(DRAFT) A STRATEGY FOR THE EVALUATION OF PARANORMAL PHENOMENA

CIA-STARGATE

PDF Scan: PDF

Open AI Summary

Text

Body:  A Sproved For Release   0/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0200090015-7
 A Strategy For The Evaluation of
 Paranormal Phenomena
 There seems to be a small but constant momentum within
 the Agency for investigation of paranormal phenomena including
 such things as Extra Sensory Perception, Astral Projection
 and Radionics.  Since this momentum appears to have been
 continuous in the past, it seems reasonable to assume that
 it will continue in the future.  Since claims of paranormal
 phenomena immediately generate opposing camps of believers and
 non-believers, any instigation of research into these areas
 immediately engenders debates, meetings,. discussions, and
 memoranda.  All of these activities consume man-power resources
 and any investigation will usually involve the commitment of
 fiscal resources.  For this reason, this paper is'presented
 to propose some guidelines for a strategy to allow for the
 appraisal of the appropriateness of resource dedication to
 whatever paranormal phenomena may be proposed in the future.
 One of the driving forces for any proposed program in
 paranormal phenomena is always the carrot held out by pro-
 ponents that the possession of such powers would have great
 utility to the intelligence community.  If we. assume that
 such powers are indeed real and can be harnessed for use by
 the Agency or the Intelligence Community, clearly there can
 be no argument with purported utility.  Therefore, debate on
 ~"  P
 Approved For Release 20(91 1tG : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090015-7
 A  roved For Release  0"08/10 :  IA-RDP96-00787RQQ0200090015-7
 such    issue is inappropriate.  the true focus f r the debate
 should be on the validity of the claims made by proponents
 of the paranormal phenomena.
 Another item which should be disposed quickly without
 major debate is that of the ability of the Agency to use
 something that it does not understand.  Once again the argu-
 ments are really very simple.  Obviously we can use something
 that we do not understand.  Cave men used fire to cook food
 and warm caves for many years before the thermodynamics and
 chemical kinetics of combustion were suspected, known, or
 understood.  Even today man uses gravity for many purposes,
 although there is still significant debate in the scientific
 community as to what causes gravitational attraction.   However,
 when a phenomenon is not understood, it must be a reliable
 phenomenon to be trusted.  The credibility of gravity is
 very, very high even though the theoretical underpinnings for
 gravitational attraction are not solid.  The reason for this
 status is that human history has a great preponderence of
 observations in favor of objects falling toward the Earth and
 not away from the Earth.  Paranormal phenomena which are not
 understood (or which cannot be explained) must achieve a
 similar level of reliability to attain the same level of
 credibility as a phenomenon  such as gravity.
 .Given that there will be a proposal for the Agency to
 investigate some form of paranormal research in the future,
 the following is presented as a suggested strategy for deciding
 TTM
 Approved For Release 2000/080 : CIA#    -00787R000200090015-7
 R  rpved,Fpr Release  00/08/10: CIA-RP96-00787R    0,0090015-7
 on t Justification for pursuing such research.     xs sug-
 gestion is put forward with'the hope. that it will stimulate
 discussion and dialogue among management and technical personnel
 to arrive at a strategy that can be implemented at a future
 time.
 First, one must consider the evidence presented by a
 proponent of paranormal research.  The body of evidence itself
 N
 should be a consideration for the justification of research
 into the area.  The volume of evidence, the number of observers
 of similar evidence, and the commonality of observation should
 all be qualitatively evaluated by impartial observers to
 arrive at same construct of opinion regarding the paranormal
 phenomenon.
 Some critical aspects of the body of*evidence should
 include the presence of witnesses to the claimed observations
 which are being presented as evidence.  Probably the most
 compelling type of evidence would be first hand evidence pre-
 sented by the proponent of such research.  Additionally, one
 should consider the level of training and experience of the
 observer.  This is not meant to imply"in any way that someone
 not trained as a scientist is incapable of making an observa-
 tion which is of major importance.  However, the observation
 of phenomena by trained and experienced observers should be
 considered much more heavily. than by the naive observer.
 Another critical aspect of the data presented as evidence
 for a paranormal phenomenon must be the reproducibility
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :P96-00787R000200090015-7
 3
 Approved For Release 20;PUWIIO CIA-RDP96-007 78000200090015-7
 of,that data.  Reproducibility must be considered in light of
 the individuals who can reproduce it, the conditions under
 which any or all individuals can reproduce it and the nature
 of controls which can be imposed upon a situation where re-
 production of the phenomenon is demanded.  Evidence which
 requires that-the audience take on faith the data or mani-
 festations of the data, should be dismissed out-of-hand as
 evidence for paranormal phenomena.
 The body of evidence presented to support a proposal
 for this type of research should be as free as possible from
 argument by analogy.   If, indeed, there is to be presented
 a theoretical underpinning for these types of phenomena, then
 that theoretical underpinning should be able to stand on its
 own.   It is not appropriate to argue, for instance, that a
