Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [124]
Statistician Persi Diaconis, whom I have known for many years (since his early interest in conjuring), is in a particularly strong position from which to judge the value of parapsychological claims. His knowledge of sleight of hand and mentalism is second to none, and I do not make that statement lightly. Persi is capable of miracles with a deck of cards that would put to shame many a professional magician, and his awareness of the psychological subtleties of the conjurer equip him perfectly for such investigations. Unhappily for the art, Mr. Diaconis long ago chose a more serious profession and today is involved in heady statistical problems. His help as a consultant has greatly assisted my work, and though he has withdrawn from active participation in the CSICOP, he contributes to our efforts when he can spare the time.
A recent paper of his, published in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stirred up quite a few parascientists who were castigated in the article. Diaconis correctly pointed out that "modern parapsychological research is important... [but] poorly designed, badly run, and inappropriately analyzed experiments seem to be an even greater obstacle in the field than subject cheating....There always seem to be many loopholes and loose ends. The same mistakes are made again and again." It stands to reason that if either subject cheating or bad experimental procedure can damn the work of a parapsychologist, then a combination of both these elements double-damns it.
Diaconis has long been examining parapsychological work, not as a passive observer but as an involved investigator. In addition to having been one of the experts called in to examine the Serios-Eisenbud episode,he has been close to the work of Charles Tart, prominent parapsychologist. The case of "B.D.," a card-trick artist who fooled the paranormalists, fell apart under Diaconi's examination.
But of course, there are always examples of these wonders that he cannot get access to, because of the secrecy that often surrounds them, the unwillingness of the investigators to reveal important details of the experiments, or simply the barriers of time and distance. "I have certainly read and been told about events that I cannot explain," says Diaconis. I must of course admit the same thing. I also very much agree with his judgment in another statement he has made: "I have been able to have direct experience with more than a dozen experiments and detailed second-hand knowledge about perhaps twenty more. In every case the details of what actually transpired prevent the experiment from being considered seriously as evidence for paranormal phenomena."
There exists in modern physics a very awkward, far-out, and seemingly egghead concept that will be quite difficult for me to make clear. Reduced to simple terms by means of an analogy, it conveys a startling idea. Suppose that you remove both kings from a chess set. One is black, the other white. You seal each in identical boxes and mix the boxes. You now have no idea which is which. You mail one away to a remote location and return home to contemplate the remaining box. New get ready—here comes the hard part.
You cannot tell, at this moment, the color of the absent chess king. Mathematically speaking, it is evident that it has exactly a fifty-fifty chance of being either black or white, whichever you choose. If you open the remaining box, you immediately know for sure what the color of the absent king has been all along—correct? Wrong, according to this concept. It maintains that until you open the box that has been retained, the absent box contains