The hot, still night was illuminated by a full moon. The two shadowy figures moving along the empty road wondered if this would interfere with their mission.

“Are you sure you took everything?” asked the slender one.

“Of course!” said the shorter one, who was carrying a backpack. “I checked the inventory. I even took the infrared goggles and a telescopic steel rod.”

“Really?”

“Well . . . as a form of self-defense. You never know.”

The two reached a tall, black gate.

“It’s locked.”

“Hold this,” said the shorter one, handing the backpack to his colleague. After searching it, he took out a large ring with a dozen keys attached.

“Here they are! They assured me that with these there would be no problems.”

“We’ll see. . . .”

One at a time, the short fellow inserted the keys in the keyhole. But not one worked.

“Damn! I knew it. We should have checked first that it worked.”

The road was empty. Only one car had passed since Slender and Shorty stopped by the gate, but it did not slow down. The dark shadows hid them from the light.

“All right, if that’s the way it has to be. . . .”

Slender shined a pocket light into the keyhole. “It’s an old Wally model, there should be no problem.”

Shorty took a leather case out of his pocket and opened it. There were a dozen different lockpicks. One was chosen, and the operation started. “It should be no problem,” puffed Shorty, who was crouched on his legs while trying to pick the lock, sweat dripping from his face. “Yeah, it’s easy when you just hold the light and someone else has to do the dirty job.”

“Cut the chatter. Let’s move along.”

After a few more attempts there was a reassuring “click.” The door was open.

“Quick!” snapped Slender. “Stand up.”

“What . . . ?”

“I said quick, get inside!” Slender pushed his mate in the dark hallway and closed the gate. “Don’t say a word.”

They both hid behind a wall, holding their breath. A police car passed by without stopping.

“That was close!” sighed Slender.

Shorty protested. “Close for what? You make it seem like we are two burglars here!”

Slender smiled. “Yeah, and it’s more fun, isn’t it?”

“We are here on a scientific mission,” continued Shorty. “We are not on a secret hunt to rob lost treasures or something like that.”

Slender turned on his pocket light and did not reply. They were in a dark corridor, but down the hall a door that led to the field outside could clearly be seen. It was open when they reached it.

When they stepped outside, the pocket light was no longer needed. The moon was quite bright, but the field, full of a thousand flickering flames, was more luminous. Quite an unexpected view—surreal but almost romantic. Slender regretted he was there with Shorty and not with his girlfriend.

However, it was indisputable: a cemetery at midnight was a sight not to be missed.

Luminous Fungis and
Earth Lights

The two mysterious figures in the story above are my friend and colleague Luigi Garlaschelli and myself. Actually, Luigi is not that short, but I needed an easy descriptor for him. And since he is just a little shorter than I am . . . my apologies, Gigi!

The night visits at the Major Cemetery in Pavia, Italy, took place some time ago when we decided it was time to investigate the “will o’ the wisp” phenomenon. Of course, we obtained official permission from the county administration—“scientific purposes” was the reason we gave for our requested visit. We were quite fascinated by this rare luminous phenomenon, a source of all kinds of supernatural tales.

Also known as ignis fatuus, Latin for temporary fire, will o’ the wisps are in fact said to be ghostly lights, usually seen around graveyards and marshes at night. They look like faint flames or a flickering, glowing fog, usually green, that sometimes appears to recede if approached. Folklorists have collected all kinds of legends related to these mysterious lights, including the fact that they could be some form of spirit lights or have a paranormal origin. Science, however, has precious few facts to offer.

Some have proposed that Armillaria, a parasitic kind of fungi known also as “honey fungus,” could be responsible for some of the apparitions. Some species of Armillaria are bioluminescent and may have been mistaken for will o’ the wisps.

According to another theory, the wisps are nothing more than barn owls with luminescent plumage. Hence, the possibility of them floating around reacting to other lights could explain their strange behavior.

In the 1970s, John Derr and Michael Persinger of the Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, put forth a theory that these lights may be generated piezoelectrically under a tectonic strain.

The theory suggests that the strains that move faults also cause heat in the rocks, vaporizing the water in them. Rocks and soils containing piezoelectric elements such as quartz (or silicon) may also produce electricity, which is channeled up through soils via a column of vaporized water until it reaches the surface, somehow displaying itself in the form of earth lights. If correct, this could explain why such lights can behave in an electrical and erratic—or even apparently intelligent—manner.

Persinger thinks that his theory can be used to predict the manifestation of earthquakes and, along the way, explain many UFO sightings. “When the specific equations between UFO reports (the contemporary label for luminous events) and earthquakes in the central U.S.A. between 1950 and 1980 were applied to the 19th century (earthquakes were recorded then), there were predictable peaks in the numbers of luminous events for specific years,” says Persinger.

“Although there were no reports of ‘UFOs’ in the historical newspapers, there were reports of ‘odd air ships’ and ‘phantom balloons.’ The massive ‘flap’ of 1897, through several tens of states in the southeastern U.S.A., was followed by one of the largest earthquakes in the region.”

As interesting as this theory sounds, and as interesting as it would be to discover whether UFO “flaps” of the past century have been followed by major earthquakes or not, we wanted to test a different kind of will o’ the wisp. The kind that is said to appear in the presence of freshly buried bodies.

Decaying Bodies

One of the most popular scientific explanations for ghost lights is that the oxidation of hydrogen phosphide and methane gas produced by the decay of organic material may cause glowing lights to appear in the air. And this phenomenon is said to occur more easily in the proximity of “fresh” burials.

Thus, we positioned ourselves, with video cameras rolling, in an area of the cemetery where burials had taken place that same day and a few days before. The idea was to document on film the formation of a will o’ the wisp.

Luigi had even built an aspiring pump that would allow him to “suck” the wisp inside a hermetically sealed container in order to later test its chemical composition in the lab. In fact, Luigi has now been able to replicate the lights in his laboratory at the Department of Chemistry in Pavia with the help of his colleague Paolo Boschetti.

At first, the idea was to test the “cool fire” effect. Luigi explains it this way: “According to one hypothesis, the will o’ the wisp is a sort of cold flame, inconsistent with a normal combustion of methane, as reliable eyewitnesses have reported. ‘Cool flames’ can indeed be generated if vapors of suitable organic compounds (such as ethyl ether) come in contact with a hot surface kept at temperatures around 200–300°C [392–572ºF]. These luminescent pre-combustion haloes are sufficiently cool that a hand or a piece of paper can be put in them without being burned.”

The main objection to this interesting hypothesis is that the necessary vapors are not known components of marsh gases, and the presence of surfaces at such high temperatures is difficult to find in nature.

“It is often stated that the phenomenon originates from the spontaneous combustion of gases generated underground by anaerobic fermentation processes,” continues Luigi. “These gases consist mainly of methane and carbon dioxide. Small amounts of phosphine (PH3) and diphosphine (P2H4) [self-igniting on contact with the air] would act as a ‘chemical match’ for the combustible methane.

“Although this hypothesis is one century old, the presence of PH3 in marsh gases has only recently been demonstrated. If the will o’ the wisp indeed is a hot flame, this conjecture might be correct.” If, on the contrary, a will o’ the wisp is a cool “flame,” then the cold chemiluminescence of some compound naturally occurring in marsh gases appears to be a more appealing explanation.

Luigi reconsidered a century-old experiment conducted by German chemists in which phosphine, oxygen, and an inert gas were fed through three small nozzles at the base of a vertical glass tube. By carefully adjusting the flow of the inlets, a faint flickering luminescence could be seen in the dark near the top of the tube due to the chemiluminescence of phosphine.

Luigi built the necessary equipment with a 500 mL flat-bottomed flask, in which he put some solid phosphorous acid. The flask was stoppered by a silicone septum through which a mixture of air and nitrogen was stored on water within a gas tank and fed by a needle. A second needle in the septum provided for the necessary outlet. The flask was flushed with nitrogen and put on a hot plate that was heated to 200°C (392ºF).

“It works!” shouted Luigi, probably feeling a little like Dr. Frankenstein.

The decomposition of phosphorous acid generated phosphine, and a fog formed in the flask. When the air and nitrogen stream was fed into the phosphine vapors, a faint, pale-greenish light was clearly visible in the darkness.