 paranormal form of energy travels faster than the speed of
 light and cannot be measured just because one can make the
 statement that a thought may travel faster than the speed of
 light and no one has been able to measure the speed of a
 thought.  Argument by analogy is really only appropriate in
 a positive sense but not in a negative sense.
 It seems appropriate that the burden of proof for having
 the Agency involve itself in research into paranormal phenomena
 should be on the proponents of such research.  Without getting
 into legalistic definitions this burden of proof should not
 be proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" and indeed it may not
 even require 'a preponderance of evidence.  However, the burden
 1
 -Approved For. Release 2000/0$/0 : Jo~96-007878000200090015-7
 O
 Approved For Relea2I10 : CIA-RDP96-0078700200090015-7
 must fall on the proponents to convince management and technical
 personnel in the Agency that, indeed, such research is appro-
 priate and there is some plausible justification for entering
 into the expenditure of public monies toward this end.
 It is the personal opinion of the author that the more
 exotic the claims made for any paranormal discipline that the
 more definitive should be the proofs and evidences presented
 to support the proposition for research into that area.
 fAdditionally, it is mandatory to require that a technical
 inability_ to explain all phenomena associated with the bod
 y
 ,~.    evidence shall.not be..-taken as proof positive that there is
 -fvalidity to the phenomena.  It does not seem reasonable to
 allow that the positive presence o        ranormal phenomena be
 "4- provided by the a]~sence of a firmly founded technical e:~ana-
 eivn for every aetail.   -
 Assuming that we have reached a situation where some
 level of investigation into paranormal phenomena is considered
 appropriate it is intended to now set forth some guidelines
 for validation of the claims, concepts, theoretical under-
 pinnings for such phenomena.  One criteria which should be
 applied is the concept of deniability..  One of the foundations
 of the scientific method is that if one asserts a false
 hypothesis, then a false result will emerge from an experiment
 to test the hypothesis.  This criterion of deniability should
 be applicable to experimental designs which attempt to explain
 the paranormal.
 Arove F
 eb
 ORE
 P96-00787 R000200090015-7
 Approved For Release 2 00/08/10 CIA-RDP96-007   000200090015-7
 Another criterion for validation ofa paranormal                       4
 phenomenon should be the property of replication for that
 phenomenon.  It is reasonable to assert that if such a phenomenon
 is real, then more than one independent observer/practioner
 can obtain the same results under the same conditions.  This
 criterion has served the scientific community very well for
 several centuries; and, indeed, does not appear to be so
 unreasonable as to have it dismissed from consideration of
 paranormal research.
 A third criteria for such validation investigations
 should be the verifiability of the experimental data.  By
 verifiability it is meant that the proponents and opponents
 of the phenomenon  in question should be able to agree on the
 criteria which will substantiate or deny the existence of. the
 phenomenon..   Such a criterion will tend to remove validation
 experimentation from a situation whereby a negative or positive
 result can be refuted by the various parties to the debate.
 Finally, any validation experimentation must be set up
 in such a way.as to avoid the situation in which the opponents
 to a paranormal phenomenon  are required to prove that it does
 not exist.  The difficulty in proving a negative assertion,
 is so severe that such experimentation and argument can go on
 forever.  Since it was stated that the burden of proof should
 be on the proponent to initiate paranormal research, this
 concept must. be carried forward to any validation experiments
 to assure that any experiments are designed to prove the
 6
 . Approved For Release 2000/08/10 1 o W P96-00787R000200090015-7
 ,RAFT
 Approved For Refoese 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00  1R000200090015-7
 existence of a phenomenon by positive observable details.
 As a short example to illustrate the thinking that went
 into much of the above recommendations, the author doubts
 seriously that many scientists would argue with the fact that
 there may exist a sense in the human body which has?not yet
 been discovered.  They may, however, stop short of agreement
 if they were then asked to believe that this extra sense is
 one that cannot be measured, and therefore, it is for that
 reason that it has escaped detection (and will of course always
 escape detection).   Skepticism about things like Extra Sensory
 Perception or abnormal sensitivities of individuals to various
 .stimuli do not arise from a preconceived notion that it is
 impossible for such phenomena to exist; rather, it is skepticism
 which arises from an explanation which demands that an in-
 vestigator believe in the existence of such data because there
 is no other explanation immediately available.
 It is hoped that this short statement concerning para-
 normal research will stimulate sufficient discussion and
 dialogue to permit a reasonable and programmed response to a
 future assertion for Agency involvement in paranormal research.
 The author makes no claim that the suggestions in this paper
 for guidelines or approaches to this problem are all inclusive.
 If, however, they serve to generate such all inclusive and
 appropriate guidelines then this paper will de deemed success-
 ful in the mind of the author.
 Approved For Release 2000708/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090015-7