C o p y r i g h t ed M at e r i a l

SPIRIT & SUBSTRATEc o n t i n u u m . Le t m e e i v e a f e w ex am p l e s d i s t r i b u t e d a l o n e t h a tc o n t i n u u m , s t a r t i n g a t t h e m o s t s p h e x i s h a n d fi n i s h i n g w i t h t h e m o s tan t i s n h e x i s h :

1. A s t u c k r e c o r d . T h i s c a n b e e s p e c i a l l y i r o n i c i f i t ' s ar e c o r d i n g o f s o m e t h i n g t h a t h a s a v i b r a n t , l i f e l i k ed y n a m i s m t o i t ( s u c h a s t h e m u s i c o f c o n t e m p o r a r yc o m p o s e r S t e v e Re i c h ) , a n d t h e n t h e i l l u s i o n i ss h a t t e re d b s t h e m e c h a n i c a l r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e j u m p i n gn e e d l e .

2. T h e S p h e x w a s p h e r s e l f , a n d o t h e r ex a m p l e s f r o m t h ei n s e c t w o r l d . F o r i n s t a n c e , s u p p o s e y o u h a v e am o s o u i t o i n y o u r b e d r o o m . Yo u t r y t o s w a t i t . an dm i s s . I t t ake s o ff an d fl i e s a ro u n d t h e r o o m , l o s i n g y o u .B u t a f t e r a w h i l e , i t s e t t l e s d o w n a n d y o u s p o t i ts o m e w h e r e o n t h e wal l . Again you t ry to swat i t andmiss . As thi s cyc le pro gresses , i s the r t I O S Q U i t 0 a w a r e o ft h e r e p e t i t i o n ? D o e s i t b e g i n t o s e n s e t h a t t h e r e i sa n o r g a n i z e d c o n s p i r a c y a g a i n s t i t . o r d o e s e a c h n e ws w a t a t t e m p t c o m e a s f r e s h a n d u n e x p e c t e d a s t h ep r e v i o u s o n e ? D o e s t h e m o s o u i t o f o r m u l a t e s o m es u c h n o t i o n a s " t h e a n i m a t e a g e n t t r y i n g t o w i p e m eo u t " ? S ad l y f o r t he M O S t I n t l 0 ( b u t f o r t u n a t e l y f o r y o u ) ,i t s e e m s h i g h l y d o u b t f u l .

3 . A h e r d o f c a t t l e i n a c o r r a l . w a i t i n g t o g e t b r a n d e d . T h e r e i sg e n e r a l c o m m o t i o n a n d h u b b u b , c au s e d b y t h e n o i s e e a c h c o wm a ke s a t t h e m o m e n t o f b r a n d i n e , a n d p r o p a g a t e d o u t w a r d b yt h e c o w s c l o s e s t t o i t B u t d o e s e ac h c o w i n t h e c o r r a l r e c o g n i z et h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n ? I s

i t s i n c r e a s e d s t a t e o f ag i t a t i o n d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o w s e e sw h a t i s c o m i n g - o r i s i t r a t h e r j u s t a k i n d o f v ag u e a p p re h e n s i o n ,p e rh a p s m e r e l y a r a i s e d a d r e n a l i n e l e v e l w i t h o u t a n y s p e c i fi cm e a n i n g o r re f e re n t i a l d u a l i t y ?

4. A d o e w h o i s f o o l e d e v e r y t i m e b y a f a k i n g m o t i o n i n w h i c h y o u

p re te n d t o t h r o w a b a l l , b u t i n s t e ad d o n ' t re l e a s e i t . Ac t u a l l y , I d o n ' t

k n o w a n y d o g w h o w o u l d f a l l f o r s u c h a n e l e m e n t a r y t r i c k .

H o w e v e r. I d o k n o w a d o g ( w h o s h a l l r e m a i n n a m e l e s s — a l t h o u g h

h e d o e s b a t m e n t o b e a n A i r e d a l e ) w h o d i d n o t c a t c h o n w h e n I

t h r e w h i s t o y t o a n u p s t a i r s l a n d i n g i n s t e a d o f d o w n t h e h a l l

( w h e r e h e e x p e c t e d i t ) - I l e d h i m u p t h e s t a i r s a n d s h o w e d h i m

w h e r e i t w a s . I ex p e c t e d h e w o u l d k n o w t o g o u p s t a i r s t h e n e x t

t i m e . B u t n o s u c h l u c k - H e j u s t r an d o w n t h e h a l lw ay ag a i n - Ev e n

a f t e r I h a d t h ro w n h i s t o y u p s t a i r s fi f t e e n t i m e s m o r e , h e s t i l l r a n

d o w n t h e h a l l w ay , t h e n c a m e b a c k l o o k i n g c o n f u s e d . P o o r d o g g i e !

Tr u e . s o m e o f t h o s e s e v e n t e e n pa in fu l t imes he d id s tar t go ing up

the s ta i rs . but each t ime he got o n l y p a r t w a y u p , t h e n t u r n e d

a r o u n d , a n d h i g h t a i l e d i t d o w n t h e h a l l w a y. To m e , i t w as a

d i s a p p o i n t i n g l y s p h ex i s h k i n d o f b e h av i o r f o r a d o g -

5. G l a s s y - e y e d g a m b l e r s i n L a s Ve g a s , g l u e d t o t h e i r s l o t m a c h i n e s .To t h i s c a n b e a d d e d g l a s s y - e y e d t e e n - a g e r s a n d c o l l e g e s t u d e n t sg l u e d t o v i d e o g a m e s a n d p i n b a l l m a c h i n e s . I s t h e r e n o t s o m ek i n d o f d e a d e n i n g r u t h e r e ? A n d y e t s o m a n y p e o p l e d o t h i s o v e ra n d o v e r a g a i n w i t h s e e m i n g p l e a s u r e -

530On the Seeming Paradox ofMechanizing' Creativity

6. A happy-go-lucky person who sines or whistles all thetime—and if you listen closely- you notice that it's

always the same little refrain, day in- day out, year in,year out: never any variety.

7. People who make what seems to be the same joke, onlyin slightly different guises. over and over and overagain. Or inveterate punsters, who simply cannotstop making one pun after another.

8. Junior-high-school students who fill each other'syearbooks with those same pat phrases and cornypoems as your junior-high class did.

9. A mathematician who exploits one single technique toadvantage in paper after paper, making advances inmany different branches in mathematics, yet alwayswith a distinct, idiosyncratic touch- and always, insome deep sense- just doing "the same old trick" againand again.

0. People whose rut stuck behavior leads them downharmful pathways in their fives, for instance in theirromances or their jobs- We all know people who "blow it"in the same way each time when faced with a situationthat matters.