The success in the lab, however, was not matched by success in the field. We spent the entire night at the cemetery, but nothing happened except buzzing and biting mosquitoes. After that there have been repeated visits to cemeteries, graveyards, marshes, and the like, and Luigi has started to carry with him a very sensitive phosphine detector—a portable Draeger Xam-7000—but so far with no luck.

Being able to reproduce spooklights in a lab is one thing. But to see it up close with your own eyes in a cemetery at night is quite another. Hopes are still high, however. There never is a shortage of fresh burials, and hunting season for will o’ the wisps is always open.

A conference on “anomalous cognition” features unusual claims and raises issues on the role of scientific evidence, replicability, and philosophy of science, plus another: when should one stop looking for evidence in support of an elusive effect?

AMIR RAZ

Amir Raz holds the Canada Research Chair in the Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention at McGill University and the SMBD Jewish General Hospital, where he heads the Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory and the Clinical Neuroscience and Applied Cognition Laboratory, respectively.

---

“What exactly is anomalous cognition?” As a cognitive scientist, I wondered about this question as I was peering over an intriguing invitation to attend an exclusive Meeting of Minds (MoM) conference on this very topic.¹ I had been counting the days before the MoM, until finally in July 2007 about sixty researchers got together at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. To avoid media coverage, the organizers targeted a select group of speakers, and attendance was by invitation only. I was surprised when the conference turned out to be a series of presentations, including reports of what are arguably the best accounts in favor of the possibility of things such as parapsychology and psychic influence, also known as psi. The meeting brought together behavioral scientists and experimental psychologists—most of the audience for the talks—a few skeptics, and a group of self-labeled psi researchers, most of the presenters. As a special treat, a handful of renowned panelists—two Nobel laureates and two distinguished professors of psychology—offered pithy summaries of their impressions following the presentations. It did not take long to realize that anomalous cognition is a new euphemism for the time-honored claims of psi, including extrasensory perception (ESP) and telekinesis.

Initially, I was not sure whether I was invited as a scientist, a skeptic, a magician, or as a friend of one of the organizers. Although I am not a parapsychologist, I am genuinely interested in what I refer to as atypical cognition and rarely shy away from investigating areas within my purview, even those considered as fringe by most of my colleagues. For example, I have been studying the brain computations that occur during planes of altered consciousness, including the cognitive neuroscience of phenomena such as sleep-deprivation, hypnosis, and meditation. At the same time, I consider myself a skeptic—of the deferentially inquisitive rather than gravely unyielding variety—who thrives on converging independent replications of rigorous empirical evidence, not on doctrinaire viewpoints. Finally, it was nice to see among the MoM guests a few fellow conjurors who are, foremost, scientists. Their presence was reassuring, if only to avoid thinking about my answer to the phrase “Are you the best magician among scientists or the best scientist among magicians?” which I have heard one too many times. In that crowd, I was neither.

Having spoken to one of the organizers a few weeks before the meeting, it was my understanding that the conference’s leadership envisaged it as an opportunity to present some of the most compelling data sets in support of anomalous cognition and to urge “mainstream” scientists to foster sufficient open-mindedness to consider a more programmatic investigation into these fields based on these findings. That approach seemed fair and appropriate. Although it was unclear to me at that time what exactly anomalous cognition is, I thought then—as I do now—that it is certainly legitimate to advocate for the possibility of anomalous cognition, including psi. The agenda at the meeting, however, went beyond asking that “mainstream” scientists consider the possibility of psi: it intimated that scientific evidence for psi was solid and replicable. Furthermore, it went on to propose that a major goal of the MoM was to consider why scientific and lay communities do not appreciate the existence of psi.

Interestingly, a number of presenters who argued for the possibility of psi were mainstream researchers, at least in the sense that they had trained and worked in some of the world’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning. While several speakers judiciously implied the possibility of psi, a few explicitly claimed that, based on rigorous data, several anomalous phenomena were veridical. It is perilous, however, to overlook the tenuous boundary between suggesting the possibility of certain phenomena and insinuating—not to mention explicitly submitting—that such anomalies actually exist. During the MoM several speakers blurred this boundary, some in letter and some in spirit, and a few unflinchingly crossed it.

As the conference unfolded, serious issues began to surface concerning the role of scientific evidence, replicability of findings, and philosophy of science. In addition, another question gradually emerged, one that scientists seldom ponder: when is it rational to end the pursuit of a hard-to-pin-down goal? In other words, when should one stop looking for evidence in support of an elusive effect?

As a matter of good practice, members of the scientific community tend to be skeptical. Science thrives on a skeptical approach, and scientists are typically conservative in what they consider a “generally accepted view.” Two types of errors, however, stand in the way of any gatekeeper of science. One pertains to how nonexistent phenomena may pass as real or generally accepted; the other pertains to how real phenomena, which should be generally accepted, may pass as nonexistent. Scientists typically pay more attention to the former trap, and some consequently tend to be overzealous or dogmatically skeptical; members of this staunch group can be skeptical of their own belly buttons. The second trap, however, is usually less explored. If psi effects are real, then the scientific establishment needs to be careful not to deny a phenomenon that may later become a generally accepted view.

Carl Sagan popularized Marcelo Truzzi’s dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Although Truzzi used the word “evidence” rather than Sagan’s “proof,” the former, too, had paraphrased earlier statements by great skeptics such as David Hume and Pierre-Simon Laplace. Most scientists still uphold the “extraordinary” motto; however, many of them might not realize that later in his life Truzzi recanted his own maxim. While we can speculate why he did, it remains unclear what constitutes an extraordinary claim. Does claiming to possess X-ray vision or that the sun will not shine tomorrow count as extraordinary? Deciding on what constitutes an extraordinary claim is probably related to our working knowledge—the proverbial a priori Bayesian probabilities with which we navigate the world. We typically use the inductive process to decide whether claims are extraordinary. It would be easier to accept X-ray vision, for example, if we suddenly discovered special receptors for that wavelength in the human body. The presence of such receptors is unlikely—if only because they have eluded us heretofore—but not impossible. That the sun will not shine tomorrow is perhaps a more extraordinary claim because our inductive experience, not to mention our knowledge of physics, suggests otherwise. In addition, while it may be difficult to agree on what would lend extraordinary support to a claim, scientists usually agree on what constitutes unimpressive evidence. Thus, for example, experimental results that do not replicate, effects that are very small and tenuous, flaws of design and methodology, insufficient sample size, inadequate statistical analyses, and lack of a theoretical basis may all contribute to weak evidence.

Conducting parapsychology experiments is an unprotected legal act: anyone can do it without a special license. At the conference, a few talks featured nonpsychologists, including physicists, engineers, and other professionals with little or no training in behavioral science, who nonetheless reported data from studies they conducted in experimental psychology. While at least some of these studies were markedly inadequate and contained glaring shortcomings, others consisted of more careful efforts, sometimes with intriguing results. Physicists with little training in behavioral science, however, are probably not the best professionals to conduct complex psychological experiments in the same way that experimental psychologists with little background in theoretical physics are likely suboptimal candidates to carry out empirical research in quantum mechanics. Of course, individuals who combine psychology with relevant interdisciplinary knowledge, including that from the exact, life, social, and engineering sciences, may have relative merits. In this regard, magicians—those performers who are well-versed in the art of human deception and trickery—may have especially good insights to offer. Whereas I have been an active magician and spent considerable time following claims of the paranormal, I am now a professional academic scientist, at least in the sense that a reputable university supports my research and salary. These credentials make me neither omniscient nor an authority on truth. But they do suggest at least some experience with and perhaps proficiency in assessing psi claims.

Science provides an evanescent form of truth. We never get there, but we can judge how close we are. One test that we can perform requires the convergence of evidence over multiple researchers, methods, labs, and periods. We should probably apply the same time-honored, scientific principle to the study of psi. The psi phenomena reported in the conference, however, tended to comprise very small, elusive effects that were difficult to replicate. In the few cases seemingly supported by replication or meta-analysis (a statistical method that can provide a more complete picture than individual small studies can), multiple caveats cast long shadows over the raw data and the inclusion/exclusion criteria of specific studies. Statistical analysis, however rigorous, is independent of the quality of the unprocessed information: it crunches both meaningful and less meaningful data indiscriminately. Thus, independent of the statistical methods, interpretation of the results is inconclusive at best.

