Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions - James Randi [152]
To this end I drew a map (with the aid of Earth Resources Transmission Satellite space mapping photos) of an area that I frequently visit. That Ms. DeWitt might be aware of this fact was not very important, since it was only a preliminary test. However, in preparing the map, which was called "map A," I made sure that it lacked any indication of orientation and scale. Chances of her being able to locate this part of the globe were remote indeed.
Very soon I had a reply. I quote a part of that letter so that my reader may see how diffuse and indeterminate such replies can be. It is quite typical of the genre:
The location of at least two archaeological sites seemed to be what you were asking for, although I believe there are more You didn't ask for anything else, or even a totality of the sites, so I'm not including any other information at this time.
There are three areas I find to be generally promising archaeologically speaking. Apparently there are several more within these approximate confines which may yield additional material. My information suggests there are sites in the area you mapped that are as yet unknown. It will be most interesting to me to learn from your feedback just how much of this is "real" as we perceive reality on the physical plane we inhabit.
Note the generalities and vague statements in this reply. I did not ask for any specific number of locations; I merely asked Ms. DeWitt to "work on this sample." She suggests I asked for "at least two" and adds that she "believes" there are "more." This covers the possibility that there are others she missed and yet does not say that there are more, just that she believes there might be. Also, she tells me that she is "not including any other information at this time." This provides the opportunity of adding more later, yet does not say that there is more.
The areas marked are "generally promising." But she has marked only two areas on the map; she said she found three! Thus she leaves an unspecified location hanging in the air, perhaps to be defined when she knows where she should have indicated another site. Next, she says there are "apparently several more" inside these "approximate" confines which "may" yield more. All just vague possibilities—an attempt to give elasticity to her limited findings. And she says that her "information suggests" there are additional sites "yet unknown." So, if what she's chosen is wrong, it's only because these are not yet known to be the wonders she has determined they are.
An interesting further assumption on her part is mentioned. She says, "It will be most interesting... to learn from your feedback." I was not about to provide any feedback in any form. She was to "do her thing" as she pleased; I would not demand anything or offer anything except the basic raw materials for the test. Also, Ms. DeWitt provides herself with a possible escape route with her statement that she wants to learn "how much of this is 'real' as we perceive reality." In other words, if she is totally wrong according to the logic of the real world, she can invent some obscure universe in which errors turn out to have validity due to new and wonderful rules. It is a hedge often employed by "psychics," who frequently warn us not to think of these wonders in ordinary terms. She is putting us on notice, just in case.
Following this semantic tour de force, with its multiple evasions and well-worn rationalizations for possible failures, I prepared a further test of her abilities, since a peek at the results had shown that for all her heavy efforts to determine points of interest, Ms. DeWitt had chosen two spots in a well-explored jungle area that held no known ancient ruins. Ms. DeWitt had claimed that she did best with prominent, obvious, above-ground ruins, and such structures did indeed exist in the mapped area she was given. In fact, I had chosen an area containing structures