1. Social trends that become completely stylized andpredictable- such as the endless trashy sitcoms thattelevision networks keep churning out, the movies oneafter another based on some gimmick exploited in

slightly different ways. For instance, one could perceivethe movies Breaking Away. The Black Stallion. and Chariots of Fireas simply three ways of plugging specific values forvariables into one successful

f o r m u l a — u p c o m i n g c h a m p i o n s h i p r a c e , a l o v a b l e

u n d e r d o g . a r i va l , and, a n o f c ourse . u l t imate v i c tory. And these

are s oph i s t i cated , c o m p a r e d t o s o m e b o o k s a n d m o v i e s t h a t

m u c h m o r e b l a t a n t l y ex p l o i t f a m o u s p re d e c e s s o r s .

1 2 - S t y l e s i n a r t t h a t b e c o m e d a t e d a n d r o u t i n i z e d t o t h e p a i n t o f

n o l o n g e r b e i n g c re a t i v e . T h i s h ap p e n s t o e ve r y s ty l e - b u t a t t he

m o m e n t o f i t s h ap p e n i n g . t h e re a re a l w ay s s o m e p e o p l e w h o

a re b re ak i n g o u t o f t he r u t an d c re a t i n g t o t a l l y n ew s t y l e s .

H o w ev e r , t he re a re o t h e r s w h o b e c o m e t e c h n i c a l l y p r o fi c i e n t a t

a n o l d s t y l e - a n d w h o c o n t i n u e t o c r e a t e i n an o l d - f a s h i o n e d

v e i n .

H o w d i ff e r e n t a r e t h e s e l a s t f e w e x a m p l e s f r o m t h e s t u c k r e c o r d , o rf r o m the Sphe 'c wasp? What i s the rea l d iff e rence we fee l as we p rog ressdown th i s l ist?

I would summarize it by saving that it is a general .sensit ivi ty to patterns,an ab i l i t y t o s p o t p a t te r n s o f u n an t i c i p a t e d t y pe s i n u n an t i c i p a te dp l ac e s a t u n an t i c i p a t e d t i m e s i n u n a n t i c i p a t e d m e d i a . Fo r i n s t an c e -y o u j u s t s p o t t e d a n u n a n t i c i p a t e d p a t t e r n — fi v e r e p e t i t i o n s o f aw o r d - A n d I ' m s u r e y o u p i c ke d u p o n a l l t h e F r e n c h p h r a s e s c r o w d e dt o g e t h e r e a r l i e r o n i n t h i s chante r. Ne i the r i n your sch ool i ng nor i nyour genes was the re any exp l i c i t p re pa r a t i on f o r s uc h act s o fpe rc ep t i on . A l l y ou h ad go in g f o r yo u i s an ab i l i t y to see sameness- Al lhuman beings have that readiness , that a ler tness- and that i s w h a t m a ke s

t h e m s o a n t i s p h e x i s h . W h e n e v e r t h e y g e t i n t o s o n i c k i n d o f

531

SPIRIT & SUBSTRATE

"loop", they quickly sense it- Something happens insidetheir heads—a kind of "loon detector" fires. Or you canthink of it as a "Pit detector", a "sameness detector"—butno matter how you phrase it- the possession of this ability tobreak out of loops of all sorts seems the antithesis of the mechanical.Or- to put it the other way around, the essence of themechanical seems to be in its lack of novelty and itsrepetitiveness- in its trappedness in some kind of preciselydelimited space. This is why the wasp, the dog, even somehumans seem so mechanical.

Howmany computers do you know that would react withoutrage for guffaws) to the simultaneous occurrence on asingle mailing list of "Bernie We i n r e b " " Be r n i e W.We i n r e b " - " M r. B e r n i e We i n r e b , " B a r n i e Weinrab", andso forth? Computers do not have automatic sensitivity topatterns in the data that they deal with. And of course, howcould they be expected to? As one old saw goes, they do

only what they are programmed to do. Computers are notinherently bored by adding lone columns of numbers. evenwhen all the numbers are the same. But people are. Whatis the difference?

Clearly there is something lacking in the machine thatallows it to have this unbounded tolerance for repetitiveactions. This thing that is lacking can be described in a fewwords: It is the ability to watch oneself as one deals

with the world, to perceive in one's own activit ies a pattern, and to

be able to do so at many leve ls of abst ract ion. Thus- cons ider the

case of a hypothetical self-watching computer. To be sensit ive in this

way, it should get bored whenever it is forced to add a long column of

identical numbers together. Wouldn't you? It should get bored whenever

it is forced to do just adding over and over again, even when the

numbers are diff erent. Wouldn't you? It should even get bored when

asked to do many arithmetic operations in any sort of repetitive

pattern! Wouldn't you? Any loon of any sort should become tedious!

Wouldn' t i t?

But where does it stop? Surely if a computer could perceive that all itever does is pul l up one instruct ion a fter another from memory (apiece of ha rdwa re . not to be confuse d w ith human memory) ,execute those instructions. and change various registers, it wouldyawn very boredly and probably soon go to sleep. And by the sametoken. you or I- if we ever gained access to the fi rings of our neurons,would fi nd watching the activity to be one of the most stult ifyingthings imaginable -

But this is not the k ind of se l f-watching I mean. Watching or iv ,

own internal microscopic patterns is bound to be boring, because anycomplex system a bound to be made up out of thousands. mill ions. oreven more copies of small elements (such as gears, transistors, cells,and to on). What is crit ical is to be able to watch activit ies on acompletely diff erent level— the col le ct ive leve l , in which hugepat terns of act iv i ty o f these many

532

5World Views in

Collision:The Skeptical Inquirerversus the National

Enquirer

February- 1982

Baffled Investigators and Educators Disclose -.-

BOY CAN SEE WITH HIS EARS

A Cross between Human Beings and Plants .SCIENTISTS ON VERGE OF CREATING PLANTPEOPLE . . . Bizarre Creatures Could On AnythingYou Want

Alien from Space Shares Woman's Mind and Body- Hypnosis Reveals

—Headlines from the National Ensnarer

D ID t he ch i ld you once we re e ve r won de r why the

de c la ra t i ve sentences in comic books always ended withexclamation points? Were all those statements rea lly that start l ing?Were the characters sav ing them rea l ly that thr i l led? Of coursenot! Those exc lamat ion points were a psychological gimmick putthere Purely for the sake of appearance, to give the story morepizzazz!

The Nat ional Enquirer- one of this country 's ye l lowest and

°Limiest journa l is t ic inst i tut ions , uses a s imi la r gimmick!

Whenever i t pr ints a headline trumpeting the discovery of some

bizarre- hitherto unheard-of phenomenon, instead of ending it with an

exclamation point, it ends it (or begins is) w ith a re ference to

"baffl ed invest igators"- "bewi ldered scien- tists"- or similarly.

stumped savants! It is an ornament put there to make the story seem

to have more credibi l i ty!