It became clear that proponents of the existence of psi, who typically claim that evidence for psi is bona fide and replicable, largely base their claims on the results of several meta-analyses. It is precarious, however, to rely almost exclusively on the outcomes of meta-analyses for support. Meta-analytical studies are retrospective, not prospective, and confound exploratory with confirmatory investigation. In addition, in the known cases where more than one team of investigators have conducted a meta-analysis of the same research domain within psi, the conclusions have been strikingly different (e.g., a psi proponent reported a meta-analysis of Ganzfeld studies with an average effect size that significantly differed from zero with odds of more than a trillion to one while another meta-analysis of the Ganzfeld data concluded that the average effect size was consistent with zero). This lack of robustness is difficult to reconcile.

Scientists, including the better and smarter of them, are fallible beings prone to the entire spectrum of human behaviors and blunders. People, including scientists, often ask unscientific questions: do you believe that hypnosis can reduce pain? Do you suppose that Prozac can help depression? Pristine scientists, however, do not believe or suppose. Instead, they look at the data and ask whether the evidence supports the hypothesis. At least in theory, researchers’ beliefs should be immaterial to the results of their experiments, because science is about empirical evidence. In reality, however, the experimenter’s beliefs may introduce a substantive bias to the interpretation of data and sometimes even to more nuanced aspects. For example, beliefs and attitudes may bias participant recruitment and influence their expectations, affect feedback, and may even subtly permeate data collection and analysis. At the MoM, it quickly became evident that people had strong beliefs. “What kind of data would make you change your mind?” I asked many a colleague. While several associates danced around the answer with grace and elegance, most coy responses amounted to one troublesome sentiment: “none.”

In a short, informal gathering following the main MoM event, a few participants suggested that perhaps psi effects are not amenable to standard scientific scrutiny because the alleged effects, when they do occur, typically disappear soon after the initial experiment, thereby preventing replication. This “decline effect”—the tendency of psi phenomena to wane over time, sometimes reaching chance levels—is most peculiar. Another commonly reported outcome is the “experimenter effect”: a difference in participants’ performance as a function of the individual who is administering the experiment. It may be interesting to further pursue the latter, as it may also elucidate the therapeutic alliance we so desperately seek with our health practitioners. Nonetheless, we should heed Karl Popper, an influential twentieth-century philosopher of science, who taught us that a proposition or theory is scientific if it permits the possibility of being shown false—the falsifiability criterion. The history of science shows that many theories were not initially falsifiable not because they were not sufficiently well-operationalized in terms of measurable variables—as was the case in Freudian theories, for example—but because they were not fully developed. Such theories, however, have often served a valuable purpose. Proponents of psi may feel that they operate in a similar climate: they might not yet be ready for “prime time” but may want to use the controversy surrounding psi to generate interest and perhaps even a large body of research from which new theories and empirical findings can evolve.

Theory is important, and the life of the scientific theoretician is anything but easy because experiments are inexorable evaluators of one’s work. These unfriendly judges—the experiments—never say yes to a theory and in the great majority of cases assert a flat-out no. Even in the most favorable of situations, they suggest only a “perhaps.” Historically, rather than anchor their observations in a theoretical framework, most proponents of psi have focused on a technicality: their pivotal criterion for the presence of psi hinged on obtaining a statistically significant departure from chance. It became gradually evident, however, that in this way it was difficult to specify what properties typified psi and what criteria determined its absence. Nowadays, theories of psi abound, with most loosely brushing against quantum theory and generating no specific, testable, and falsifiable predictions. Such theories, some rather grandiose, appear especially disjointed, as they are not grounded in supporting experimental data.

“A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence,” wrote Hume in his 1748 essay Of Miracles. Having attended all the talks at the meeting, the collective evidence that I have examined does not support the hypothesis that psi phenomena exist. Neither I nor anyone else, however, can reject this hypothesis and conclude that such phenomena do not exist. For example, based on insufficient evidence we cannot decisively conclude that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. But the burden of “proof” rests with those who make the extraordinary claim. On the one hand, when intriguing nascent evidence presents itself, further investigation should ensue. On the other hand, skeptics will probably continue to maintain that psi is unlikely, and proponents will almost certainly continue to look for new ways to demonstrate their claims.

The air was effervescent as each panelist offered an extemporaneous eight-minute summary. Peppering their comments with humor and panache, the psychologists were largely unimpressed by the evidence and pointed to a number of the abovementioned weaknesses. The Nobel laureates, however—one in physics and one in chemistry—echoed a favorable and more accepting tenor. One mentioned atmospheric science as a metaphor for the science of psi, suggesting that psi phenomena may be difficult to predict and replicate consistently in the same way that weather forecasts are nebulous. The other described his experiences with personal acquaintances whom he considered to be genuine psychics.

These last statements left me rubbing my ears in disbelief. On the one hand, albeit far from perfect, weather forecasts have gotten better over the past few decades and are certainly more reliable than outcome predictions from psi research. On the other hand, befriending individuals who claim psychic abilities is hardly firm grounds for scientific exchange.

Individuals, including intelligent persons, are infamously irrational, and one personal “psi experience” is often more compelling than multiple converging scientific accounts. Social psychologists have coined this phenomenon the “vividness” effect. Being a scientist, a prestidigitator, and a skeptic who is keenly aware of his bellybutton, I’d be curious to see compelling scientific demonstrations of psi (i.e., a string of multiple successful experiments by several independent investigators producing lawful and replicable outcomes). Alas, I have found none to date. But when do you conclude that the effect you are seeking is unlikely? When do you stop looking?

Data in support of psi have so far failed to meet the acceptable scientific standards of lawfulness, replicability, objectivity, falsifiability, and theoretical coherence. A group of dogmatically skeptical individuals seems to consistently reject psi research because of granitic prejudices, but navel-denying skepticism is incongruent with good science. While some scientists may indeed reject psi out of prejudice, they typically do not “discriminate” against psi; they show a similar “prejudice” against any claim that seemingly violates fundamental principles of current scientific theory. A healthy first reaction to any departure from existing frameworks is to look for defects in the supporting evidence. If such defects are not apparent, it is time to insist on obtaining independent replications. Until such evidence is forthcoming, it would be difficult for the scientific community to accept a claim for an anomaly.

Highly biased perceptions of reality may be at odds with the findings of science, and establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena might well comprise an intractable task. If compelling evidence were to materialize, however, scientists should be willing to change their minds. Members of the scientific community should be amenable, at least in some measure, to the possibility of novel phenomena. At the same time, proponents of new claims should provide compelling “proof,” and everyone should be sufficiently critical to dismiss claims that already have been found specious. While some of us may have concluded that the Tooth Fairy seems unlikely, others may keep on looking for her…. Still others may be undecided.

When it comes to true stories of the paranormal, many people don’t realize that the U.S. government has been researching the paranormal for several decades.

Dr. Christopher C. Green, known to friends and colleagues as “Kit”, currently serves as the Assistant Dean of Clinical Research, China for the Wayne State School of Medicine in Detroit Michigan. He served in the CIA from 1969 through 1985. In the early 1970s, Dr. Green’s work included involvement in the start of a 20-year government research project into ESP and psychic ability.

Working for the CIA weird desk

LTK: Dr. Green, how did you progress through the ranks of the CIA, and what was your primary responsibility?

CG: I was an “open” employee and able to generally discuss this question for my entire career. My position was as an analyst in the Life Sciences Division, later to become a Science and Technology Division, in the part of the Agency that examined intelligence data that may affect national security . Most of the data was unclassified. What analysts “did” was called “All Source” intelligence. This meant writing judgments in as low a classification as possible to reach the widest audience in the Executive Branch. My primary responsibility was in Physiology and Medicine, Life Support Systems for foreign space and undersea platforms, and a wide range of biological and chemical threat analysis. My specialty was Forensic Medicine; this means trying to figure out diagnoses from very little and often highly incomplete data.

