linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/geller.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-02-19 | 6KB

From: Chip Denman <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Geller and SRI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 1992 14:46:55 EDT

"Information transmission under conditions for sensory shielding" by Russell
Targ and Harold Putoff, both at Stanford Research Institute at the time, was
published in Nature Vol. 251, October 18, 1974, pp 602-607.

This was *the* paper that caused some people to think that Uri Geller's
powers had been scientifically verified.  It actually describes several
different experiments primarily in "remote viewing"--i.e. extrasensory
perception of visual targets.  The paper addresses the alleged metal-
bending powers of Geller only to say that "Although metal bending
by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able
to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments
to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis."
Really!

They do describe experiments with Geller at "reading" drawings
sealed in envelopes.  Also mentioned is an experiment to guess
the face of a rolled die.  Some other experiments without Geller are
also described.  The bottom line--"...we conclude that: a channel exists
whereby information about a remote location can be obtained by means
of an as yet unidentified perceptual modality..."

Randi and many others have strongly criticized the scientific rigor of
these experiments.  One of the most complete analyses can be found
in The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks and Richard Kammann,
Prometheus Books, 1980.  I have used the original paper and this book
as a case study in a course I teach on science vs. pseudoscience.

Those of us with a bit of conjuring experience can see plenty of
opportunity for "sensory leakage" in what has been reconstructed of
the actual experimental protocols.  And it appears that the statistical
analysis (my main expertise) of the non-Geller remote viewing experiments
is severely compromised by the scoring methods used.  Marks and Kammann
attempted to rescore the results after removing subtle and not-so-subtle
cues and --lo!-- the paranormal effect went away.


   Chip Denman
   president, National Capital Area Skeptics
     --for whom I am NOT now speaking
   manager, Statistics Laboratory, University of Maryland College Park
     --nor for these fine folks either!

   [e-mail]




From: John David Stone <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Geller and SRI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Thu, 24 Sep 1992 08:18:33 CDT
        Bill Melchior writes:

>           In the most recent Skeptical Inquirer, Martin Gardner
>  mentions (in an article on a totally different subject) that the
>  Stanford Research Institute performed research on Uri Geller.
>  Does anyone know anything about this?  What was done?  What were
>  the results?

        Gardner discusses this research, performed by Russell Targ
and Harold Puthoff, in two articles:  "Magic and paraphysics," which is
most readily available in Gardner's collection _Science: Good, bad, and
bogus_ (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), and "The great SRI
die mystery," which appeared in the Winter 1982-3 issue of _Skeptical
inquirer_ and is reprinted in Gardner's collection _The new age_ (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988).

------  John David Stone - Lecturer in Computer Science and Philosophy  -----
--------------  Manager of the Mathematics Local-Area Network  --------------
--------------  Grinnell College - Grinnell, Iowa 50112 - USA  --------------
--------  [e-mail] - [phone] - [e-mail]  --------




From: Skeptics SIG <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Updates on Geller v. Randi.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:58:49 -0500
            [ forwarded messages from James Randi ]


    Date: Fri Dec 18 18:18:38 1992
    From: [e-mail] (James Randi - Wizard)
    Subject: The latest....
    To: [e-mail]


    Hi folks!  Things continue to improve.  (1) Mr. G's lawyer in Florida (in
    the case he has against Prometheus, et al) faxed in a message recently,
    just 24 hours before a scheduled deposition of his client, saying that
    the deposee would not be appearing, (2) Mr. G has just made overtures in
    that case in the UK, suggesting that he would settle for a much lower
    award, and (3) I have Mr. G scheduled for a deposition in NYC on Feb.
    2/93.  Very soon, interesting things will begin to happen.

    Meanwhile, I have just signed another book contract.  The present book,
    "Conjuring," has received excellent reviews (except for one magician who
    did not show up in the book) and in 1993 I will be appearing on at least
    two major, major TV programs that will feature the Geller saga.  Another
    major TV news/investigative show will examine the Geller matter, as well.
    I'll be doing a major lecture tour in Australia in '93, too.  So, great
    coverage is coming up and that can only end up going in the direction of
    unravelling this whole thing in our favor.  I'm much encouraged.

    The ONLY down note is that The James Randi Fund is running low, and in
    need of a major transfusion.  If anyone out there knows of an agency that
    might promote this cause, I'm ready to do some heavy listening.

                                                                    JR



    Date: Fri Dec 18 19:13:38 1992
    From: [e-mail] (James Randi -- Wizard)
    Subject: The Prometheus case in Florida.
    To: [e-mail]


    I've just been informed that Geller has entirely dropped the case against
    Prometheus et al in Florida.  Just recently, he was saying he'd settle for
    $50,000 instead of millions, and now he wants to drop it all.

    Verrrry interesting!                                             J.R.