EXPLORATIONS

Why Are Scientists Afraid of Daryl Bem?

“When one village dog barks, the rest entists have become hostile toward what take up the howl.” they consider Republicans’ contempt for —Zen saying the basics of modern biology, anthropol- ogy, evolutionary theory, geology, cos- “If I want to stop a research pro- mology, stem cell research, and climate gram I can always do it by getting a 4 few experts to sit in on the subject, change. because they know right away that it The Pew findings imply that scientists was a fool thing to try in the first are liberal, progressive thinkers who are place.”1 tolerant of new ideas. Unfortunately, this —Charles F. Kettering, Head of re- is not always the case. search, General Motors, 1920-1947 BEM’S BOMBSHELL Prejudice: from the Latin, “judg- Flagrant prejudice among scientists 2 ment in advance” erupted in early 2011, when Cornell Uni- versity psychology professor Daryl Bem rejudice is never far from the expe- Daryl J. Bem, PhD had a paper accepted for publication in rience of most readers of Explore, the elite Journal of Personality and Social Psy- concerned as we are with concepts chology. Bem’s paper is titled “Feeling the Pof healing that are frequently out- portant issues of our time. I hope the fol- Future: Experimental Evidence for Anom- side the mainstream. Over the years we lowing discussion will help readers alous Retroactive Influences on Cogni- learn to expect prejudice and we become understand that consciousness manifests tion and Affect.”5 Bem is no ordinary psy- somewhat inured to it. But sometimes nonlocally in ways that defy the limita- chologist. He is widely respected for his prejudice is so blatant, so in your face, it is tions of space and time, why this concept clear, creative thinking and his meticu- shocking and cannot be ignored. is so offensive to many scientists, and why lous, original research. I’m referring to a recent event in the it is likely to become, at long last, a part of His study was an eight-year project in- field of consciousness research, which is the scientific worldview. volving more than a thousand Cornell stu- one of the main focus areas of Explore. dents in nine separate experiments. In one Bias against this field is nothing new, but SCIENTISTS AND POLITICS of the experiments, the subject sits in front in this instance it was more vehement In 2009, the Pew Research Center released of a computer screen on which pictures of than usual and achieved national atten- a report on scientists and politics, con- two curtains appear. Behind one of the tion. ducted in collaboration with the Ameri- curtains is a picture of an erotic nature; This conflict is an example of the “de- can Association for the Advancement of behind the other curtain is a blank wall. nier movements” that are currently ram- Science. The study involved a survey of The subject’s task is to indicate which cur- pant in our culture, and which have 2,500 American scientists. They found tain conceals the erotic photo. At the time recently been described by Explore that only 9% of the scientists considered of the subject’s choosing, however, nei- columnist Stephan A. Schwartz. In his themselves politically conservative, and ther curtain conceals the photo. It is only seminal report in May 2010,3 Schwartz that only 6% identified themselves as Re- after the subject chooses that the computer specified the denial of the concept of non- publicans. The most frequent reason makes a random choice and assigns the local consciousness as one of the most im- given for this dramatic skewing is that sci- erotic picture to one of the curtains. If the

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 127 subject merely guesses, he or she should and opening the floodgates to the fre- unaware that precognition, or future be right 50% of the time. But that is not quent publication of crackpot ideas in top- knowing, usually takes place not in labs the way the experiment turns out. The hit notch journals would . . . spell the end of but in free-range humans in the wild. He rate for the erotic stimulus was 53.1%—not science as we know it.”7 displays not a glimmer of awareness of the a huge departure from chance but statisti- Columbia University astronomer Da- hundreds of experiments in remote view- cally significant nonetheless. It was as if vid Helfand thundered that Bem’s find- ing at the Princeton Engineering Anoma- the subjects were seeing the future, or that ings were “an assault on science and ratio- lies Research lab and elsewhere,11,12 which information from the future was perhaps nality.” Breezily ignoring more than a also take place outside the lab in the real traveling backward in time to the present. century of experimental investigation, world, and that most of these results are In another experiment, students were Helfand questioned “whether ESP is even precognitive in nature. He has apparently shown a list of words and were then asked amenable to scientific inquiry.” He com- never heard of entire books devoted to to recall words from it, after which they pared Bem’s study to “the memos describ- locating sunken ships and buried or inun- were told to type the words that were ran- ing the weapons of mass destruction in dated archaeological sites by extrasensory domly selected from the same list. Oddly, Iraq, the rantings of Senator Jim Inhofe on means.13,14 Or that psychics in several the students were better at recalling words climate change, and the triple-A ratings of real-world experiments have made consid- that they would later type, as if