LTK: The term “weird desk” is considered among paranormal groups as the collection of files within the CIAparanormal. Were you really the “keeper of the weird” for the CIA, and if so, how much time did you invest in it? pertaining to anything

CG: Yes. What has been publicly stated about the wide range of weird claims and even some of the actual “data”, ranging from terrible to fairly good, is basically correct. What is not clear, is that over my career, this activity ranged from a few documents a month to spurts of activity that sometimes occupied a few days a month at the height of activities in the late ‘70s. Overall, I never spent more than 10% of my time on the subjects across any given period of weeks or a month. However, it has resulted in 90% of what is thought to be known about me!

LTK: In hindsight, what percentage of the materials dealing with the paranormal that crossed the “weird desk” would you say you found interesting and why?

CG: 10 to 20 % was material that was interesting. This was not because it had “face validity”, but because the sources or data were good, and because in four instances (of a hundred I heard about) I was able to “verify” that there was no fraud or hoax. This was because either I personally observed the data gathering and had it tested with a double-blind method, or personally experienced the results.

The CIA Remote Viewing (Psychic) Research

LTK: The “stargate files” covering the government’s remote viewing research were declassified in 1995. How much were you involved in that research?

CG: I was very involved from about 1976 until 1978, and I was one of six or eight analysts who were involved and generally familiar until 1983. After 1985, I received only one summary briefing as a courtesy, and lost interest because the results of what I was told happened since the early ‘80s were unimpressive to me. The research I was involved in personally, while important to me in establishing that sometimes the phenomena was accurate, and dramatically so at a personal level, was very small in relationship to the size of what I have read the program became from the early ‘80s to the early ‘90s. However, I worked with three subjects who convinced me of the reality of paranormal phenomenon, while also convincing me that there was little of value for the Intelligence Community. The phenomenon was highly unpredictable and uncontrolled, and impossible to verify in a fast enough time period to be robust or useful.

LTK: Would you say that what you did see convinced you that the phenomenon of “Remote Viewing”, a form of ESP, is real?

CG: There were four “experiments” in which I participated where I was 100% sure and certain no tomfoolery or hoax was afoot. The results were directly observed, or in one case highly controlled by myself and other analysts. However, they suffer from the fact that single observers are not good referents. Much like in the journalism profession, two or more sources are required. In three of the experiments, I was personally involved so I am not a credible reporter in those incidents. That is, I could be said to suffer from “Observer Bias” which is a fair criticism. In one case, the experiment occurred with my home as the site of a long-distance Remote Viewing (RV). In another case, I was the “target” and varied my location at the last minute and was alone, to be sure no one followed me. I did not know the results until a double-blind opening of the data occurred. In the final case, there was a medical emergency with the subject, and the conditions and circumstances were such that it was clear the results could not have been faked or planned.

LTK: Could you describe the strangest experience you had that had the greatest impact on your personal beliefs regarding paranormal phenomenon?

CG: During a RV experiment, I was on the telephone in my den at home on a Saturday afternoon. I alone prepared some numerical targets, and no one else was involved. The entire purpose of the “experiment” was to convince myself that RV was possible. I placed the targets in a sealed envelope and placed them on a music stand. The RV subject not only correctly determined the numbers, in correct sequence, but correctly identified that I had placed them upside down, something I did not realize. The real “impact” of the session happened next.

The RV person at one point screamed into the phone (he was 3,000 miles away) “Kit, something bad has happened! Oh my god! I just got an image of the strangest white dog I have ever seen with a square head short legs and blood running down its throat…and I felt slivers of glass go through my body. Everything is happening on a sea of green. Are you o.k.?” I was, and for the next minute had no clue of what happened.

The RV subject persisted: “Kit something happened. I am sorry. Are you o.k.?” I then went to check on my wife and kids downstairs. I found them upset, and cleaning a huge mess of broken glass from the solid green carpet that had been just laid that morning in our empty family Room. My white Bulldog Charles had overturned and shattered a glass lamp when running into the room unexpectedly. Charles was not only white, he had a very square head. My kids said he had tripped while running around the room on the bright fire-red three-inch wide macramé collar my mother had made for him. It was around his neck and dangling under his chin, down his throat and trailing between his front legs.

I knew that my home was inviolate; no one in the woods outside the back door to the rec room was monitoring my family in real-time. The RV subject did not know I even had a white Bulldog, and just like me, didn’t know what had happened in his RV image.

Views Regarding the Paranormal Today

LTK: Have your views regarding phenomenon such as UFOs, ghosts, or ESP changed at all from the time you started with the CIA to the day you left in 1985. If so, why?

CG: Yes. I now believe the phenomenon is much less common than I used to think, and that people cannot be trained in any useful fashion. I believe that people with true psychic abilities are few and far between. The acquisition of information is spontaneous and uncontrolled. The characteristics of “successful” Remote Viewers (such as in my personal four cases) are very, very uncommon. I have also sadly come to believe that more delusion and fraud exists than I even thought was possible back then.

LTK: Thank you, Kit, for taking the time to share your experiences, knowledge, and insight regarding paranormal phenomena.

CG: Thank you, and I will be happy if a dialogue ensues

HAUNTED HOAX is the first paranormal show of its kind, exposing the fakes, which claim to be real and offering possible explanations to more creditable evidence.

Host, author Patrick H.T. Doyle, explores historic and haunted sites while examining video and photographic evidence posted for the public — from opening doors and picture frames that move to ghostly figures captured on film. Patrick stages reenactments and demonstrates how a large percentage of evidence can be fabricated with just a simple digital camera and everyday items.

This is a show for paranormal researchers and anyone who has ever questioned the authenticity of a video or photo labeled as “Haunted” and presented as truth. It’s a “Guide to Evaluating Evidence” that hopes to decontaminate the evidence pool and move the field of paranormal research forward. Each episode will educate and entertain while you learn the tricks some could use to create a HAUNTED HOAX.

More videos Will be added as posted

HAUNTED HOAX #1 - GHOSTS NEVER KNOCK

HAUNTED HOAX RANTS & GRAVES : ORBS

HAUNTED HOAX - GETTYSBURG PICTURE

HAUNTED HOAX - PHONY PHOTOS

HAUNTED HOAX 4 - WHAT WAS THAT ??

Introduction

My name is Winston Wu. I am a researcher and explorer of the paranormal, psychic phenomena, metaphysics, quantum physics, consciousness research, realms of higher consciousness, and religion/philosophy. This article rebuts and critiques the most common arguments made by pseudo-skeptics (those who claim to be skeptics but in fact are cynics, debunkers, scoffers) regarding paranormal and psychic phenomena, showing the flaws and limitations in their thinking, philosophy and methodology. I’ve listed their common arguments one-by-one and pointed out the weaknesses and problems in them based on years of experience in debating and discussing with them. First though, let me tell you how I came to write this article.

How this article came to be written

I’ve always had a sense of adventure and interest in esoteric things. And I’ve always been drawn to spirituality, religion, and search for meaning. I started out during childhood as an Evangelical Christian fundamentalist, which gave me the structure and solid sense of purpose that I needed at the time. When I turned 19, I felt that the absolutist doctrines of my faith were too limiting and narrow minded for me, and not allowing me to learn anything new without fear. This began a slow de-conversion process which led me to become Agnostic for a while. You can read my story describing my de-conversion experience entitled My Rise to Christianity and My Transcendence From It at

http://www.happierabroad.com/Christian_Story.htm (updated version)
or http://www.angelfire.com/me2/mccl/index.html (old original version).

Also, I have completed a long treatise in similar form to this one, debunking and refuting 15 main arguments of Christian fundamentalists and Evangelists (such as Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis), point-by-point with scholarly citations and quotations, entitled Debunking Every Argument of Christians Fundamentalists and Evangelicals at http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm.

Since then, I have always been a critical opponent of brainwashing tactics, after having been brainwashed myself a number of times but learning from it each time. As a result, I’ve written against scams and shady business practices such as extended warranties and multi-level marketing.

After my Christian de-conversion, I found that the Atheist paradigm didn’t have the answers to life’s mysteries or even to unexplained phenomena, I knew that its paradigm was insufficient as well. Neither Atheism nor Evangelical Christianity seemed adequate, but oddly enough most Americans seem to think that those are the only two belief systems to choose from. Realizing that there were way too many things that couldn’t be explained by conventional or scientific explanations, I started looking for answers in non-organized forms of spirituality. After further research and questioning, I discovered many fascinating things and new paradigms that fit the unexplained data, which gave me a more comprehensive view of reality and spirituality. I discovered that there was indeed powerful evidence (some of which is irrefutable) that some paranormal phenomena are genuine and do have a basis, both scientifically and in terms of anecdotal evidence.