Or is it? What do the editors really want? That the story appearcredible

91

Copy r ig ht ed M at e r ia lCopyrighted Material

SENSE & SOCIETY

or that it appear incredible? It seems they want it both ways: they

want the story to sound as outlandish as possible and yet they want itto have the appearance of authenticity. Their ideal headline shouldthus embody a contradict ion: impossibi l i ty coupled with certa inty-In short- confi rmed nonsense.What is one to make of headlines l ike those printed above? Or ofart icles about Wants that sing in Japanese, and calculating - cacti? Orof the fact that this publication is sold by the millions every week ingrocery stores- and that people gobble up its stor ies as voracious lyas they do potato chins? Or of the fact that when they are throughwith it. they can turn to plenty of other junk food for thought- such asthe National Examiner. the Star. the Globe, and- perhaps the most lurid ofthe lot, the Weekl y World News? What is one to think? For that matter,what are Mart ians to think? (See Figure 5-1.)

FIGURE 5 -1. Martian's, reaction to a tabloid article. Note the complex diacritical marksof the Martian language, regrettably unavailable on most Terms typesetting machines. (Photograph by David (J. Moser .1

World Views in Collision

Naturally, one ' s fi rst reaction is to chuckle and dismiss such storiesas sil ly- But how do you know they are silly? Do you also think that is asilly Question? What do you think about articles printed in ScientificAmerican? Do you trust them? What is the diff erence? Is it simply adiff erence in publishing sty le? Is the tabloid format, with its gaudypictures and sensationalistic headlines, enough to make you distrustthe National Enquirer? But wait a minute—isn't that just begging thequestion? What kind of argument is it when you use the guil tyverdict as part of the case for the prosecut ion? What you need is away of tell ing objectively what you mean by "gaudy" or"sensationalist ic" —and that could prove to be diffi cult.

And what about the obverse of the coin? Is the rather dignified,

traditional format of Scienti fic American—its lack of photographs of

celebrities, for example—what conv inces you i t is to he t rusted? I f

so - that is a pret ty curious way of making decisions about what truth

is. It would seem that your concept of truth is closely t ied in with your

way of evaluating the "style" of a channel of communication—surely

quite an intangible notion!

Hav ing sa id that- I must admit that I , too, re ly constantly on Quickassessments of sty le in my attempt to sift the t rue from the false,the believable from the unbelievable. (Quickness is of the essence. likeit or not- because the world does not allow infi nite t ime fordeliberation.) I could not tell you what criteria I eels on without fi rstpondering for a long time and writing many pages. Even then. were Ito write the defi nitive guide (How to

Te l l t h e T r u e f r o m t h e F a l s e b y i t s S t y l e o f P u b l i c a t i o n ) w o u l d h a v e

t o b e

publ ished to do any good; and its t it le, not to ment ion the style itwas published in. would probably attract a few readers- but wouldundoubtedly repe l ma ny more- The re is some th ing di s turb ingabout t hat t hought . T her e i s some th ing e l se d is tu rb ing he re .Enormous numb er s o f pe op le are taken in- or at least beguiled andfascinated- by what seems to me to be unbelievable hokum. and relativelyfew are concerned with or thrilled by the astounding—vet true—facts ofscience- as put forth in the pages of- say, Scient i f ic American. I wouldproclaim with great confi dence that the vast major ity of what thatmagazine prints is true—yet my abil ity to defend such a claim isweaker than I would like. And most likely the readers, authors- andeditors of that magazine would be equa lly hard pressed to come upwith coge nt , nonte chn ica l a rg ume nts co nv inc in g a ske pt i c o ft h i s p o in t . especially if pitted against a clever lawyer arguing thecontrary. How come Truth is such a s lippery beast?

Well. consider the very roots of our abil ity to discern truth. Above all

(or perhaps I should say "underneath all"), common sense is what we

depend on —that crazi ly elus ive , ubiquitous faculty we al l have, to

some degree or o th e r. B ut n o t t o a d e g re e s uc h a s " Ba ch e l o r ' s "

o r "P h - D . " . N o - unfortunate ly, universi t ies do not off er degrees in

Common Sense. There

93

SENSE & SOCIETY

are not even any Departments of Common Sense! This is-in a way, a pity- At first, the notion of a Department ofCommon Sense sounds ludicrous- Given that common senseis common, why have a department devoted to it? My atwould be quite simple: In our lives we are continuallyencountering strange new situations in which we have tofigure out how to apply what we already know. It is notenough to have common sense about known situations: weneed also to develop the art of extending common sense toapply to situations that are unfamiliar and beyond ourprevious experience. This can be very tricky, and often whatis called for is common sense in knowing ho w to applycommon sense: a sort of "meta- level" common sense.

And this kind of higher -level common sense also requires itsown meta-level common sense. Common sense, once itstarts to roll, gathers more common sense, like a rollingsnowball gathering ever more snow. Or- to switchmetaphors- if we apply common sense to itself over and overagain. we wind up building a skyscraper. The ground floorof this structure is the ordinary common sense we allhave, and the rules for building new floors are implicit inthe ground floor itself- However- working it all out is agigantic task. and the result is a structure that transcendsmere common sense.

Pretty soon- even though it has all been built up from

common ingredients. the structure of this extended

common sense is quite arcane and elusive. We might call the

quality represented by the upper floors of this skyscraper

"rare sense.": but it is usually called "science"- And some of

the ideas and discoveries that have come out of this or igina l ly

s imple and everyday abil ity defy the ground fl oor totally. The ideas

of relativity and quantum mechanics are anything but

commonsensical, in the ground-fl oor sense of the term! They are

outcomes of common sense sel f-appl ied- a process that has many

unexpected twists and gives rise to some unexpected paradoxes. In

short , it somet imes seems that common sense- recurs ive ly self-

applied, almost undermines itself.

Well, t ruth being this elus ive , no wonder people are continua llybesieged with competing . voices in print. When I was younger, I usedto believe that once something had been discovered- verifi ed, andpubl ished, it was then part of Knowledge: defi nit ive, accepted, andirrevocable- Only in unusual cases- so I thought , would opposingcla ims then continue to be published. To my surmise- however, I

found that the truth has to fi ght constantly for i ts l i fe ! That an ideahas been discovered and printed in a " reputable journa l" does notensure that it wil l become well known and accented- In fact, usuallyit will have to be rephrased and reprinted many different times, oftenby many diff erent people, before it has any chance of taking hold.This is upsetting to an idealist like me- someone more disposed tobelieve in the notion of a monol ithic and absolute truth than in thenotion of a pluralist ic and relative truth (a notion championed by acertain school of anthropologists and sociologists- who un-se l f-consc iouslv ins is t "a ll systems of be lie f are equally valid".seemingly without realizing that this dogma of relativism

94

World Views in Collisionnot only is just as narrow-minded as any other dogma, butmoreover is unbelievably wishy-washy!). The idea thatthe truth has to fight for its life is a sad discovery. Theidea that the truth will not out. unless it is given a lot ofhell,. is pretty upsetting.

