9/15 9/28/76 - AS I TOLD YOU, IT GOT LOST N THE SHUFFLE J.F.

CIA-STARGATE

PDF Scan: PDF

Open AI Summary

This document is a draft of someone's thoughts on paranormal criteria. The person agrees with a comment about the false hypothesis criterion being untrue and explains that in "normal science" there can be a critical experiment to distinguish between competing hypotheses. The person also acknowledges that it is not easy to discern between competing hypotheses. They mention the phlogiston hypothesis as an example that has been disproven. The person also argues that the inability of "paranormal practitioners" to produce reproducible results does not prove that paranormal phenomena are a sham. They believe that proof of a "negative" is difficult and that neither side of the controversy should have to prove a negative assertion to demonstrate the validity of their claims. The person discusses the level of replication required for acceptance of information by customers for intelligence and asks what level of replication would be needed to brief the President on a matter involving astral projection. They mention the difficulty of defining an operational criterion for remote viewing, considering the non-stable nature of the positions of those who would approve operational plans. They mention a book called "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" and plan to order it for their library.

Text

Body:  Approved For Releas6W000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9
 02W6`0' 0(T`141-8
 J~ J~c1 1~si Fh
 Ken                                                                    f.
 As der your request, here is the draft of my paranormal criteria thoughts.
 I have Xeroxed your copy so that your comments are contained in this
 copy.  I would like to comment on some of your thoughts.
 First of all your argument about the false hypothesis  criterion being
 untrue: you are right because I stated my  proposition very poorly.
 The idea I had to get across which I did not was that in "normal
 science" (as opposed to "paranormal science") when there are competing
 hypotheses, there can be performed a critical experiment which will
 distinguish between the validity of  the two assettions.  Once
 performed ( indeed once even verbalized ) a major hurdle is crossed
 which will distinguish between the competing assertions.  To use your
 example, the concepts of gravity put forth by Einstein  and Dicke are
 not both  right ( although they both may be wrong) but some day
 one will be placed in higher credence than the other based on accumulated
 observations and on experiments designed to distinguish  between
 salient   features of the hypotheses.  I did overstate the simplicity
 of discerning between competing hypotheses.  However, you will aX
 agree that the phlogiston hypothesis has been disprooved and it  was
 disprooved by demonstrating  that the assumption of its validity led
 to  erroneous conclusions based on objectively collected data.
 Regarding another point, I do  not believe that the mnability
 of a "normal scientist" to explain experimental observation in all detail
 should provide positive proof of paranormal phenomena any more than
 you are willing to  allow that the inability of"paranormal practitioners"
 to  produce   identically reporducible resutis under all circumstances
 and upon demand is proof positive that paranormal phenomena are a sham.
 Essentially, I feel that the proof of a "negative" is so difficult
 that neither side of this controversy should be put in the position
 of having to prove a negative assettion in order  to demonstrate the
 validity of their claims.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8
 1  ed For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8
 -2-
 In my argument concerning the reproduceability of gravity, I did not
 mean to imply that paranormal phenomena should indeed reach this level
 of reliability before any utility could be perceived.   MOM However,
 it must be agreed  that some high  level of replication will have to
 be demonstrated before there will be acceptance of the information by
 customers for intelligence.  The question in my mind is something like:
 What background evidence would I want if I had to brief the President
 that the Soviets had violated SALT and were planning a pre-emptive
 strike if my information came from some astral projection kind of
 experience? (Granted this is a loaded situation!  But we must consider
 the level of incredulity of customers for intelligence and the risks
 associated with misleading EMU  information vis a vis  the obvious
 positive benefits of paranotmal XMNx capabioity)
 SG1I
 Regarding the statement of an Operational Criterion as per
 argument, one must ask what level of credibility resides in the DD for
 Operations and the DCI vis a vis remote viewing.  This is because it
 is those two humans who will approve or not approve operational plans/
 entries/manuvers proposed by the                 of the Agency.  I          S G11
 think you will agree that the non-stable nature of the occupants of
 those seats along with the vagaries of human nature make this type
 of'defininton very difficult and maybe even impossible.  Just in the
 six years I've been here, there have been 4 DDO's and 4  DCI's.  The
 thought of finding commonalitieg  in such definition for these eight
 gentlemen  is mind-boggling.
 I .am ordering for the Library a copy of a book called Fads and Fallacies
 in the Name of Science.  When it comes in I will. let you know so you
 can get it for your perusal.  From its title, you know it is negative
 in orientation but it does produce some thought provoking responses in
 the reader vis a vis  far out science.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090014-8