To try to gain an understanding of the other side of the issue, (which is what you should do when you want to learn something in depth) I went to skeptics to ask what they had to say and also read some of their literature. I found that what they had to say made sense on the surface, but was very different than what I heard from the literature about paranormal phenomena, accounts of paranormal experiences from ordinary people (some of which I know and trust), and my own experiences. In order to try to make sense of such different but arguable views, I tried to sift through the details and the evidence. What I found was that although both skeptics and believers can be closed-minded and tend to rationalize away what they don’t want to believe, in either case the objective evidence for some of the paranormal was incredibly strong and undeniable.

(Although the main focus of this treatise is to critique skeptical arguments, some of the evidence for the paranormal will often be presented as well.

As I became more educated and informed of the evidence for different types of paranormal phenomena, I presented this to skeptics both on message boards and internet newsgroups. What resulted was an endless charade of arguments on both sides, with each side bringing up facts that support their side while denying the facts of the other side. This is typical of debates in general, no doubt, but since there were so many types of paranormal phenomena, the topic range was broad and diverse enough to make continuous and interesting discussions. Consequently, the discussions dragged on much longer than expected. Not only were there so many topics to discuss, but I kept finding more and more quality evidence to support my view each time I looked. All this became a fascinating and educating hobby.

During the discussions and debates, I was led to skeptical material such as Professor Bob Carroll’s The Skeptic’s Dictionary (www.skepdic.com), editions of Skeptical Inquirer (published by CSICOP www.csicop.org), articles by infamous paranormal debunker James Randi (www.randi.org), and others. Over time, I developed a strong recognition and grasp of their system of philosophical arguments and sensed the patterns in them. After hearing almost all the arguments they used, I learned how to respond to them to the point of it being second nature to me. I knew their strengths and weaknesses, just as an experienced chess player understood the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of his opponent’s pieces. For almost three years, I debated skeptics ranging from honest doubters looking for truth (like me), to those who were clearly cynics masquerading as skeptics having already made up their minds before looking at the evidence.

These skeptics included cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won’t admit it), scientific materialists, haters of religion, etc. Now we call them “pseudo-skeptics” because although they pose as skeptics, their skepticism is “pseudo” meaning “False or counterfeit; fake.” (American Heritage Dictionary) Hence the title of this treatise.

Eventually, I realized that their skepticism was not about an open inquiry for truth, but rather a philosophy they used to manipulate data to fit their beliefs. This philosophy was pseudo-intellectual in nature and used to discredit and invalidate both claimants and evidence. Oddly, these skeptics seem to think that they can use semantics and rules from this philosophy to erase evidence from reality! They think that they can invalidate real-life objective events and evidence of a paranormal nature by putting labels on them or quoting some theorem or axiom such as “anecdotal evidence is invalid”, “appeal to authority”, “ad populum fallacy argument” etc. In effect, they attempt to use semantics to erase objective reality. Unfortunately for them, reality doesn’t work that way.

(As a matter of fact, after the original version of this article was written in 2001, a skeptic named Paul Sandoval attempted to refute my arguments by publishing this article:

http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/winstonwu.htm

As you can see from it, he simply does more of the same, quoting axioms, theorems, and putting labels on things, none of which invalidates my arguments nor erases the evidence for paranormal phenomena from existence. In other words, he uses labels and semantics to refute my arguments rather than facts or logic. In a sense, people who do that are “in their own world”, so to speak. To see a great example of word games from pseudo-skeptics, see my online exchange with one at :

http://www.happierabroad.com/skeptic_word_games.htm in which one pseudo-skeptic on my list was proven to have lied several times beyond any shadow of doubt.)

It was obvious that these skeptics were not seeking the truth nor were they open to it. Instead, they were about systematically trying to debunk everything that didn’t fit in with their a priori staunch materialistic views. Therefore, they did not ask questions of an exploratory nature, but rather, they taunted and attacked believers and made claims and judgments about their paranormal experiences. They had already made up their minds beforehand, and would only accept evidence that fit their conclusions. A true skeptic and truth-seeker analyzes both sides and updates his views and opinions to conform with the facts, while a pseudo-skeptic on the other hand manipulates the facts to fit into their beliefs, using selective attention as well.

Then I suddenly realized at the time that no books or in-depth analyses have been written to directly counter the arguments and philosophy of organized skeptics and debunkers. There were a few articles written about closed-minded skeptics in general, but no in-depth point by point critique or debunking of their arguments. For almost every other organized belief system, there are books written analyzing its precepts and doctrines, but not for organized skepticism. Therefore, I decided to be the first to write such a thing, making use of the knowledge I gained over the years and my debating skills. I felt that being the first in something was an accomplishment that I would be inspired to do. And that’s how this article came to be written.

With the exception of sensational pro-paranormal programs, skeptics are often given the chance to present their arguments and explanations in the media, national magazines, and television programs, without rebuttal from the other side, even when their explanations contradict the facts of the case. As a result, there is often an imbalance in the presentation of paranormal and psychic phenomena in the media, leaving most viewers and believers uninformed. This article attempts to counteract the imbalance. It is written both for the education and knowledge of the believer who deals with skeptics, and for skeptics who are willing to hear counterarguments to their positions.

First, I want to clarify that I have nothing against honest true skepticism. It is good to have a healthy dose of skepticism to protect one from scams, con artists, misleading advertising, misleading claims, propaganda, brainwashing, jumping to conclusions, etc. But when closed-minded cynicism comes masquerading as skepticism, it becomes a block to truth finding and open-minded investigation. However, those new to this subject may not be able to discern the difference between open honest skepticism and closed-minded pseudo-skepticism. Therefore, let us differentiate between the two.

The true skeptic vs. the pseudo-skeptic

According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

“One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.”

That definition of a skeptic fits me and other critical thinkers who analyze both sides in the pursuit of truth or a broader perspective. Of course, there are many ways of being a skeptic, and many issues to be “skeptical” of. Some are skeptics of the paranormal, others are skeptics of anything conventional – established thought, government, etc. so not all skeptics are the same or on the same side.

However, the pseudo-skeptics like CSICOP members and Randi are definitely not open minded truth seekers, but rather their words and behavior are that of automatic dismissing and denying that which doesn’t fit into their paradigm. They are cynics who have closed their mind to anything that doesn’t fit into their world view, dismissing all else as misperception, delusion, or fraud. But don’t take my word for it, for if you read their own writing and hear what they say, it’s obvious from their narrow tunnel-view of reality, and their righteous indignation of what’s real and what’s “quackery” (a word they love to use). They do not seek to understand, but instead seek to discredit and invalidate. Their skepticism is what I and others like to call “pseudo-skepticism”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit; fake.” Therefore, these debunkers exhibit a false mask of skepticism. In actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and deniers. They deny and dismiss all evidence, scientific or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and look for an excuse to justify it. They are not about seeking the truth or open-minded investigations at all, only in discrediting what doesn’t fit into their view.

Of course, every skeptic is going to say that they are open-minded true skeptics (just like every thief says they’re not a thief, every liar says they are not a liar, every high pressure salesman says they are not high pressure, etc.), but the proof of the pudding is in their actions, how they reason, and the system of philosophy they use, which you can recognize from the arguments I outline in this article. In fact, here are typical traits of true skeptics vs. pseudo-skeptics.

· True skeptics / open-minded skeptics

Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental, seeks the truth

· Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudo-skeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)

Typical traits: automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know little or nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences

The late Marcello Truzzi, former member of CSICOP and considered an open-minded skeptic who always sat on the fence, wrote an article about pseudo-skeptics which you can read about here: http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

One of the tell-tale signs of pseudo-skeptical mentality is in the words they use when describing believers. If they describe them as: “delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking”, etc. then it’s a strong indication of their a priori mentality.

Skepticism should be a tool and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not as a cover to defend one’s own paradigms and cynicism. Doubting things and looking for answers will help one learn things, but trying to debunk everything outside your world view does not lead to learning. Therefore, the arguments I critique here refer to the arguments of pseudo-skeptics, not true skeptics.