•

A question arises in every society. Is it better to let allthe different voices battle it out, or to have just a few"official" publications dictate what is the case and what isnot? Our society has opted for a plurality of voices- for a

"marketplace of ideas", for a complete free-for-all ofconflicting theories- But if things are this chaotic- whowill ensure that there is law and order? Who will guardthe truth? The answer (at least in part) is: CSICOP will!CSICOP? Who is CSICOP? Some kind of cop who guardsthe truth? Well- that's pretty close. "CSICOP" stands for"Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of theParanormal"—a rather esoteric title for an organizationwhose purpose is not so esoteric: to apply common senseto claims of the outlandish, the implausible, and theunlikely-

Who are the people who form CSICOP and what do theydo together? The organization was the brainchild of PaulKurtz, professor of Philosophy at the State University ofNew York at Buffalo- who brought it into being because hethought there was a need to counter the rising tide ofirrational beliefs and to provide the public with a morebalanced treatment of claimsof the paranormal by presenting the dissenting scientifi c viewpoint.Among the early members of CSICOP were some of America's mostdist inguished phi l osophe rs ( Ernest Na ge l a nd Wi l la rd Va n Orma nQuine, f o r exa mple ) and other colorfu l combatants of the occult -such as psychologist Ray Hyman, magician James Randi, andsomeone whom readers of this column may have heard of: MartinGardner. In the fi rst few meetings, it was decided that thecommit tee's principal function would be to publish a magazinededicated to the subt le art of debunking. Perhaps "debunking" is

not the term they would have chosen, but it fi ts- The magazine theybegan to publish in the fa l l of 1976 was ca l led The Mirk, f rom theGreek fo r " inqui r ing skeptic".

As happens with many fl edgl ing movements . a phi l osophica l

squabble developed between two fact ions- one more "rela tiv ist "

and unjudgmental , the other more fi rmly opposed to nonsense,

more wi l l i ng to go on the offensive and to attack supernatural claims.

Strange to say, the open-minded faction was not so open-minded as to

accept the opposing point of view- and consequently the rift opened

wider- Eventually there was a schism. The rela tiv ist fact ion (one

member) went off and started publishing his own journal, the Zetetic

Scholar, in which science and pseudo-science coexist happily- whi le

the la rger faction retained the name "CSICOP" and changed the title

of its journal to the Skeptical Inquirer

Ina word- the purpose of the Skeptical Inquirer is to combat nonsense.It

95

SENSE & SOCIETY

d o e s s o b y re c o u r s e t o c o m m o n s e n s e . a n d a s m u c h as p o s s i b l e b y

re c o u r s e t o t h e gr ound f l o or o f t h e s ky s c r ap e r o f s c i e n c e - - t h e

c o m m o n t y p e o f c o m m o n s e n s e . T h i s i s b y n o m e a n s a l w a y s

p o s s i b l e , b u t i t i s t h e g e n e r a l s t y l e o f t h e m a g az i n e - T h i s m e an s i t i s

ac c e s s i b l e t o a n y o n e w h o c an re a d E n g l i s h . I t d o e s n o t re q u i re a n y

s p e c i a l k n o w l e d g e o r t r a i n i n g t o r e a d i t s p a g e s , w h e r e n o n s e n s i c a l

c l a i m s a re r o u t i n e l y s m a s h e d t o s m i t h e r e e n s - ( S o m et i m e s t h e c l a i m s

a re a s b l a t a n t l y s i l l y a s t he h e ad l i n e s a t th e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s a r t i c l e -

s o m e t i m e s m u c h s u b t l e r. ) A l l t h a t i s re q u i re d t o re a d t h i s m av e r i c k

j o u r n a l i s c u r i o s i t y ab o u t t h e n a t u re o f t r u t h , c u r i o s i t y ab o u t h o w t r u t h

d e f e n d s i t s e l f ( t h r o u g h i t s a g e n t CS I C O P ) a g a i n s t a t t a c k s f r o m a l l

q u a r te r s b y u n i m a g i n ab l y i m ag i n a t i ve t h e o r i z e r s , s p e c u l a t o r s .

e c ce n t r i c s - c r a c k p o t s . an d o u t - an d - o u t f a ke r s .

T h e j o u r n a l h a s g r o w n f r o m i t s o r i g i n a l s m a l l n u m b e r o f s u b s c r i b e r s

t o r o u g h l y 7 , 5 0 0 — a D av i d . c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e G o l i a t h m e n t i o n e d

ab o v e , w i t h t h e i r c i r c u l a t i o n s i n t h e m i l l i o n s - I t s p a g e s a r e fi l l e d

w i t h l i v e l y a n d h u m o r o u s w r i t i n g — t h e c o m b a t o f i d e as i n i t s m o s t

e n j o y a b l e f o r m . B y n o me an s i s th i s j o u rn a l a m o n o l i t h i c v o i c e , a

m o u t h p i e c e o f a s i n g l e d o g m a . Rat he r , i t i s i t se l f a m ar ke tp lac e o f

i de as , s t r an g e ly en ou g h . E ven p eo p l e wh o w i e l d t h e t o o l o f c o m m o n

s e n s e w i t h s k i l l m a y d o s o w i t h d i ff e r e n t s t y l e s , a n d s o m e t i m e s t h e y

w i l l d i s a g re e .

T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g o f a p a r a d ox i n v o l v e d i n t h e e d i t o r i a l d e c i s i o n s

i n s u c h a m a g a z i n e . A f t e r a l l , w h a t i s u n d e r d e b a t e h e r e i s , i n

e s s e n c e , t h e n a t u r e o f c o r r e c t a r g u m e n t s . W h a t s h o u l d h e a c c e n t e d

a n d w h a t s h o u l d n ' t ? To c a r i c a tu re the s i t ua t i on . im ag ine t he

ed i t o r i a l d i l e mm as tha t wou l d c rop up for journals with titles such

as Free Press Bulletin, The Open Mind. or Editorial Polio Newsletter.

What letters to the editor should be printed? What articles? W ha t

p o l i c y can b e i n v oke d t o s c r e e n s ub m i t t e d m a t e r i a l ?

T h e s e a re n o t easy q u e s t i o n s t o an s we r. T h e y i nv o l v e a p a r ad ox , a

t an g l e i n w h i c h t h e i d e a s b e i n g e v a l u a t e d a re a l s o w h a t t h e

e v a l u a t i o n s a re b as e d o n - T h e r e i s n o e a s y a n s w e r h e r e ! T h e r e i s n o

r e c o u r s e b u t t o c o m m o n s e n s e , t h a t r o c k - b o t t o m b a s i s o f a l l

r a t i o n a l i t y. A n d u n f o r t u n a t e l y. w e h a v e n o f o o l p r o o f a l g o r i t h m t o

u n i q u e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e t h a t d e e p e s t l a v e r o f r a t i o n a l i t y , n o r a re we

l i ke l y t o c o m e u p w i t h o n e s o o n . T h e a b i l i t y t o u s e common sense—no

matte r how much l i ght is shed on i t by psychologi st s or p h i l o s o p h e r s — w i l l

p r o b a b l y f o r e v e r re m a i n a s u b j e c t i v e a r t m o r e t h an a n o b j e c t i v e

s c i e n c e . E v e n w h e n e x p e r i m e n t a l e p i s t e m o l o g i s t s , i n t h e i r

c e n t u r i e s - l o n g q u e s t f o r a r t i fi c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e , h av e a t l a s t m a d e a

m a c h i n e t h a t th i n k s - i t s c o m m o n s e n s e w i l l p r o b ab l y b e j u s t a s

i n s t i n c t i v e an d f a l l i b l e a n d s t u b b o rn a s o u r s . T h u s a t i t s c o re ,

r a t i o n a l i t y w i l l a l w ay s d e pe n d o n i n s c r u t a b le s : th e s i m p l e - th e e le g an t ,

t he i n t u i t i v e . T h i s we i rd p a r ad ox h as ex i s t e d t h r o u g h o u t i n te l l e c t u a l

h i s t o r y , b u t i n o u r i n f o rm at i o n - r i c h t i m e s i t s e e m s p a r t i c u l a r l y

t r o u b l e s o m e .

