Here is something interesting. It seems that believers are still trying to influence random number generators and similar electronic and mechanical devices simply by thinking at them. It goes to prove that even decades after something has been soundly debunked, there are still going to be believers who wish to pretend otherwise -- while claiming that "incontrovertable proof now exists!" and that "scientists are puzzled!" and that "strict scientific controls were used" to produce the claimed effect.

When I lived in Las Vegas, the people I knew who worked the rubes were amused by the people who came to Vegas thinking they could influence the machines and the dice. They are thrilled by people who ignore the odds entirely and either use a "system" else try thinking at the game to beat the odds.

When I was at Indian Springs Air Force Base I observed a rube droping coins into a one-armed bandit, pull the lever, then lay his arms across the display window, close his eyes while concentrating with his forehead on his arms. Pressed up against the machine that way, he thought he could influence the machine.

If it could be done, Vegas would be out of business. Believers in PK (psycho-kinesetic manipulation of objects) often demand that professionals in Vegas watch the rubes and single-out those with "special powers" and circulate the person's picture to other casinos to black-ball the person.

They don't. They like people who think they can influence the game by thinking at it. They want them to feel confident of eventually winning back what they're losing; that's what keeps the rubes dumping more and more cash into the machines. Most people who play the machines are aware of the State-set "pay back" percentages allowed by law. These "pay back" percentage values indicate what percentage of a rube's money is fed back to the rube on average. A pay back of 38% means that the rube knows he or she should just hand over 62% of the cash in their wallet or purse and save time. The expectation, however, of beating "house-rules" odds is what makes gambeling work.

Fomenting and encouraging the belief that machines can be influenced by thinking at them is one of the many ways gambleing halls (and State lotteries, by the way) stay in business.

(The best game in Vegas is poker, by the way. The house gets its cut when poker players leave the table and "tip" the concession dealer.)

Science proves mind's power over matter

 International News                  Electronic Telegraph
 Sunday 16 November 1997             Issue 906

Science proves mind's power over matter By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent

External Links Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Psychoknesis - Koestler Parapsychology Unit Parapsychology Internet Resources Fortean Times UK Sceptics

STARTLING evidence that the human mind can exert paranormal control over objects has been uncovered by researchers whose findings have confounded even hardened sceptics.

Experiments conducted by a team at Princeton University are being hailed as the most convincing demonstration yet of so-called psychokinesis (PK), the supposed ability of thought to affect inanimate objects.

Until now, most claims for the existence of PK have rested largely on anecdotes of poltergeists wrecking homes and demonstrations by stage performers such as Uri Geller, who claims to be able to bend forks by thought alone.

Since the early Eighties Prof Robert Jahn and colleagues of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research project have been perfecting a series of tightly controlled laboratory tests of PK, to discover once and for all whether the phenomenon exists.

The experiments focus on electronic random number generators, which produce an utterly unpredictable sequence of ones and zeroes. Subjects are asked to concentrate on a display showing the output of the generators, and try to change the numbers it produces. Left to themselves, the devices will produce equal numbers of ones and zeroes in the long run. If PK exists, however, it should reveal itself in a bias away from chance expectation as subjects "will" the output upwards or downwards.

Now, after 12 years of experiments involving more than 100 subjects in thousands of trials, Prof Jahn and his team have uncovered astonishing evidence that the electronic devices can be controlled by thought. The human subjects proved capable of altering the output of the devices so much that the chances of getting such a bias by fluke alone is calculated to be less than one in 1,000 billion.

"We believe that we now have pretty incontrovertible evidence for this phenomenon," Prof Jahn said. "These effects seem to be broadly spread among human operators - it seems to be a common ability." Past research into PK based on electronic devices has been criticised for not carrying out thorough checks to ensure that the devices are unbiased in the first place, and for relying too much on the success of a handful of subjects.

The Princeton team insists that these criticisms are no longer valid: the effect appeared with different devices, all of which were thoroughly tested beforehand, and with many different subjects. Out of nine different sets of experiments, six showed statistically significant evidence for PK.

In contrast, experiments using random number generators based on fixed mathematical formulas - which should be immune from psychic influence - did not produce any evidence for PK, exactly in line with prediction. "We would now lay claim to have the largest datasets and the most systematic experiments ever performed," Prof Jahn said.

The Princeton evidence follows the discovery of equally impressive evidence for the existence of telepathy by researchers at Edinburgh University. Experiments by Prof Robert Morris and colleagues at the university's Koestler Parapsychology Unit suggest that people can mentally "transmit" images to others by thought alone.

Until now, orthodox scientists have dismissed all such claims as the result of incompetence or fraud. However, even hardened sceptics now admit that these charges are becoming hard to sustain. "I have a lot more problems with these results as a sceptic," said Prof Stephen Donnelly, a physicist at Salford University and deputy editor of UK Skeptic.

But Chris French, the head of psychology at Goldsmiths' College, London, and another long-standing critic of claims for the paranormal, said that he was concerned by the tiny size of the supposed psychic influence. "The effect sizes are so staggeringly small that some people would argue that any sensible person would prefer a non-PK explanation," he said. "There's also a worry that with the huge number of trials needed, conventional statistical theory starts to break down."

But Prof Jahn said the data is now so strong that the arguments over the paranormal must move towards explaining how it works. "We don't see much point in continuing the collection of yet more data," he said. "We're setting up experiments to get a better comprehension of these phenomena."

8 February 1997: Animals have paranormal feelings too
22 January 1997: Editors of the paranormal in a flutter over angels
                 and the lottery
23 November 1996: Playing the spoons

(c) Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. "Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegraph Group Limited. ======================================================

For those who wish to follow-up, the URL is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk The HTM file is attached for convenience.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank