Liebe Liste,


The conversation here put me in mind of an old
briefing on so-called 'paranormal' research that
was prepared for DARPA back in the early 70s.

This bit in particular stands out :

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOVIET AND U.S. RESEARCH

                SOVIET
1.) Experimental subjects especially
selected and/or trained.

             UNITED STATES
1.) Subjects usually not screened.

                SOVIET
2.) Theory used as guide to
experimentation.

             UNITED STATES
2.) Little attempt to link theory
to experiments.

                SOVIET
3.) Emphasis on measuring physical
and physiological concomitants.

             UNITED STATES
3.) Beginning to track Soviet
research.

                SOVIET
4.) Interest in technology for detection
and/or enhancement.

             UNITED STATES
4.) Some comparable technology available;
application just beginning.

                SOVIET
5.) Interdisciplinary research involving
natural scientists.

             UNITED STATES
5.) Few natural scientists.

                SOVIET
6.) Vague and popular accounts of
experiments. Technical publication
of "related problems" of bioenergetics.

             UNITED STATES
6.) Open publication of experimental
results, many books.

                SOVIET
7.) No dedicated journals.

             UNITED STATES
7.) Several journals.

Experimental Subjects

 From the beginning, Soviet researchers have tended to
concentrate on experimental subjects that appear to
display outstanding abilities.

It is clear, however, that the Russians also believe
that subjects can be trained for certain kinds of
skills, notably telepathy and psychokinesis. (Filmed
performances of two of their outstanding psychokinetic
subjects are currently circulating in the West.)

By contrast, U.S. researchers tend to be less
discriminating in their choice of subjects, and many
published results are based on the performance of
unscreened and untrained volunteers.

It should be noted, though, that when an apparently
outstanding subject does appear in the United States,
he often undergoes intensive investigation (in almost
every case, however, these alleged abilities undergo
the so-called "decline effect").

On the other hand, the results of attempts to train
subjects in paranormal skills in the U.S. are uniformly
negative.

Theory and Experiment

If there is an explanation, other than the null
hypothesis, for the lack of progress in theoretical
understanding of paranormal phenomena in the United
States, it may lie in the apparent compartmentalization
of theorizing and experimentation.

Although there is a plethora of different sorts of
theories circulating in parapsychology circles, many
of them based upon the latest speculations in the more
exotic regions of particle physics, there appears to
be little concern with formulating a theory that is
testable under reasonably simple laboratory conditions.

There is a tendency for labor to be divided between
abstruse speculation and laboratory experimentation.

By contrast, the Soviet investigators (perhaps because
of the ideological imperatives of dialectical
materialism) seem much more concerned to provide
materialistic explanations of paranormal phenomena
that are experimentally testable.

Thus one senses in the Soviet Union a continuing
interaction between theory and experiment, with theory
being used as a guide to the detection and recording
of paranormal effects.

Measurement

The emphasis on measuring physical and physiological
concomitants of paranormal phenomena in the Soviet
Union, as alluded to above, has led Soviet investigators
to develop a number of different mechanical devices
to detect and/or enhance associated effects.

Some of these are described below.

However, some U.S. researchers are beginning to
explore some of the technologies employed by the
Russians.

Judging from communications by the Soviets, it is
clear that there is nothing especially technologically
advanced in the Soviet devices; rather they have chosen
to apply available technology to the measurement
of paranormal phenomena.

Interdisciplinary Approach

Another contrast is the tendency of the Soviet
investigators to have training in the "hard" sciences
such as physics, biophysics, or engineering, and to
function as interdisciplinary teams.

The large majority of U.S. workers, on the other hand,
appear to be trained in psychology or, in a few cases,
the medical sciences; some of them are scientific amateurs.

(The best-known American parapsychologist << Joseph
Banks Rhine >> was trained as a botanist.)

These differences may also account for the tendency
of American investigators to avoid technological
approaches to measurement.

<SNIPS>

'The more things change', eh?

For Chris and any others interested in exploring magic
from the scientific angle, I also recommend Basarab
Nicolescu's *Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity* as well
as Egon Guba's *The Paradigm Dialog*.

And I don't find it at all surprising that the hard
sciences get such short shrift on a humanities list ;)

Cors in Manu Domine,


~ Khem Caigan
<[log in to unmask]>

"Heat and Moisture are Active to Generation;
Cold and Dryness are Passive, in and to each thing;
Fire and Air, Active by Elementation;
Water and Earth, Passive to Generation."

'Of the Division of Chaos'
-Dr. Simon Forman