COURTNEY BROWN & REMOTE VIEWING
Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:23:49 -0500 (EST)
Source: Eric Greene
From: erg@america.net (Eric Greene)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
"Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
stations): According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
(astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute: "
Found this article on the Emory web site (www.emory.edu) and found it
interesting in content for both showing how readily Courtney Brown is
agreeable towards and testing of this alledged "remote viewing"
capabilities and for the cost of teaching these untested abilities to
others.
===================================================
The Courtney Brown affair and academic freedom
Academic freedom -- the right of faculty members to pursue and discuss
whatever interests they wish, no matter how outlandish or repugnant
others might find them -- is a cornerstone of institutions of higher
learning. Without it, the very rationale undergirding that remarkable
democratic organization we call a university crumbles. Nevertheless,
there are inevitably times when academic freedom conflicts with a
university's best interests. When this occurs, vexing pragmatic and
ethical questions arise.
The most recent example of this conflict at Emory involves Dr.
Courtney Brown, an associate professor in the political science
department. Brown's actions and words have, to put it mildly, aroused
considerable ridicule and controversy at Emory and in the broader
academic community. In his new book, Cosmic Voyages: A Scientific
Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth, Brown claims to use
powers of "remote viewing" (an alleged psychic ability permitting
individuals to "see" objects at enormous distances) to visit Mars and
observe the actions of aliens. He purports to have uncovered
indisputable evidence that two races of extraterrestrials, Martians
and Greys, left the red planet centuries ago and have taken up
residence in the dark recesses of Earth.
But Brown does not stop there. His remote viewing methods, which are
"as rigorously controlled as those used in any solid social science
text," have revealed that Adam and Eve were architects of a genetic
engineering project and that numerous Star Trek episodes were written
with the assistance of aliens. In one of the book's more remarkable
chapters, "The Grey Mind," Brown claims to have "entered the mind" of
an extraterrestrial and investigated its psychological make-up. Brown,
who directs the "Farsight Institute" in Atlanta, offers seminars--at a
cost of $3,000 per head--that promise to provide attendees with the
psychic abilities he has mastered.
One hardly knows where to begin. Brown's book is remarkable for its
virtually complete absence of any data that would qualify as
scientific by even the most liberal evidential standards. His
"findings" consist entirely of unverified subjective experiences, and
the reader searches in vain for anything vaguely resembling a
controlled experiment. Brown neglects to mention either the results of
a recent government-appointed scientific panel on remote viewing,
which concluded that "evidence for the operational value of remote
viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts," or the
critiques of Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the University of Oregon,
who has shown that the scientific evidence in support of remote
viewing is seriously flawed. Philosopher David Hume maintained that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Brown's evidence
is, to be charitable, singularly unimpressive.
In light of Brown's claims, I recently challenged him to a test of his
alleged psychic abilities. I proposed that he appear at a
meeting of my undergraduate seminar on Science and Pseudoscience in
Psychology, where my students and I would subject him to a simple
controlled experiment examining his capacity to remotely view stimuli
in an adjacent room. I assured him that he would have considerable
input regarding the selection of stimulus materials, and agreed to
publicize the results of this test in both Emory newspapers regardless
of its outcome.
But Brown categorically refused. His reasoning was curious: In his
e-mail response to me, he asserted that "tests of the type you have
talked about are very old hat" and that the current status of remote
viewing "goes light years beyond that which your letter suggests." But
if Brown's psychic powers are as advanced as he claims, shouldn't he
be able to pass an elementary test of these powers with flying colors?
Brown also declined my offer on the grounds that he did "not want to
drag Emory into my other activities" and that he is "rigorous about
not mixing what I do elsewhere with what I do at Emory." This
rationale seems disingenuous at best. If Brown did not wish to involve
Emory in his exploits, why did he list his academic affiliation with
Emory in his book and on his web site? Brown apparently wants to have
it both ways: He publicizes his association with Emory when it might
afford him the imprimatur of academic legitimacy, but refuses to
submit to scientific tests by Emory colleagues on the grounds that he
does not wish to "drag Emory" into a firestorm of controversy. But it
is too late: Emory's reputation has already been besmirched. As
George Armelagos of the Department of Anthropology notes, "Brown is
naive if he believes his fantasies do not affect the image of the
University."
Why should we at Emory care about Brown? Many of his Emory colleagues
will surely suggest that he is best ignored. But such an attitude
would be misguided. As Carl Sagan argues in his recent book, The
Demon-Haunted World, the public's inability to think critically about
scientific issues is an unappreciated source of our educational and
social woes. By remainingsilent on Brown's shenanigans, we do our
students, who desperately need role models of clear reasoning, a
serious disservice.
Moreover, we leave ourselves open to criticisms such as those of
Robert Baker of the University of Kentucky, who suggested
that the Brown affair "bring(s) into question whether Emory has any
high scientific standards."
So how should Emory respond to Brown? I would argue that Brown's
academic freedom be protected unconditionally, and that we defend his
right to pursue his interests without threat of official sanction or
penalty. Nevertheless, academic freedom also gives Brown's colleagues
license to criticize him openly. It is incumbent on qualified Emory
faculty to inform the public that Brown's assertions are
scientifically irresponsible, and that his money-making ventures and
refusal to submit himself to independent tests of his paranormal
claims are ethically reprehensible. Academic freedom, like all
freedoms (e.g., the right to vote), becomes meaningless when not
exercised. Let us not forfeit it at a time when Emory's reputation as
a serious institution of higher learning is being challenged.
Scott O. Lilienfeld is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology.
Eric Greene Deep-Sky BBS (1:133/208)
erg@america.net (404)321-5904
All rights reserved to WUFOC and NÄRKONTAKT. If you reprint or quote any part of the content,
you must give credit to: WUFOC, the free UFO-alternative on the Internet, http://www.wufoc.com