Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [118]
Dr. Horowitz replied, "You are, of course, right in your interpretation... If that 'experiment' convinces anyone of anything, then they typify the utmost in gullibility. What's happening is that common-mode [extraneous] signals, not being rejected owing to a disastrous choice of amplifier configurations, are driving the subsequent amplifiers into nonlinearities. This is a classic problem with strain gauges, since the genuine (normal-mode) signal is typically very small... [It would be] better for Hasted to do the thing right, which means, among other things, to use one of those channels to display the common-mode signal, while the rest are busy displaying normal-mode signals. The absence of such a channel shows that he hasn't been careful, and effectively nullifies any result he claims.... All data that emerge from that apparatus are worthless, and will continue to be, until the amplifiers are replaced with [proper] instrumentation amplifiers with satisfactory, common-mode rejection. [Hasted] has plenty to do before anyone even mildly critical will believe him."
Dr. Horowitz has just completed a book on electronics. The book discusses the considerable problems inherent in the use of strain gauges, and the specific sensitivity of the Hasted circuit to extraneous signals—such as static charges generated by squirming little boys—is documented.
Brian Inglis commented on the Hasted experiments, saying that the skeptics could now fall back on the "last resort argument, collusion." Collusion? Who needs collusion when the experimenter follows weak methodology and the kid is allowed to do things his way? "Hasted ha evolved an experiment which physicists can replicate anywhere," Inglis continues, "given the cooperation of a psychic, with whatever protocol they consider necessary." According to this reporter (he was charmed by the Swann magnetometer report too), the Millennium has arrived. But don't slip into the white robes just yet, folks.
As a conjurer, I must comment on Inglis's closing points. He says that conjurers look upon laboratories as "positive havens for deception." Hardly. Only laboratories run by incompetents would offer a conjurer conditions to his liking. Finally, Inglis writes, "Hasted's work will give stage magicians something to practice in the long winter evenings." Wrong. We conjurers (and other rational people) are too busy trying to figure out how men like Hasted and Inglis are still believed as spokesmen for parascience when the record is so damning. Hasted himself has said, "Validation without high credibility of the validators is inadequate. The credibility of a validator is his own responsibility." Very true.
Hasted's work on this subject is typical of the entire field. He is a respected and supposedly competent researcher, revered by the believing public as one of the outstanding scientists at work today in parapsychology. The problem is that the public never gets to know the truth about the misleading experiments and discoveries that are reported by parapsychologists.
Briefly, I will touch upon some of the reports that demonstrate the sloppy thinking and procedures often employed by these people. Again, I will borrow Professor John Hasted's reasoning powers to illustrate the case. In December 1977 I wrote to the JSPR expressing my amazement that scientists were having such a hard time designing a simple test to determine the validity of ESP. I referred to the tests of spoon-bender Julie Knowles and others, provoking a reply from Hasted. I will enumerate and comment on a few of the points he used in rebuttal.
Referring to my intentions, he said that