D e s p i t e t h e s e e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p u z z l e s . w h i c h s e e m t o b e

i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t s v e r y re as o n f o r ex i s t e n c e - t h e

Skept i ca l Inqu i re r i s fl o u r i s h i n g an d p r o v i d e s a re f re s h i n g an t i d o t e

t o t h e j a rg o n - l ad e n j o u r n a l s

96

World Views in Collision

of science, which often seem curiously irrelevant to the concerns of

everyday l i fe. In that one way, the i nqu i re r resembles the scanda lous

tabloids .

The l ist of topics covered in the seventeen issues that have

appeared so far is remarkably diverse. Some tonics have arisen only

once, others have come up regularly and been discussed from

various angles and at various depths. Some of the more commonly

discussed topics are :

ESP (extra-sensory perception) • telekinesis losing mental power to influence

events at a distance) • astrology • biorhythms • Bigfoot • the Loch Ness

monster • UFO 's (unident i f ied l iv ing ob ject s) • c reat ion ism • te lepathy

remote viewing • clairvoyant detect ives who allegedly solve crimes • the

Bermuda (and other) triangles • "thoughtography" (using mental power to

ceate images on film) • the supposed extraterrestrial origin of life on the earth

•r Carlos Castaneda's mystical sorcerer "Don Juan" • pyramid power • psychic

surgery and faith healing • Scientology • predictions bv famous "psychics" •

spooks and spir its and haunted houses • lev itat ion • palmistry and mind

read ing • unor thodox anthropo log i ca l theor ies • p lant percept ion •

perpetual-motion machines • water witch ing and other k inds of dowsing

bizarre cattle mutilations

When I contemplate the length of this l ist- I am suite astonished-Before I ever subscribed to the magazine- I had heard of almost allthese items and was skeptical of most of them- but I had never seen afrontal assault mounted against so many paranormal cla ims at once.And I have only scratched the

surface of the list of topics- because the ones listed above are regulars!Imagine how many topics are treated at shorter length.

There are quite a few frequent contributors to this iconoclastic journal,

such as James Randi- who is truly prolific. Among others are aeronautics

writer Philip J. Klass- UFO specialist James E- Oberg, writer Isaac Asimov,

CSICOP's founder (and current director) Paul Kurtz- psychologist James

Alcock, educator Elmer Kral- anthropologist Laurie Godfrey- science writer

Robert Sheaffer. sociologist William Sims Bainbridge, and many others.

And the magazine's editor, Kendrick Frazier- a freelance science writer by

trade, periodically issues eloquent and mordant commentaries-

• • •

I know of no better way to impart the flavor of the magazine than to quote

a few selections from articles. One of my favorite articles appeared in the

second issue (Spring/Summer, 1977). It is by psychologist Ray Hyman

(who, incidentally, like many other authors in the Skeptical Inquirer, is a

talented magician) and is titled "Cold Reading: How to Convince Strangers

that You Know All About Them"-

It begins with a discussion of a course Hyman taught about the various ways people are manipulated. Hyman states:

97SENSE & SOCIETY

I invited various manipulators to demonstrate their techniques—pitchmen, encyclopedia salesmen, hypnotists, advertisingexperts, evangelists, confidence men and a variety ofindividuals who dealt with personal problems. The tech- niqueswhich we discussed, especially those concerned with helpingpeople with their personal problems- seem to involve theclient's tendency to find more meaning in any situation than isactually there. Students readily accepted this explanation whenit was pointed out to them- But I did not feel that they fullyrealized just how pervasive and powerful this human tendencyto make sense out of nonsense really is-

Then Hyman describes people's willingness to believewhat others tell them about themselves- His "golden rule"is: "To be popular with your fellow man, tell him what hewants to hear. He wants to hear about himself. So tell himabout himself. But not what you know to be true about him.Oh, no! Never tell him the truth. Rather, tell him what hewould like to be true about himself!" As an example, Hymancites the following passage (which, by an extraordinarycoincidence, was written about none other than you, dearreader!):

Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic- Attimes you are extroverted- affable, sociable. while at othertimes you are introverted. weary, and reserved. You havefound it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself toothers. You pride yourself on being an independent thinkerand do not accept others' opinions without satisfactory proof.You prefer a certain amount

of change and var iety- and become d issat isfi ed when hemmed m by

rest ri ct ions and l imitat ions. At t imes you have se ri ous doubts as to

whethe r you have made the ri ght deci si on or done the r ight thing .

Discipl ined and cont ro l led on the outs ide, you tend to be worr isome and

insecure on the i ns ide.

Yo u r s ex u a l ad j u s t m e n t h a s p re se n t e d s o m e p ro b le m s f o r y o u . W hi l e

y o u have some personal i ty weaknesses , you are gene ral ly able to

compensate for them. You have a great deal o f unused capacity which

you have not turned to you r advantage . You h ave a tendency to be

cr i t i ca l o f your se l f. You have a s t ron g need for othe r peop le to l i ke you

and for them to admi re you.

Pre t ty g o od f i t - eh ? Hy man co m me nts -

The s tatements i n th i s s tock sp ie l we re fi r s t used i n 194 8 by Be rt ramFo re r i n a c l ass ro om demonst r at i on of pe rs onal va l i dat i on . He obta inedmost o f them from a newsstand astrology book. Forer's students. whothought the sketch was uniquely intended for them as a result of apersonal ity test. gave the sketch an average rat i ng . o f 4 .26 on a scale o f0 (poor) to 5 (pe r fect) . As many as 16 out of his 39 students (91percent) rated i t as a per fect f i t to the ir personal i ty. Only fi ve gave it arat ing below 4 (the worst being a rat ing of 2, meaning "average"). Almo st30 yea rs l ate r s tudents g i ve the same s ke tch an a lmost i dent i c a lrat i ng as a un ique descript ion of themse lves .

