you think that Marks and Kammann's explanations are sufficient for every case, I think the discrepancies that they found between the reporting of the conditions and the actual conditions are too worrisome for any but a committed believer to ignore.

I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

I think it's difficult for those of us who haven't read the book to judge from what's been posted here either the seriousness of the discrepancies or the likelihood of the explanations. In particular, how far the explanations are based on documented facts, and how far on speculation about how things might have been. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can copy the relevant parts when I'm next at a library that has it.

I'd find the idea of an accomplice outside more plausible than all the suggestions about pinholes and cable conduits, but if that's really how it's supposed to have been done the evidence would need to be spelled out. But perhaps these authors felt constrained by libel considerations?

AFAIK There's no need to worry about libel if they stick to facts and don't assert fraud.

Reading the two accounts of the August work with Geller (the "diary" and the Nature version) throws up some interesting points.

Diary (linked to earlier in the thread, but the is the CIA version)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0027-0.pdf

Nature, October 1974
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0001-4.pdf


First, I want to address the method used to choose the target word. Opening a dictionary at random and picking the first word that can reasonably be drawn allows too much leeway in what the target will be.

This is important because one of the non-psi ways to achieve these results is to us an accomplice: someone who knows what Geller will draw and then chooses a word that can be interpreted in a similar manner.

The person choosing the target is not specified in either document, but Jean Millay (who went on to become a noted parapsychologist in her own right) wrote about her experiences as the person who drew the target picture and in her version of events, it was Russell Targ who chose the word and told her what to draw. 

(I hope this link works. Click on section from page 62)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DXaI...er&f=false

With regards to these words, it's worth mentioning that the reporting of the target word changed between the diary version and the Nature version. What was originally "fuse" became "firecracker" in Nature, which made it a much better hit. Similarly, "bunch" became "grapes" in the Nature article. The next two trials had no target word at all, according to the original version, but in Nature they do.

This is odd and very telling, especially the first two, since it's an example of Targ and Puthoff changing the data in order to improve the impression of success. 

It happened again with the sessions involving the scientists brought in from outside. In these three Geller drew pictures for each one, but eventually passed. In Nature, it is maintained that no drawings were made. This is interesting because there was another session in which drawings were made but Geller passed, but in this case the drawings matched (it's the camel/horse session) and the session was counted as a hit.

The next point I want to address was the 60-trial experiment held in December using double blind conditions and a protocol much closer to the one that the CIA wanted back in April. This was a complete failure, yet it is only mentioned in passing in the Nature article. It seems odd to me that they should emphasize the results of 13 trials over the 60 trials that followed. It's like writing up the pilot study in full, and then skimming over the actual experiment as briefly as possible.

It happened again with the sessions involving the scientists brought in from outside. In these three Geller drew pictures for each one, but eventually passed. In Nature, it is maintained that no drawings were made. This is interesting because there was another session in which drawings were made but Geller passed, but in this case the drawings matched (it's the camel/horse session) and the session was counted as a hit.

Thanks. The diary is very useful. Apparently the same was true of the bridge session the same day. Geller passed, but his drawing was presented in the paper.

[Edit: And the kite and the church in the computer series.]

So, as usual, it comes down to which way your individual preferences lead you when all you have to go on is "trust me". Proponents will still believe and scientists/skeptics will still be skeptical.

Linda

This is bogus. I know plenty of skeptical proponents who are true to the classical meaning of "skeptical", and aren't skeptics in the way that many self-anointed "skeptics" are "skeptical". They don't believe everything they read or hear about, and do their best to research and then critically think about things before coming to a conclusion. There seem to be at least a decent number of proponents here who do that. 

Likewise, there are plenty of skeptics who aren't "skeptical" by the actual meaning of the word at all, unless you think it means "to be utterly cynical and disbelieving of any one thing that doesn't fit into your worldview, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and as a result come to a conclusory belief."

And, of course, there are legitimately skeptical "skeptics" (though my guess is that those people would be far too intelligent to label themselves with such a term), and there are "true believing" proponents who take things more at face value and are led to belief in paranormal (and related) topics because they want to believe them, with little supporting information.

Grouping scientists with skeptics is another foolish and unreasonable characterization, as if there aren't plenty of proponent (in this context) scientists or proponents can't be skeptical (again, in the real, actual, classical meaning of the term, not the term as it's been bastardized today).

With regards to this topic, I hadn't even heard of Uri Geller prior to this thread, and I am woefully unfamiliar with any of the details contained herein. However, Laird and Kamarling (just calling them out because I've noticed they prominently feature here) are, in my experience, intelligent and well-reasoned members who make meaningful contributions because they back up what they're saying with evidence. Of course, this discussion has largely been about the merits of the evidence, which is wonderful. But to just broadly state "proponents will still believe" is disingenuous, unless you really and truly meant that the "all you have to go on is 'trust me'" phrase is applying equally to proponents and skeptics, and I'm not getting that sense from your post. Stating "proponents take it on faith" is another unreasonable statement. They've gone back and forth with the skeptics of Geller by stating that they would like to hear legitimate reasons and specifics for why the Geller skeptics think the whole thing is fraudulent or bogus; not so different from skeptics saying something like, "where's the evidence?", is it? That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

I'm not in any way saying I agree with their opinions, or yours, or anyone else's on this topic, and in fact my default position here without looking into it at all is that I would be inclined to not buy much of anything Geller was selling, but I haven't done my own research; either way, I think this is an important thing to make note of.