These kinds of skeptics have an extreme belief system that is closed-minded and on the opposite extreme end of Christian fundamentalism in terms of their black and white thinking. Here is an example that demonstrates this. A popular book among skeptics is Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark. The mere title of the book and its cover (which you can see by clicking the link to it) demonstrates this analogy. The world is seen as “demon haunted” just as in Christianity, with the majority of people living in the “dark”, believing in superstition and religion, but ignorant of science. While, on the other hand, those who rely on science and are skeptics are the “candle in the dark” or the “light of the world” in Christian Gospel terms. This is the same kind of black and white thinking that puts everyone into two categories, in the light and in the dark, that Christian fundamentalists use as well. In my opinion, it’s unhealthy thinking to have belief systems like that.

It is interesting to note that while Carl Sagan is a great teacher of astronomy and science, he has a very inadequate knowledge of paranormal phenomena. This is demonstrated by the fact that in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark Sagan devotes a big chapter to debunking the Alien Abduction phenomenon, however, not once does he even personally investigate or interview any abductees at all, like an honest open-minded investigator or truth seeker would. On the other hand, researchers like Harvard Professor John Mack (author of Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens ) and Budd Hopkins (author of Missing Time) have done extensive interviews and investigations with abductees for their book, which led them to the conclusion that there was more to the phenomenon than just “all in the brain” or sleep paralysis. In fact, Mack has personally investigated 76 abductee cases during the course of four years. But how many did Sagan investigate? Zero. Therefore, one ought to give those researchers more credence than skeptics like Carl Sagan who just dismiss the subject off-hand without any deep investigation for truth.

Recently, my long-time close friend Michael Goodspeed, a writer and paranormal radio show host, has done a lot of research into paranormal claims vs. pseudo-skeptical arguments. He wrote a series of excellent articles examining both sides and posing challenging questions and arguments to the closed-minded skeptics. Here are the links to his articles on paranormal claims and pseudo-skepticism:

Michael Goodspeed (writer and experienced paranormal talk show host)

On Randi’s hypocrisy: http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

On psychic claims and skeptical explanations: http://www.rense.com/general51/ebramce.htm

On UFO phenomenon: http://www.rense.com/general51/embr.htm

On alien abduction claims and skeptical explanations: http://www.rense.com/general51/ppr.htm

On monsters, creatures, and Bigfoot: http://www.rense.com/general52/seek.htm

Michael Prescott, a successful published author of crime and mystery novels, makes similar analyses of pseudo-skeptics and their claims in Why I’m Not A Skeptic. And, one of the most passionate researchers on life after death, retired lawyer Dr. Victor Zammit (www.victorzammit.com) of Australia, has created a section of his site dedicated to exposing the tactics of debunkers. This article is also hosted on that site. http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html

Perhaps Robert Anton Wilson described these closed-minded skeptics best in an interview where he termed them “irrational rationalists” and “fundamentalist materialists”. He writes:

DAB: One of your recent books is The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about this book.

RAW: I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they’re governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They’re so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. I thought it was a fascinating paradox: irrational rationalists. Later on I found out I didn’t invent that. Somebody else who wrote an article on CSICOP, that’s the group they all belong to: Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Somebody else who wrote about them also used the term irrational rationalism. It’s a hard term to resist when you think about those people.

I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity, I had done enough of that in my other books. I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical. All fundamentalism is comical, unless you believe in it, in which case you’d become a fanatic yourself, and want everybody else to share your fundamentalism. But if you’re not a fundamentalist yourself, fundamentalists are the funniest people on the planet. The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they’re rational!

DAB: They call themselves skeptical.

RAW: Yes, but they’re not skeptical! They’re never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They’re only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They’re actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college, which was about 1948-53, somewhere in that period. If you go back and study what was being taught in college in those days as the latest scientific theories, you find out that’s what these people still believe. They haven’t had a new idea in 30 years, that’s all that happened to them. They just rigidified, they crystallized around 1960.

Common tactics of pseudo-skeptics

In debating skeptics, I’ve noticed some common flawed tactics that they use. These include:

1) Ignoring facts and evidence that don’t fit into their preconceived world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts, which is more logical. (e.g. “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t!”) This is known as the process of rationalization through cognitive dissonance.

2) Trying to force false explanations to explain a paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the facts. In essence, cynical skeptics tend to prefer inventing false explanations rather than accepting any paranormal ones. For example, using “cold reading” to explain the amazing accuracy of a psychic reading when no known cold reading technique could account for the facts and circumstances. (see Argument # 16)

3) Moving the goal posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for evidence is met. For example, a skeptic wants evidence for psi in the form of controlled experiments rather than anecdotal evidence. When this evidence is presented, he will then raise the bar and demand that the experiments be repeatable by other researchers. When this is done, then he will either attack the researchers integrity and character, attack their methods, or demand a report of every detail and minute of the experiment or else he will contend that some unmentioned lack of controls must have been the culprit to explain the positive psi results, etc. He will always find some excuse due to his already made-up mindset. Patrick Huyghe has written an article about this at Extraordinary Claim? Move the Goal Posts!

4) Using double standards in what they will accept as evidence. They will not accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal because they consider it to be unreliable, but not surprisingly they will accept anecdotal evidence when it supports their position. Also, they don’t accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal, but when it’s against a paranormal claim, then they accept it as evidence against. (an unequivocal sign of bias) (e.g. “Others never reported any paranormal activity in the area”, “He/she saw something different”). For instance, when a psi experiment shows well above chance results, they will not accept it as evidence against psi. But when a psi experiment only shows chance results, they will accept that as evidence against psi.

5) Attacking the character of witnesses and undermining their credibility their evidence or testimonies can’t be explained away. As we all know, when politicians can’t win on the issues, they resort to character assassinations. Unfortunately, this is also what skeptics and debunkers tend to do as well. When evidence or testimony from key people can’t be explained away or are irrefutable, skeptics will find ways to discredit them such as character assassinations or grossly exaggerating and distorting trivial mistakes. This has especially been done with the direct eyewitnesses of the 1947 Roswell Incident, as Stanton Friedman, author of the famous Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a Ufo often points out in an online article you can read at www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfhome.html.

6) Dismissing all evidence for the paranormal by classifying it either as anecdotal, untestable, unreplicable, or uncontrolled. Skeptics who wish to close their minds to any evidence, even after asking for it ironically, tend to do so by classifying it into one of the categories above. If the evidence is anecdotal, they will say that anecdotal evidence is worthless scientifically and untestable. If the evidence is in the form of scientific experiments, they will then say that it is unreplicable or uncontrolled.

(For more on skeptical tactics such as these, see Zen and the Art of Debunkery and Stupid Skeptic Tricks.)

These illogical ways of thinking are strange coming from people who pride themselves on their logic and rationality! Of course, flawed thinking such as the above can come from both believers and skeptics. That is why it is good to point them out to keep both sides in check.

The wikipedia online encyclopedia lists similar attributes for pseudoskeptics in its entry on pathological skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism.

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual’s actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).

2. The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).

3. The obfuscation of facts.

4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.

5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.

6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.

7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.

8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by “moving the goalposts”.

9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.

10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo’s heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus’ contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift, and pseudoskepticism towards rocks falling down to Earth. Thomas Jefferson himself commented: “I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.”

A common fallacy these skeptics make is to assert that those who claim to have paranormal experiences do not consider other mundane explanations for their experience, and instead jump to paranormal conclusions. Well that simply isn’t true at all. In almost every story you read or hear about of a paranormal experience, the claimant almost always describes the possible mundane explanations that he/she considered, and how they were ruled out before coming to their unconventional conclusion. It’s there in simple plain language, yet somehow skeptics never seem to see this. What skeptics don’t understand is, if the possible mundane explanations don’t fit the facts or are too improbable to be believed, then they can and should be ruled out.