A particularly delicious feature is the thirteen-point recipe that Hvman metes for becoming a cold reader. Among his tins are these: Use the

98World Views in Collision

technique of 'fishing ' (getting the subject to tell you about himself or herself-

then rephrasing it and feeding it back); always give the impression that you

know more than you are saving, don't be afraid to flatter your subject every

chance you get'" This cynical recipe for becoming a character reader is

presented by Hyman in considerable detail. presumably not to convert

readers of the article into charlatans and fakers' but to show them the

attitude of the tricksters who do such manipulations. Hyman asks;

Why does it work so wel l? It does not he lp to say that people are gullibleor suggestible. Nor can we dismiss it by implying that some individuals arejust not su ffi c ie nt l y d i sc r im in at in g o r l a c k s uffi ci ent i n te l l i gen ce t o seeth rou g h i t . Indeed' one can a rgue that i t requ i res a ce r ta in degree o fi nte l l i gence on the p a r t o f a c l i e n t f o r t h e r e a d i n g t o w o r k w e l l . . . .We h a v e t o b r i n g o u r know ledge and expectat i ons to bear i n o rde r to

comp rehend any th ing i n ou r wor ld . In most ord inary si tuat i ons . th is useof context and memory enables us to correct ly interpret statements andsupply the necessary inferences to do this. But this powerful mechanism cango astray in situations where there is no actual mess age be ing co nveyed.Ins tead of p i ck ing up ran dom noi se ' we s t i l l manage to fi nd meaning inthe si tuat ion. So the same system that enables us to creat ive ly fi ndmeanings and to make new d iscove rie s a lso makes or ext remelyvulne rab le to exploi tation by all sorts of manipulators. In the case of thecold reading. the manipulator may be conscious of h is decept i on; but o ftenhe too is a v i ct im of Pe rsonal va l i dat i on .

Hyman knows what he's talking about- Many years ago, he was

convinced for a t ime that he himself had genuine powers to read

palms- until one day when he tried tell ing people the exact opposite of

what their palms told him and saw that they st i l l swa l lowed his l ine

as much as ev er ! Then he began to suspect that the plasticity of the

human mind—his own particularly—was doing some strange things.

At the beginning of each issue of the Skeptical Inquirer is a feature

called "News and Comment". It covers such things as the latest reports

on current sensational claims, recently broadcast television shows for

and against the paranormal, lawsuits of one sort or another- and so

on- One of the most amusing items was the coverage in the Fall 1980

issue of the "Uri Awards", given out by James Randi (on April I, of

course) to various deserving souls who had done the most to promote

gul l ib il ity and irrationa l bel iefs. Each and cons is ts o f "a taste fu l l y

be nt s ta inless -stee l spoon with a very t ransparent , ve ry fl imsy

ba se" . Awa rd w inne rs were not ifi e d- Ra ndi expla ined- by

te lepathy, and were "f ree to announce the ir w inning in advance, by

precognit ion, if they so desired". Awards were made in four categories:

Academic ("to the scientist who says the dumbest thing about

parapsychology") , Funding ( "to the funding organizat ion that

awards the

99World Views in Collision

technique of 'fishing- (getting the subject to tell you about himself or herself-

then rephrasing it and feeding it back); always give the impression that you

know more than you are saving, don't be afraid to flatter your subject every

chance you get-" This cynical recipe for becoming a character reader is

presented by Hyman in considerable detail. presumably not to convert

readers of the article into charlatans and fakers, but to show them the

attitude of the tricksters who do such manipulations. Hyman asks:

Why does it work so wel l? It does not he lp to say that people are gullibleor suggestible. Not can we dismiss it by imply ing that some indiv iduals arejust not su ffi c ie nt l y d i sc r im in at in g o r l a c k s uffi ci ent i n te l l i gen ce t o seeth rou g h i t . In deed- one c an argue that i t requ i res a ce r ta in degree ofi nte l l i gence on the p a r t o f a c l i e n t f o r t h e r e a d i n g t o w o r k w e l l Weh a v e t o b r i n g o u r know ledge an d expectat i ons to bear in o rde r tocomp rehend any th ing i n ou r wor ld . In mo st ord inary s i t u a t i on s . th i s useof contex t and memo ry enab les us to correct ly interpret statements andsupply the necessary inferences to do this. But this powerful mechanism cango astray in situations where there is no actual mess age be ing co nveyed.Ins tead of p i ck ing up raqdom n oi se , we s t i l l man age to fi nd meaning inthe si tuat ion. So the same system that enables us to creat ive ly fi ndmeanings and to make new di scover ies a lso makes us ext remelyvulne rab le to exploi tation by all sorts of manipulators. In the case of thecold reading. the manipulator may be conscious of h is decept i on; but o ftenhe too is a v i ct im of Pe rsonal va l i dat i on .

Hyman knows what he's talking about. Many years ago,he was convinced for a time that he himself had genuine

powers to read palms- until one day when he tried tellingpeople the exact opposite of what their palms told himapd saw that they still swallowed his line as much as ever!

Then he began to suspect that the plasticity of the humanmind—his own particularly—was doing some strangeChings.

At the beginning of each issue of the Skeptical Inquirer is afeature called "News and Comment". It covers such thingsas the latest reports on currept sensational claims, recentlybroadcast television shows for and against the paranormal,lawsuits of one sort or another- and so on- One of themost amusing items was the coverage in the Fall 1980issue of the "Uri Awards", givmep out by James Randi (onApril I, of course) to various deserving souls who had donethe most to promote gullibility apd irrational beliefs.Each and consists of "n tastefully bent stainless-steelspoon with a very transparent, very flimsy base".Award winners were notified- Randi explained- bytelepathy, and were "free to announce their winning inadvance, by precognition, if they so desired". Awards weremade in four categories: Academic ("to the scientist who

says the dumbest thing about parapsychology"), Funding("to the funding organization that awards the

99SENSE & SOCIETY

m o s t m o n e y f o r t h e d u m b e s t t h i n g s i n p a r a p s y c h o l o g y " ) ,Pe r f o r m a n c e ( " t o t he p s y c h i c w h o , w i t h t h e l e as t t a l e n t , t ake s i n t hem o s t p e o p l e " ) , an d Me d i a ("to the news organ izat i on that supports themost out rageous c la ims of the p a r a n o r m a l i s t s " ) .

Th e n at u re o f co in c id en ces i s a rec u rre nt them e in d i s cu s s i o n s o f the

pa r a n o r m a l . I v i v i d l y r e m e m b e r a p a s s a g e i n a l o v e l y b o o k b y

Wa r r e n We a v e r titled Lady Luck: The Aeon of Probability, in which he

points out that in many s i t u a t i o n s - t h e m o s t l i ke l y o u t c o m e m ay w e l l b e a

v e r y u n l i ke l y e v e n t ( a s w h e n y o u d e a l h a n d s i n b r i d g e - w h e r e

w h a t e v e r h a n d y o u g e t i s b o u n d t o b e ex t r a o r d i n a r i l y r a r e ) - A

s i m i l a r p o i n t i s m a d e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t f r o m a r e c e n t b o o k b y

D a v i d M a r k s a n d R i c h a r d K a m m a n n t i t l e d T he Psychology of the

Psychic ( f rom which var ious exce rpts were reprinted in one issue of the

Skeptical Inquirer):

'Koest ler's fal lacy' refers to our general inabi l i ty to see that unusual events

are p r o b a b l e i n t h e l o n g r u n I t i s a s i m p l e d e d u c t i o n f r o m

p r o b a b i l i t y t h e o r y that an event that is very improbable in a short run of

observations becomes. nevertheless- highly probable somewhere in a lone

run of observat ions . . . . We c a l l i t • Ko e s t l e r ' s f a l l a c y ' be c au s e A r t h u r

Ko e s t l e r i s t he au t h o r w h o b e s t i l lust rates i t and has t ried to make i t

into a scient ifi c revo lut i on . O f course. the fa l l acy i s not un ique to

Koest le r but i s w idesp read i n the p opu lat i on , because the re a re seve ra l

b iases i n hum an pe rcept i o n an d j udgment that cont r i bute to this fal lacy.