reinforce- collateralized debt obligations.” He erable sums of money predicting the silver ment from typing acted backward in time. charged that Bem’s paper, like these exam- futures market, one study of which was In an additional study, Bem employed ples, had not been “subjected to rigorous featured on the front page of the Wall research on “priming”—the effect of a sub- and impartial peer review,” and would Street Journal.15,16 Or that a 10-year study liminally presented word on a subject’s re- therefore cause similar mischief—an accu- of 385 chief executive officers of US cor- sponse to an image. For example, if some- sation that is vigorously disputed by psy- porations found that 80% of executives one is momentarily flashed the word chologist Charles Judd of the University whose companies’ profits had more than “ugly,” it will take her longer to decide that of Colorado, the editor of the journal that doubled in the past five years had above- a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if accepted Bem’s paper. Helfand cheekily average precognitive powers on ESP tests; “beautiful” had been flashed. Running the suggested that psi may deserve “the same and that the correlations were so definitive experiment backward, Bem found that the exalted status as belief in the Pastafarian that the researchers were able to examine priming effect seemed to work backward Flying Spaghetti Monster.”8 financial reports and predict in advance in time as well as forward. Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, of Ari- how a given CEO would do in ESP exper- All the nine experiments were varia- 17 zona State University, excoriated Bem’s iments. tions on this general theme. All but one paper as an example of “bad research Ray Hyman, a retired psychologist at were statistically significant. Eight of the [which] gets happily buried in the dustbin the University of Oregon, who for decades nine seemed to indicate that an effect of history, which is what I expect will hap- has been a voluble, dedicated foe of such could come before its cause. pen in this case,”9 although he gave no findings, screeched that Bem’s work and specific reasons why Bem’s research was its imminent publication are “craziness, SHOOTING FROM THE LIP “bad.” pure craziness. I can’t believe a major jour- Bem’s study prompted a hissy fit among Philosopher Anthony Gottlieb, a visit- nal is allowing this work in. I think it’s just scientists. When an article about his re- ing scholar at N.Y.U.’s philosophy depart- an embarrassment to the entire field.” Hy- sults appeared on the front page of the ment, amazingly suggested that Bem’s ev- man even suggested the Bem’s paper New York Times on January 6, 2011, the idence simply does not matter, no matter might be a hoax. “He’s got a great sense of controversy was suddenly thrust before how solid it might be: “But even if Daryl humor,” he said. “I wouldn’t rule out that 18 the nation.6 The following day, additional Bem’s study . . . turns out to be gold-stan- this is an elaborate joke.” outbursts from several scientists and phi- dard science and breaks none of the stan- Hyman had said in 1985, as if uncon- losophers were featured in the Times in the dard procedural rules, one can still be con- sciously describing himself, “The level of 10 “Room for Debate” section. There was al- fident that its findings are incorrect.” (If the debate [about these kinds of findings] most no debate, however, because nearly Gottlieb is correct and he is indeed capa- during the past 130 years has been an em- all the experts whose opinions were solic- ble of seeing through air-tight evidence, he barrassment for anyone who would like to ited by the Times were hostile to Bem’s must be psychic, thereby defeating his believe that scholars and scientists adhere findings. own argument.) In a shameless display of to standards of rationality and fair play.”19 Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter ignorance of the research in nonlocal Hyman’s comment still seems true, be- of Indiana University predicted disaster, knowing, Gottlieb stated, “It’s very suspi- cause in all the statements of the “experts” wailing, “If any of [Bem’s] claims were cious that hard evidence of paranormal whom the Times recruited to comment on true, then all of the bases underlying con- powers only ever seems to show up in lab- Bem’s paper, not a single one appeared temporary science would be toppled, and oratories. If people really can predict the even minimally knowledgeable of the we would have to rethink everything future in extrasensory (and extrarational) field they so enthusiastically disparaged. about the nature of the universe . . . There ways, how come they only seem to man- Against this barrage, editor Judd stood has to be a common sense [sic] cutoff for age it when ESP researchers ask them to do firm. “Four reviewers made comments on craziness . . . Otherwise, the floodgates something trivial, like guess a playing card the manuscript,” he said, “and these are will be open to crackpots of all stripes— or a picture?”10 Gottlieb seems blissfully very trusted people.”20

128 EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 Explorations In story after story, journalists implied EVIDENCE IGNORED nothingness28—lapse into fevered frenzy that Bem’s conclusions were almost cer- Quite apart from the uninformed rants of when confronted with so-called paranor- tainly incorrect, and that in any case the critics from within science, one of the mal events. They simply ignore the re- verdict would eventually depend on more irritating features of this debate has search validating these phenomena29-31 whether other researchers could replicate been the journalists’ appalling ignorance and resort to the “everybody knows” argu- them, an assertion with which Bem of the field they are attempting to cover. ment—because “everybody knows” these agrees.21 Although giving no details, the They appear to be completely in the dark things cannot happen, they do not hap- New York Times article said almost jubi- about the existing experimental data that pen. This condescending, pompous atti- lantly, “So far, at least three efforts to rep- support Bem’s findings. Neither the New tude is described by former NIH bioscien- licate the experiments have failed.”6 New York Times nor the New Scientist reporters— tist Sarah S. Knox, of the University of Scientist magazine also reported a failed at- nor any others, as far as I know—men- West Virginia Medical School, in her ad- tempt at replication that was conducted tioned that many studies in the field of mirable book Science, God and the Nature of online,22 although Bem argues that online presentiment research have already con- Reality: Bias in Biomedical Research: attempts to replicate his findings are in- firmed what appear to be retrocausal ef- conclusive, because it is impossible to fects, in which physiological arousal oc- Since [critics contend] there is no 25 know whether volunteers have paid suffi- curs before the stimulus for such. plausible mechanism within a mate- cient attention to the task.22 Retrocausal effects in about a score of ad- rialist frame of reference to explain Science journalist Jim Schnabel saw ditional experiments were reviewed in them, paranormal phenomena can’t possibly be valid. This is the same many of the scientists’ comments as fla- 2000 by researcher William Braud in the reasoning that the learned men of grant attempts to suppress free inquiry. He journal Alternative Therapies in Health and 26 Galileo’s day used when they refused wrote: Medicine. But of all this, both the critics and journalists are silent. They behave as if to look in the telescope. This attitude is nowhere more evi- Bem’s study is a completely new spe- dent than in the number of scientists But how shall we account for the In- cies—an alien one at that. who are willing to volunteer as “ex- quisitional outbursts from scientists The unwillingness of mainstream scien- pert” commentators on television that appeared in the [New York] Times tists to consider that Bem’s findings might programs about paranormal phe- . . .? I mean the calls by prominent possibly be valid is an old pattern. Intoler- nomena, astonishingly undeterred academic researchers to effectively ance predictably surfaces anytime data is and unembarrassed by their com- suppress the findings of a scientific presented suggesting that consciousness plete lack of knowledge concerning colleague, the eminent psychologist can act in ways that transcend mediation the existing experimental data. These Daryl Bem, essentially because his by the physical senses. Such phenomena “experts” smile condescendingly as findings threatened their reality.... are generally considered paranormal and they explain that the phenomena un- Note the absence of scientific reason- der discussion can be explained by are relegated to the purview of parapsy- ing in these statements, and its re- chance occurrence, brain abnormal- chology or psi. These “para” terms are in- placement by fear and loathing.... ity, etc, depending on the topic at Modern [science’s] ideals prohibit it appropriate, however, because abundant hand. Since the belief that causality from rejecting ideas just because its evidence suggests these phenomena are can only be found in matter reigns 27 elites find them threatening or onto- common in all cultures; and if they exist, supreme, there doesn’t seem to be logically untidy. Science is supposed as copious evidence demonstrates, they any requirement that these “experts” to let the chips fall where they may. are presumably a part of nature, not out- support their claims with actual data. As historians and sociologists of sci- side or “para” nature. They need only introduce the possi- ence have been pointing out for de- bility that the same outcome might cades now, it appears to be human have been achieved through some nature to want a relatively stable real- “ASTONISHINGLY UNDETERRED other means, to convince their naïve AND UNEMBARRASSED” audience that it is all “hocus ity, and even scientists will defend 32 their reality instinctively, by fair One of the unique features of these phe- pocus.” means or foul . . . This begs the ques- nomena is their capacity to elicit over- tion of whether academic science is heated, hysterical responses from scien- “FUNDAMENTAL NOVELTY even the place for truly innovative, tists. Many scientists, who are willing to IS BARRED” 23 reality-disturbing research. entertain hypotheses in other areas of sci- Why are scientists willfully blind to the ence that are so breathtakingly bizarre hundreds of experiments validating so- Not all the media response to Bem’s they can hardly be imagined—for example, called paranormal events?29-31 Why do study was negative. A more open-minded an infinite number of alternate or parallel they pretend this evidence does not exist? analysis was offered by science commen- universes; string theory, which many sci- It is as if the scientific community has de- tator Robert Krulwich of NPR: “Maybe entists consider to be unproven and un- veloped a herd immunity against anything psychologists, like quantum physicists, provable, requiring eight extra dimensions that violates the tenets of materialism. The will have to deal with the deep strangeness that have no basis whatever in human ex- immunity is so effective that in many sci- of our universe. Maybe time doesn’t be- perience, and which cannot be experimen- entists not even a twinkle of curiosity sur- have properly. Maybe it makes little tally verified in any way; or a Big Bang, out faces toward the kind of phenomena Bem leaps . . .”24 of which an entire universe arose from reports. The faculty that generates wonder

