[ExI] Psi and gullibility

[Damien Broderick]

On 1/27/2010 6:14 AM, BillK wrote:

> I think it is too simplistic to put psi claims down to only wishful
> thinking or madness.

Of course, but I was suggesting that one motive for disregarding it, in 
current scientific quarters, is that it seems to resemble the delusions 
of the insane, or at best the sloppy correlation-equals-causation 
thinking of folk physics. Ironically, this is exactly the same erroneous 
reasoning process used in rejecting psi on that basis. (Think about it.)

> The main problem with claiming the reality of psi is the inability to
> produce any practical use for it. This was the main reason the CIA
> management canceled Star Gate.

Not true. It produced many practical outcomes unavailable (at a given 
time) by any other data source.

> They weren't really interested in the
> two opposing reviews, one anti, saying it didn't exist. and one pro,
> claiming statistically significant results. The CIA couldn't use it
> because even the believers admitted it was hit and miss and they never
> knew what was a 'hit' until they obtained on-site verification.

This is close to true (they weren't interested in process research, a 
cause of constant frustration to Ed May and his research team). Psi (so 
far) doesn't produce results as reliable as on the ground intel, 
although it did and still does supply important extra detail. But other 
factors were in play.

Keep in mind that the US is the home of Dat Ole Time Religion, and that 
more than half the respondents in any poll of citizens declare their 
belief that the world was created by an anthropomorphic Father God some 
6000 years ago. I've been told independently by several highly placed 
people in both the military and civilians wings of the psi program that 
it met extreme resistance, especially toward the end, from military 
decision makers who were convinced that the operatives were getting 
their results by demonic or diabolical means. (I mean, what else could 
it be? These data were frequently good, yet no known means could explain 
their acquisition. Obviously Satan's work!)

It's not only "crazy ideas" like psi that run afoul of this Xian 
absurdity: consider refusal to fund needle exchange programs, legalize 
soft drugs, insistence on "abstinence" programs in schools, etc. It's 
amazing that anything sensible ever gets funded in the USA. (Yes, the 
reply will be that support for STAR GATE and its predecessors was an 
example of that zaniness--and certainly it had support from some odd 
people like General Stubblebine. But a major motive for closing it down 
was the Xian fundamentalism rife in the military.)

> Similarly, attempts were made to predict casino games. Again, they
> claimed statistical significance, but couldn't make money on it, even
> though there were strong financial incentives.

Some attempted applications did make money. It's difficult to bootstrap 
something like this, because trained operatives are thin on the ground.


> I found an interesting paper that discusses this.
> <http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:LoMuhwxjqq8J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000>
>
> SPIRITUALITY AND THE CAPRICIOUS, EVASIVE NATURE OF PSI
> J.E. Kennedy
> For the National Conference on Yoga and Parapsychology,
> January, 2006, Visakhapatnam, India        Version of 5/14/2007
>
> Abstract: Many writers have noted that psi appears to be capricious
> and actively evasive. ... These characteristics are not consistent with the
> assumptions for statistical research and have not been explained.
> ---------------

> The alternative is that it doesn't exist.

You seem to have misunderstood the final sentence, quoted above. Kennedy 
is saying that psi is skittish, but that the empirical findings *remain 
inexplicable* using the null hypothesis.

Damien Broderick