Fi rst , we not ice and remember matches- especial ly oddmatches, whenever

they o c c u r. ( Be c au s e a p s y c h i c an e c d o te he re q u i re s a m a t c h . an d .

s e c o n d , an oddity between the match and our be l ie fs. we cal l the stories

oddmatches This e qu i va len t to the c o mm o n exp re ss i on - an - un ex p l a i ne d

co in c id en ce " . ) Sec on d. we do net not i ce no n-matches . Thi rd, ou r f a i l u re

to not i ce nonevents creates the short-run il lusion that makes the oddmatch

seem improbable. Fourth. w e a r e p o o r a t e s t i m a t i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s o f

e v e n t s - F i f t h , w e o v e r l o o k t h e principle of equivalent oddmatches. that

one coincidence is as rood as another as far as psychic theory is concerned.

An exce l lent example of people not not ic ing non-events is

prov ided by the failed predictions of famed psychics (such as Jeane

Dixon). Most people never go back to see how the events bore out the

predictions. The -Skeptical Inquirer, however, has a tradition of tome hack

and checking- As each year concludes, i t prints a number of

predict ions made by various psychics for that year and evaluates

their track records. In the Fall 1980 issue the editors took the

predictions of 100 "top psychics", tabulated them. l isted the top

twelve in order of frequency, and left it to the reader to assess the

accuracy of psychic visions of the future. The No- I prediction for 1979

(made by 86 psychics) was "Longer l ives wi l l be had for almost

everyone as aging is brought under control -" No- 2 (85 psychics) was

"There wil l be a major breakthrough in cancer, which wil l almost

totally wipe out the disease." No- 3 (a lso 85 psychics) was "There

will be an astonishing spiri tual rebirth and a return to the old

values." And so op. No. 6 (81 psychics) was "Contact will

100

World Views in Collision

be made with aliens from space who wil l give us incredibleknowledge-" The last four, interestingly, al l involved ce lebrit ies:Frank Sinatra was supposed t o be come se r io us ly i l l , E dwa rdKe nne dy t o be come a pre s ide nt ia l candidate. Burt Reynolds tomarry, and Princess Grace to return to this country to resume amovie career- Hmm

There is something pathet ic - even desperate , about these

predict i ons- One sees only too clearly the similarity of the tabloids

(which feature these predictions) to the countless , popular television

shows like Fantasy bland and Star Trek. The common denominator is

escape from real ity. This point is we l l made in an art ic le by Wi l l iam

Sims Ba inbridge in the Fa l l 1979 issue- on teleyision pseudo-

documentaries on the occult and pseudo-science. He characterizes

those shows as resembling eqtertainment shows in which fact and

fantasy a re not c lea rl y di s t ingu ise d[ s i c] . Hi s na me for t hi s i s

"w ish - fulfi llment fantasy".

Perhaps a key to why so much fantasy is splashed across the tabloidsand splattered across our l iving-room screens l ies here. Perhaps weall have a desire to dilute reality with fantasy, to make reality seemsimpler and more aligned with what we wish it were- Perhaps for usall, the oath of least resistance is to allow reality and fantasy , to runtogether l ike watercolors, blurt ing our vis ion but making l ife morepastel - l ike: in a word, softer. Yet at the same time, perhaps all of qshaye the potential capacity apd even the des ire t o s i ft sense f romnonse nse, i f only we a re in t roduce d to t he dis t inction in asuffi ciently v ivid and compell ing manner.

• • •

B u t h o w c a n t h i s b e d o n e ? I n t h e " N e w s a n d C o m m e n t " s e c t i o n o f

t h e S p r i n g 1 9 8 0 i s s u e - t h e re w as a n i t e m a b o u t a l i v e l y a n t i - p s e u d o -

s c i e n c e t r a v e l i n g c o m e d y l e c t u r e a c t b y o n e " C a p t a i n R a y o f

L i g h t " — a c t u a l l y Do u g l as F. S ta l ke r , an as s o c i at e p rof es s o r o f

ph i l os o p hy at t he Un ive r s i t y o f D e l a w a r e . T h e a r t i c l e q u o t e s S t a l ke r

o n h i s " c o m i c a l d e b u n k i n g s h o w " ( d i r e c t e d a t a s t r o l o g y -

b i o r h y t h m s - n u m e r o l o g y , U F O ' s , p y r a m i d p o w e r , p s y c h i c c l a i m s , a n d

t h e l i ke ) a s f o l l o w s :

For years I lectured against them in a ser ious way , with d i rect charges at

thei r s i l ly theorie s. These d irect attacks d idn' t change many minds , and

so I dec ided to take an i nd i rect approac h. I f you can ' t br at them, j o in

them. And to I d id . i n a o f s p e a k i n g . I c o n s t r u c t e d s o m e

p l a i n l y p r e p o s t e r q u s pseudosc iences of my own and showed that they

were just like astrology and t h e o t h e r s - I a l s o ex p l a i n e d h o w y q u c q u l d

c o n s t r u c t m o re o f th e s e s i l l y t heo r i e s . By wo r k i ng f ro m the i n s i de ou t -

mo re s t ude nt s cam e t o see h ow pseud o these pseudosc iences a re . . . .

And that i s Me aud ience I t ry to reach: the upc oming group o f c i t i zens .

My show reaches them in the r i ght way , to o. I t leayes a l as t i ng

impression: i t wins f r iends and changes minds .