Let me clarify something now. It is NOT my position to argue that all paranormal claims are true. It is not my intention to be a defender for all general paranormal phenomena and claims. In fact, I happen to be skeptical of many claims myself. Instead, I am for open minded inquiry, taking anecdotal evidence into account rather than just dismissing it. I argue that the evidence for any paranormal phenomenon should be CONSIDERED and INVESTIGATED rather than rejected automatically just because it doesn’t fit in with prevailing beliefs and world views. I do not claim to have the answers to all the paranormal mysteries. However, based on my experience and research, I will argue that the overwhelming evidence as a whole points to the existence of some sort of metaphysical reality that exists, and that at least some paranormal claims have a basis in reality. My position is that SOME types of paranormal phenomena (ESP, ghosts, astrology, feng shui, etc.) have something to them other than mere superstition, chance or delusion. I go by the simple mantra that “if it works, then it works” and one should keep at it unless otherwise, regardless of how accepted it is in the scientific community.

Electronic Voice Phenomena

Voices of the Dead ?

James E. Alcock, PhD

---

When we talk about communication with the dead, we are usually referring to “mediums” who talk to the dead on our behalf, or who allow the dead to speak to us through them.

What if, instead the dead could speak to us directly, without the middle person?

If You Survive Death… ?

Imagine for a moment that you are the dead person, that your body has died, but your mind / personality / soul lives on. You are surprised by this, and you want to tell people, especially your skeptical friends, all about it – you want to communicate with us.

What would you do?

You have no voice box therefore you cannot speak. You have no arms or legs or any means of moving objects. But you are – as they say – an “energy field.” Could you reach us by interference with devices that rely upon other energy fields, a radio or tape recorder, for example?

But if you were able to generate some sounds on a tape recorder, would any one even detect them, or pay attention if they did? It’s often hard to detect weak signals – and you are but a wraith, a spirit, and probably without a lot of energy.

However, there is hope for humans, as Ray Hyman points out, because humans are the best pattern detectors in existence. Pattern detection, in this example, would be the ability to discriminate signal from noise.

Voices of the Dead?

This is exactly what is happening, according to some people. If you listen carefully, they say, you can hear the voices of the dead in tape recordings.

What do the voices of the dead sound like? Here are two examples of actual recordings where people claim to hear spoken words, the words of the dead.

This from the webpage http://members.tripod.com/~GSOLTESZ/evp.htm#listen: “In this EVP recording, you can hear a voice saying, almost in agony, …”Save Me.” You might have to play it a couple of times but you can’t miss it. This recording has only been enhanced by myself using a sound editing program. The reason was to cut down on the “noise” and “bring out” the actual voice.

• • “Save Me” (click on title link to listen to .wav file)

Here are two other examples from Dr. Michael Daniels, psychologist and parapsychologist (www.mdani.demon.co.uk)

• • Example 1
  • Example 2

The website instructs: “To hear the voices at their best you should play them at maximum volume through headphones. In both cases you should be able to hear a definite “English” male voice. You may need to replay the recordings several times in order to make out the words, which are quite indistinct. The first clip seems to be saying something like “do you like potatoes?”. The second clip sounds to me rather like “five thirty and four-eye”. Different words may suggest themselves to you.” (Dr. Daniels points out that there is divided opinion about the reality of EVP).

Electronic Voice Phenomena

So – it’s not so easy to hear the voices, is it ? These are examples of what are called electronic voice phenomena, or EVP.

We are informed by another website that:

“EVP is a process whereby unexplained snatches of voice or voices are embedded onto magnetic recording tape by a process that is not yet fully understood. The embedded “ghost” voice can be heard when the magnetic audio tape is played back on a standard tape recorder/player.” (www.hauntedhike.com)

Again, the Web informs us that:

“Recordings typically last only for a few minutes. This is because intense concentration is required in order to hear the voices on the tape, which usually has to be replayed several times in order to decipher the speech. Use of headphones is recommended.” (www.mdani.demon.co.uk)

The best way to understand the development of EVP it is to go back a little in time.

With the rise of Spiritualism beginning with the “mysterious rappings” of the Fox sisters in the nineteenth century, there have been many attempts to “contact the dead,” while claiming to be engaged in scientific study.

Thomas Edison saw new technology, part of which he invented, as a means by which spirits might try to contact us. Apparently, he strove to make contact through some sort of phonograph device in the 1890s. Then, in the late 1920s, he tried to make contact with the souls of the dearly departed by means of some sort of special chemical equipment. It is claimed that spirit voices were first captured on phonograph records in 1938, seven years after his death.

However, it was with Friedrich Jürgenson (1903-1987) that the study of EVP really begins. Jürgenson was in some ways a Renaissance Man – an archeologist, a philosopher, a linguist, a painter who was commissioned by Pope Pius XII, a singer and recording artist, and a film documentary maker. . Jürgenson’s interest in Electronic Voice Phenomena apparently began when, after having recording bird songs with a tape recorder, he could hear human voices on the tapes, even though there had been no one in the vicinity.

This surprising event naturally piqued his interest, and he turned his attention to making recordings of nothing – that is, recordings made in a quite place with no one around. He continued to detect voices on these tapes, and his studies led to the 1964 publication of his book Rosterna fran Rymden (“Voices from space”).

He subsequently recognized some of the voices that his tape recorder picked up, including that of his mother, who called him by her pet nickname for him. However, as we say where I grew up, his mother was already “on the wrong side of the grass;” that is, she was deceased. It seemed natural to him to assume that she was communicating from beyond the grave. Thus, he came to the conclusion that all the voices that he had recorded were voices of the dead. In 1967, he published Sprechfunk mit Verstorbenen (“Radio-link with the dead”).

Dr Konstantin Raudive (1906-1974), a student of Carl Jung, was a Latvian psychologist who taught at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. He was preoccupied with parapsychological interests all his life, and especially with the possibility of life after death, and he kept in close contact with leading British psychical researchers

In 1964, Raudive read Jürgenson’s book, Voices from space, and was so impressed by it that he arranged to meet Jürgenson in 1965. He then worked with Jürgenson to make some EVP recordings, but their first efforts bore little fruit, although they believed that they could hear very weak, muddled, voices.

However, one night, as he listened to one recording, he clearly heard a number of voices- and when he played the tape over and over, he came to understand all of them – some of which were in German, some in Latvian, some in French. The last voice on the tape – a woman’s voice – said “Va dormir, Margarete” (”Go to sleep, Margaret”).

Raudive later wrote (in his book Breakthrough): “These words made a deep impression on me, as Margarete Petrautzki had died recently, and her illness and death had greatly affected me.” Amazed by this, he then started researching such voices on his own, and spent much of the last ten years of his life exploring electronic voice phenomena. With the help of various electronics experts, he recorded over 100,000 audiotapes, most of which were made under what he described as “strict laboratory conditions.” He collaborated at times with Hans Bender, a well-known German parapsychologist. Over 400 people were involved in his research, and all apparently heard the voices. This culminated in the 1971 publication of his book Breakthrough, mentioned above. His impact was such that these phenomena are now often referred to simply as “Raudive voices.”

Raudive developed several different approaches to recording EVP, and he referred to:

1. Microphone voices: one simply leaves the tape recorder running, with no one talking; he indicated that one can even disconnect the microphone.
2. Radio voices: one records the white noise from a radio that is not tuned to any station.
3. Diode voices: one records from what is essentially a crystal set not tuned to a station.

Raudive delineated a number of characteristics of the voices, (as laid out in Breakthrough) :

1. “The voice entities speak very rapidly, in a mixture of languages, sometimes as many as five or six in one sentence.”
2. “They speak in a definite rhythm, which seems forced on them.”
3. “The rhythmic mode imposes a shortened, telegram-style phrase or sentence.”
4. Probably because of this, “… grammatical rules are frequently abandoned and neologisms abound.”

Of course, to the skeptic, these characteristics are what one might expect if indeed the “voices” are simply misinterpretations of random, “white” noise.

EVP Today

Serious parapsychologists today show virtually no interest in EVP, and modern reports in the parapsychological literature find no evidence of anything paranormal in such recordings. That does not deter the devoted, of course: it is claimed that there are more than 50,000 sites on the internet devoted to EVP! Again, an example from the Internet:

“Briefly, electronic voice phenomenon (EVP) is the process of capturing messages from the spirit world, including our loved ones in Heaven, by using an ordinary tape recorder. Yes, someone in your family or your special friend who has passed on, can record or imprint their voice onto your tape. It is not the scope of our [web] site to fully explain EVP, but please feel free to visit the learning links below for more information. Our site is designed to help you, the beginner, succeed with EVP” (www.paranormalnetwork.com)

And now it is claimed that one does not even need to be quiet while making the recordings – the voices often show up in the background while one is recording a conversation. Consider these examples (from www.paranormalnetwork.com).