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 129 and stirs the scientist to ask whether some- serious hypothesis) that the world philosopher, then as now. As if fed up thing extraordinary could be true seems to could be based on anything else, had with the fiery debates that swirled from have been almost completely stifled. This we not been under the impression both sides, Broad stated in his 1962 Lec- deadening of wonder, so clearly unmasked that there was a rival stuff with a more tures on Psychical Research, “And anyone by Bem’s paper, was lamented by Alfred comfortable kind of “concrete” real- ity—something too inert and stupid who at the present day expresses confident North Whitehead in 1948 in his Essays in to be capable of forging an illusion.35 opinions, whether positive or negative,onos- Science and Philosophy, and his words still tensibly paranormal phenomena, without apply: Nobel physicist Eugene Wigner ex- making himself thoroughly acquainted pressed the situation pointedly, saying with the main methods and results of the The Universe is vast. Nothing is more that it is “not possible to formulate the careful and long-continued work may be curious than the self-satisfied dogma- laws of [physics] in a fully consistent way dismissed without further ceremony as a tism with which mankind at each pe- 39 without reference to the consciousness [of conceited ignoramus [emphasis added].” riod of its history cherishes the delu- 36 sion of the finality of its existing the observer].” Bem’s critics might consider the open- modes of knowledge. Sceptics and The most cursory reading of the history ness of Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s believers are all alike. At this moment of modern science reveals that there have great champion, who said, “I am too much scientists and sceptics are the leading been rumblings from physics for nearly a of a skeptic to deny the possibility of any- dogmatists. Advance in detail is ad- century that we have underestimated con- thing.”40 Huxley spoke from his under- mitted: fundamental novelty is sciousness in our account of what’s real. standing of what a genuine skeptic is—not barred. This dogmatic common Moreover, actual experiments suggest that someone who reflexively says no, but sense is the death of philosophical the actions of consciousness are not lim- adventure. The Universe is vast.33 someone who suspends judgment until ited to the present. For example, in so- the facts are in. Unfortunately, many of called delayed choice experiments con- BEM’S CARDINAL SIN Bem’s critics seem to equate skepticism sciousness seems to operate outside the with “against-ism.” But authentic skepti- Professor Bem has poked the dragon of present, affecting events that have already materialism, and the dragon is lashing out. cism, from a Greek word meaning “in- happened—a cause coming after an effect, quiry” and “doubt,” is a noble position to His unforgivable transgression is that he 37 as suggested in Bem’s studies. It would take, requiring the dispassionate, unemo- has dared to suggest a primary role for con- be wrong to suggest there is agreement on tional weighing of evidence in the search sciousness in the elaboration of reality. what these experiments mean. But the fact for truth. This is a difficult position to His experiments suggest that conscious- that there is controversy and that funda- maintain because, as the kerfuffle over the ness can acquire information without me- mental issues in physics remain unsettled work of Bem reveals, genuine skepticism is diation by the physical senses, outside the suggests that the presumptuous, full-bore easily derailed by fear, loathing, and pas- present, with the reversal of cause and ef- criticisms of Bem’s findings are inappro- fect. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be priate. sion. a slave to matter or time. To those who Bem’s critics are simply wrong. He is worship at the altar of materialism, this is not trying to smuggle consciousness into OPENNESS OVERRATED? blasphemy. the physical sciences; it is already there, Sociologist Marcello Truzzi, a keen ana- But in condemning Bem, his critics also installed by many of the architects of lyst of skepticism, elaborated on the intel- manage in the process to denounce some quantum physics nearly a century ago. De- 34 lectual narrowness demonstrated by of the patriarchs of modern science. As nying this fact has led to pernicious re- described in Ken Wilber’s book Quantum sults. “One of [the] most destructive con- Bem’s critics: “Scientists are not the para- Questions: The Mystical Writings of the sequences [of this denial] has been what gons of rationality, objectivity, open- 34 World’s Great Physicists, many pioneers can only be considered an all-out assault mindedness and humility that many of 41 of the quantum-relativistic worldview on parapsychological research, chiefly be- them might like others to believe.” No- such as Erwin Schrödinger, Sir Arthur Ed- cause it threatens to expose the deficien- belist James D. Watson, codiscoverer of dington, and Sir James Jeans held opin- cies in the assumptions of materialism,” the structure of DNA, agreed: “One could ions about the nature of consciousness says philosopher Keith Chandler, author not be a successful scientist without real- that are a far cry from the knee-jerk mate- of The Mind Paradigm: A Central Model of izing that, in contrast to the popular con- rialism of Bem’s critics. Jeans, for example, Mental and Physical Reality.38 ception supported by newspapers and was forthright in championing a primary mothers of scientists, a goodly number of role for consciousness in physics: “CONCEITED IGNORAMUSES” scientists are . . . narrow-minded and dull 42 But passion can also cloud the judgment ....