• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

The cigarette stunt was the one we decided to test in a double-blind experiment at my New York office. Convinced that it worked, Sue agreed to be tested. Our method was simple and direct and would show whether the power existed. It was always possible that Miss Wallace might be sensing the presence of a magnetized or nonmagnetized cigarette through some other means and subconsciously applying more or less pressure in the test.

She gave us ten cigarettes. I labeled each one from A to J, and one was selected at random. A young woman in the TV crew wrote down the letter (unknown to anyone else) and then left the room for the rest of the experiment. The chosen cigarette was "magnetized" by Sue without anyone's knowing its identifying letter, and then it was mixed with the others. She was not allowed to touch or see any cigarette again. She chose a member of the office staff, and he held each of the cigarettes in turn. Sue had been asked to tell us which cigarette was the magnetized one, but she chose to eliminate them instead, telling us which ones were not the ones she sought. I went along with this request, since it did not change the result and gave her no advantage except a more dramatic presentation.

She pressed the subject's arm until his eyes popped out. The first session resulted in a win for her. But I had been careful to say, before the tests commenced, that a series of at least ten runs would be required. I was not about to allow one win to decide the matter, or neglect to delineate the rules in advance. Sue Wallace failed from then on.

It was interesting to me to note that while we were testing the others who had come along that day prior to Sue's test, she was out in the hall charming some of the young men from my office. It was not very difficult to do; they are notoriously susceptible to such influence. One of them, Jay Raskin, was the eventual subject chosen for the experiment.

In the first run just described—which resulted in a win for Miss Wallace—the cigarettes had been mixed together. As she began to lose in the other runs, she asked that we modify our procedure by not mixing the cigarettes, so that the "magnetic" power would not "rub off" on the control cigarettes. Yet this problem had not arisen when she had her win, and the mixing had been thorough. This kind of unreason is common in the history of these wonders.

In summary, these three tests were excellent examples of how genuine double-blind experiments expose spurious claims in which experimenter expectation is active. Stanley Wojcik, though he may believe that he has the powers he claims, was not only unable to perform under proper experimental conditions but also gave no adequate reason for his failure to do so. His fans will continue to worship him in spite of the evidence. Vince Wiberg is still seeking to "perfect" what I did not find to exist. Sue Wallace will still convince the unwary, though she failed to produce when tested properly. All these persons are welcome to return to be tested, but I think they will resist the invitation.

Remember, too, that Blondlot, the scientist who subjectively "saw" the nonexistent N Rays, was not in his dotage when he did so; he was only fifty-four years old, and an accomplished researcher. No one is immune to wishful thinking and to stubborn adherence to error in the face of facts. As it happened, Blondlot went insane as a result of his delusions and the subsequent exposure.

Thus we see that scientists are prone to the same faults as the rest of us. They can be blinded by their expectation of new discoveries and can read into their observations much more than is warranted. But proper experimental design, particularly double-blind design, can prevent such errors. We do not expect such procedures from the amateurs, but we must demand them from the professionals. Otherwise, purported scientific discoveries become fanaticism, nothing more.

* * *

*As of this writing, Wiberg has decided that he was correct on both the film-can