Examples:Voice of the dead? Here, we are told to listen for a whispery woman’s voice saying “we all turn this way” or “we all turn that way” recorded by “Karen and Jill” at Edgar Allen Poe’s grave on his birthday. (The salient part of the recording is repeated five times so that you can catch it.) [Listen] Voice of the dead? In the middle of the recording, we are told that a voice whispers “Pat!” [Listen]

There is no end to the efforts people will make to find “voices.” For example, it is claimed that:

“Some voices of spirits or entities are very close to the background level of static; Others may be clearly heard. If the speech is difficult to understand, remember that the spirit talking may be talking in a language or dialog that is not in common usage today. The voice can also be in reverse, you would need a computer to reverse this to hear it.” (www.blueskies.org)

As yet another example of the unbridled enthusiasm and creativity associated with finding voices, consider the American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena. Its website informs us that:

“The membership includes people who record paranormal voices, pictures and information from friends and loved ones on the other side through tape recorders, telephones, fax machines, television, computers and video recorders.” “EVP has been featured in such technical publications as “Popular Mechanics” and “wireless world.” It was recently shown in a movie called “the sixth sense”. Sarah Estep, one of the world’s foremost EVP recorders, has been featured on cable channels such as discovery and Sci-Fi with her numerous EVP recordings. Why EVP remains unknown by the general public continues to astound us. EVP can provide a huge sense of relief for the bereaved and documented proof for paranormal investigators.”

And if one surfs the web, sooner or later, one finds sites that offer to sell devices to help you obtain better recordings!

Possible Explanations

Well, if the voices aren’t spirits, what are they?

1. Cross-modulation. This is a common phenomenon; I first became aware of it in the 1960s when my “record player” clearly picked up a local radio station, which one could hear between cuts. But Raudive dismissed this possibility, saying that it cannot be radio since one never hears music or other obvious elements of radio transmission.
2. Apophenia. This refers to a common perceptual phenomenon whereby we spontaneously perceive connections and find meaningfulness in unrelated things. In other words, it involves seeing or hearing patterns where in reality, none exist. A visual example is the Rorschach Inkblot test.We may be the best pattern detectors that exist, but not all the patterns we find have any objective meaning. However, once we think we have detected a pattern, it is hard to ignore it, and generally, we take it to be meaningful. A common example of apophenia occurs when people are in the shower, and mistakenly think that they hear their door bell or telephone ringing. The white noise produced by the shower contains a broad spectrum of sounds, including those that make up ringing bells. The ear picks out certain sounds from the spectrum, and we “detect” a pattern corresponding roughly to a bell. (Apophenia is virtually synonymous with what has been called Pareidolia, an illusion involving misperception of an external stimulus; an obscure stimulus is viewed as something clear and distinct. Examples include instances such as when thousands of people in New Mexico saw the face of Jesus on a Tortilla chip in 1978. This perception, or misperception, does not involve conscious effort or any particular mental set, and the illusion does not vanish even when one pays closer attention to the stimulus because it is so ambiguous that it has no objective meaning at all. (See http://thefolklorist.com/ for many examples)

While you might accept apophenia as an explanation for voices barely discernable from static, as in the earlier examples above, can it account for the “clear voices’ in the later examples (e.g. – recall the word “Pat” from the tape)? First of all, of course, the extraneous voices, if really there, could be the result of intended or unintended background interruptions by real people – the recordings were not made under any sort of controlled conditions. Secondly, as is discussed below, it is fascinating just how easy it is for our brains to come to interpret certain noise patterns as words, once we know what the words are supposed to be.

What is going on?

Perception is a very complex process, and when our brains try to find patterns, they are guided in part by what we expect to hear. If you are trying to hear your friend while conversing in a noisy room, your brain automatically takes snippets of sound and compares them against possible corresponding words, and guided by context, we can often “hear” more clearly than the sound patterns reaching our ears could account for. Indeed, it is relatively easy to demonstrate in a psychology laboratory that people can readily come to hear “clearly” even very muffled voices, so long as they have a printed version in front of them that tells them what words are being spoken. The brain puts together the visual cue and the auditory input, and we actually “hear” what we are informed is being said, even though without that information, we could discern nothing. Going one step further, and we can demonstrate that people can clearly “hear” voices and words not just in the context of muddled voices, but in a pattern of white noise, a pattern in which there are no voices or words at all.

Given that we can routinely demonstrate this effect, it is only parsimonious to suggest that what people hear with EVP is also the product of their own brains, and their expectations, rather than the voices of the dearly departed.

We can describe the process, leading from mental set to expectation to perception to amazement to belief in the following general way (see graphic): We are told that tape recordings made with no one around contain mysterious voices. This sets up a mental set that motivates us to try to discern voices. That is, we must presume that there may be something there, or we would not waste our time in listening. If others have told us what the voices seem to say, this expectancy influences our auditory perception, so that our brains match up bits of random noise to the words that we expect to hear. Of course, if we play the same piece of tape over and over, as is explicitly recommended by some of the web sites cited earlier, and if we do everything we can to focus our attention on the “noise” (perhaps by listening through headphones, again as recommended by the web sites), then we not only increase the likelihood of discerning voices if they really are there, but we maximize the opportunity for the perceptual apparatus in our brain to “construct” voices that do not exist, to detect patterns that match up with our expectations. Then, once we “hear” the voices, then it is easy, given the mental set that is usually involved, to attribute them to deceased individuals. This interpretation is likely to produce an impressive emotional reaction, and since we have now heard what we set out to hear (our expectancy is fulfilled) our belief in the reality of the voices of the dead grows, and this may be rewarding in various ways. Such an outcome is likely to heighten the expectation that we will hear more voices the next time we listen to such tapes.

How to disabuse the believer

How can someone who has heard the voices be persuaded to be more critical and to examine more mundane possibilities?

A rational, deliberative discussion is rarely helpful because clear evidence or logic is not involved. Believers are reporting an experience that was highly meaningful and perhaps highly emotional to them – not something that is easily challenged by logic. Moreover, there is a self-selection of people predisposed to believe – the voices are compatible with their belief system.

Remember – we process information in two different ways through two more or less separate parts of our brain and nervous system. On the one hand, part of our brain works on a very intuitive / emotional / automatic level, and on the other hand, another part of our brain works according to the logic and rationality that we develop over our lifetimes. These two systems often produce contrary results, and this is especially so where paranormal phenomena are involved. The “believer” removes the contradiction by bringing the intellect into line with the intuitive interpretation, that is, by coming to accept the paranormal – in this case, the voices – as reality, and thereby reshaping the intellectual understanding of the world so that belief in such phenomena appears to be rational. Over time, an impregnable belief system develops which is supported by a very substantial base of personal experience (interpreted in such a way as to support the paranormal belief), as well as anecdotal evidence provided by others.

It is very difficult to change such deeply held beliefs, especially if they include a significant emotional component. Consider this example: In my work as a clinical psychologist, a father wanted me to “cure” his gay son. I asked the father how easy would it be for me to turn him (the father) into a gay person? “No way !!!,” he said. I told him that it would likely be as difficult to turn his son into a straight person as it would be to make him, the father, turn gay. Fortunately, he saw the point and came to accept his son as he was. My point is this: When we ask how to turn believers into skeptics, let us ask instead: “How easy would it be for me to persuade you that voices on a tape really are spirits of the dead?” Well, that is probably just how easy it would be to persuade devoted believers that their beliefs about the voices are wrong.

What the Raudive voices teach us is that intelligent people – for Raudive was no doubt an intelligent man - can come to believe fervently in phenomena which in all likelihood do not exist. There is a lesson in this for all of us, for we just as surely may be mistaken in some of our own deeply held convictions. This is why we must rely on science as the avenue to truth rather than personal experience or other people’s anecdotal reports. Science, with its reliance on data and its insistence on looking for sources of error and for alternative explanations, provides the best method that humans have produced for protecting against error and self-delusion. Electronic Voice Phenomena are the products of hope and expectation; the claims wither away under the light of scientific scrutiny.

Do you have a comment on this article ? Post it below !!