I a m d e l i g h t e d t o r e p o r t t h a t S t a l ke r w e l c o m e s n e w b o o k i n g s . H e

c a n b e

101

Copy r ig ht ed M at e r ia l

SENSE & SOCIETY

re ac h e d a t t he De p a r t me n t o f P h i l o s o p h y - Un i ye r s i t y o f D e l aw a re ,Ne w ar k . D e l a w a r e 1 9 7 1 1 -

O n e o f t h e p o i n t s S t a l ke r m a ke s i s t h a t n o m a t t e r h o w e l o q u e n t a

l e c t u re m ay be , i t s i m p l y d o e s n o t h ave th e p o w e r t o c o p v i q c e t h a t

ex p e r i e p c e d o e s - T h i s p o i n t h a s b e e n b e a u t i f u l l y d e m o n s t r a t e d i n a

s t u d y m a d e b y B a r r y S i n g e r a p d V i c t o r A . B e n a s s i o f t h e P s y c h o l o g y

D e p a r t m e n t o f C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a t L o n g B e a c h . T h e s e

t w o i n v e s t i g a t o r s s e t o u t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e ff e c t o n fi r s t - y e a r

p s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s o f s e e m i n g l y p a r a n o r m a l e ff e c t s c r e a t e d i n

t h e c l a s s r o o m b y a n e x o t i c a l l y d r e s s e d m agi c i an . T he i r fi n d i ng s we re

re p or te d i n the Wi nte r 1 9 80 /8 1 i s su e o f t he Skept ica l Mov ie, i p a p iece

t i t l e d " Fo o l i ng So me of the Pe o p le A l l o f t he T i m e " .

I n t w o o f t h e c l a s s e s - t h e p e r f o r m e r ( C r a i g Re y n o l d s ) w a s

i n t r o d u c e d a s a graduate student " interested in the psychology of

paranormal or psychic a b i l i t i e s , [ w h o h a s ] b e e n w o r k i n g o n d e v e l o p i n g

a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s p s y c h i c ab i l i t i e s " . T h e i n s t r u c t o r a l s o ex p l i c i t l y

s t a te d , " I ' m n o t c o n v i n c e d p e r s on a l l y o f C r a i g ' s o r an y on e e l se ' s

ps yc h i c ab i l i t i e s . " I n two o th e r c l a s se s . C r a i g w a s i n t r o d u c e d a s a

g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t " i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e p s y c h o l o g y o f m a g i c a n d s t a g e

t r i c ke r y , [ w h o h a s ] b e e n w o r k i n g o n d e v e l o p i n g a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s

m a g i c ac t " . T h e au t h o r s e m p h a s i z e t h a t a l l t h e s t u n t s C r a i g

p e r f o r m e d a r e " e a s y a m a t e u r t r i c k s t h a t h a v e b e e n p r a c t i c e d f o r

c e n t u r i e s a n d a r e e v e n e x p l a i n e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s b o o k s o f m a g i c " .

Aft e r the ac t , the s tu de nt s we re a s ke d to rep o r t the i r re act i o ns . S i ng e r an d

B e n a s s i r e c e i v e d t w o j o l t s o m t h e r e p o r t s . T h e y w r i t e :

Fi r s t . . . . i n bo th the " m ag ic " an d the " ps yc h i c" c l a s se s . ab o ut tw o-th i rd s o f the students clearly be lieved Craig was psychic. Only a fewstudents seemed to be l ieve the inst ructor 's descript ion of Cra ig as amagic ian , in the two c lasses whe re he was i n t ro du c ed as su c h .Se co n d l y , p sy c h i c b e l i e f w as no t o n l y p rev a l ent ; i t w as s t ron g an dlo ade d w i th em ot io n . A n um be r o f s t ud en ts cove red thei r p ape rs w ithexo rc i sm te rms an d exho rtat i ons against the Dev i l . In the psychi c

condi t i on , 18 pe rcent o f the students exp l ic i t l y expressed f ri ght andemotional d is turbance . Most expressed awe and amazement.

We we re p rese nt at tw o o f C r a i g ' s pe r fo rm an ce s and w i t nes se d

so m e ext reme behavior. By the t ime Cra ig was hal fway through the

"bending" chant [part of a stunt where he bent a stainless-steel rod], the

class was in a terribly excited state. Students sat r igidly in their chairs-

eves glazed and mouths open, chant ing toge the r. When the rod bent, they

gasped and murmured. Afte r c lass was dismissed, they typical ly sat st il l

in the ir chairs- staring vacant ly or shaking their heads, or rushed

excitedly up to Craig, asking him how they could develop such powers.

We fe l t we were obse ry ing an ex traordinari ly powerfu l behav ioral o f I f

Cr a i g h ad as ke d the s tu de nt s a t the end of h i s a c t to tea r off t hew

clothes- throw him money, and start a new cult . we bel ieve some would

have respon ded enthus iast i ca l l y. Obv ious l y- someth ing was go ing on

here that we didn’t understand,

After this dramatic presentat ion, the c lasses were told they had only been

102World Views in Collision

seeing tricks. In fact, two more classes were given thesame Presentation- with the added warning: "In his act-Craig will pretend to read minds and demonstrate psychicabilities, but Craig does not really have Psychic abilities,and what you'll be seeing are really only tricks-" Still-despite this strong initial disclaimer- more than half thestudents in these classes believed Craig was psychic afterseeing his act- "This says either something about the status

of university instructors with their studepts or somethingabout the strange Pathways people take to occult belief"-Singer and Benassi observe philosophically. Now comessomething astonishing.

The next question asked was whether magicians could doexactly what Craig did. Virtually all the students agreed thatmagicians could. They were then asked if they would like torevise their estimate of Craig's psychic abilities in the lightof this negative information that they themselves hadfurnished- Only a few did, reducing the percentage of studentsbelieving that Craig had psychic powers to 55 percent.

Next the students were asked to estimate how many peoplewho performed stunts such as Craig's and claimed to bepsychic were actually fakes using

magician's tricks. The consensus was that at least three out of

four "psychics"were in fact frauds. After supplying this negative

information- they were again

asked if they wished to revise their estimate of Craig'spsychic abilities. Again, only a few did, reducing thepercentage believing that Craig had psychic powers to 52percent.

S i n g e r a n d B e n a s s i m u s e :

What does a l l thi s add up to? The resul ts f rom our pen-and-penc i l test

suggest th at pe op le c an s tu b bo rn ly m ai nt a i n a be l i e f ab ou t so me o ne ' s

ps yc h i c p owe r s when they know better. It is a logical fallacy to admit that

tricksters can perform exac t l y t he s am e s t un ts a s rea l p sy ch i c s an d to

est im ate th at m os t s o- c a l l ed Psych i cs are f rauds—and at the same t ime

to mainta in wi th a fa i r deg ree of confi dence that any given example

(Craig) is psychic. Are we humans real ly that fool ish? Yes.

A few years ago, Scot Morris (now a senior editor at Omni

magazines in charge of i ts -Games" department) carr ied out a

simi lar experiment on a fi rst -year psychology class at Southern

Il l inois University, which he wrote up in the Spring 1980 issue of the

Skeptical Mown, First- Morris assessed his students' belief's in ESP by

having them fi ll out a questionnaire. Then a colleague performed an

"ESP demonstration", which Morr is ca lls "f r ight eningly impress ive"-

M ie r t h i s p ow e r fu l p e r f o rm a n ce - M o rr i s t r i e d t o "d e p ro g r a m "h i s students- He had two weapons at his disposa l . One is what heca l ls "de h oax in g" . T h i s p roce ss , j us t t h re e m inute s l o ng ,cons i s t e d in a revelation of how two of the three tricks worked,together with a confession

103