“ As psychologist Hans Eysenk ob- It is difficult for the matter-of-fact of proponents as well as critics. C.D. served, “Scientists, especially when they physicist to accept the view that the Broad (1887-1971), the eminent Cam- leave the particular field in which they substratum of everything is of mental have specialised, are just as ordinary, pig- character. But no one can deny that bridge philosopher, knew this. Broad was mind is the first and most direct thing keenly interested in “psychical research,” headed and unreasonable as anybody else, in our experience, and all else is re- and he served as president of Britain’s So- and their unusually high intelligence only mote inference....Probably it ciety for Psychical Research in1935 and makes their prejudices all the more dan- would never have occurred to us (as a 1958—a courageous act for an academic gerous . . . ”43

130 EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 Explorations THE PEOPLE SPEAK to be a dead end. In the meantime, findings are incorrect.”10 Or as one scien- Perhaps the most intriguing part of the the Times should have made more of tist smugly declared when faced with sim- New York Times article about Bem’s find- an effort to locate someone with a ilar findings, “This is the sort of thing I ings was the thoughtful comments posted genuinely different opinion. I am would not believe, even if it existed.”50 more worried about the difficulty in by readers online.6 A typical response was This ploy—ensuring that the evidence finding open-minded commentators can never be good enough—is a time-worn that of Bob in Rochester, who wrote: than I am about the publication of Bem’s research causing science any tactic of materialists who are not prepared [N]ew discoveries like this may not irreparable harm.46 to give an inch. Researchers in nonlocal “defy” laws of science, but simply il- consciousness face the ever-lengthening lustrate forces that exist, that can be Pat in California: playing field and the raising of the goal- part of science, but which we cannot posts, no matter how strong their evidence currently detect based on the sophis- may be. These shifting demands are often Interesting. Dr. Daryl Bem’s paper tication of our current tools. Black embraces at least the possibility of ex- seasoned with accusations of shoddy holes existed even before we could trasensory perception and David work, as we’ve seen. This objection is measure them, and so of course do all Helfand thunders that the study is ironic, because the use of controlled, dou- sorts of other forces . . . and once un- “an assault on science and rational- ble-blind experimental procedures are derstood could then be re-categorized ity,” as though Dr. Bem is an evil man higher in psi-type experiments than in any as our new “updated” science....44 plotting to overthrow the entire sci- other discipline, including medicine, psy- entific community. . . . [I]f Dr. chology, biology, and the hard sciences Caleb in Illinois: Bem’s study does not stand up un- such as chemistry and physics. In fact, no der tighter scrutiny, then, fine, it other discipline comes close.51 If rigorously quantitative observa- doesn’t and it’s back to the drawing tions indicate the true existence of board. But I’m a bit skeptical of Mr. mental phenomena commonly clas- Helfand’s group, the Committee A CANDIDATE FOR BURNING For Skeptical Inquiry. They seem to sified as psychic, the publication of The tantrums provoked by Bem’s paper those observations in a peer-reviewed be on such a fierce mission to erad- are nothing new. A similar episode oc- scientific journal is absolutely war- icate anything they deem unscien- ranted. The fact is that a great many tific or irrational that they come curred in 1981 when Sir John Maddox, the scientists mistake scientism for sci- across like science jihadists, and to late editor of Nature, one of the most pres- 47 ence. Scientism is a quasi-religious me that’s worrisome. tigious science journals in the world, at- belief in the necessity of a particular tacked British biologist Rupert Sheldrake form of reality, namely, a linear uni- CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS when his ideas of morphic fields and mor- verse of strict cause and effect, where The debate over Bem’s findings has phic resonance were introduced in his consciousness is a mere epiphenom- evolved into a heated argument about book A New Science of Life.52 Maddox, as enon with no real significance. Sci- how best to analyze his data.48 Are con- editor of Nature, was considered one of entism is not science, nor is it neces- ventional statistical methods adequate, or the elite arbiters of science. He suggested sary for science.45 is a Bayesian49 statistical approach better? that Sheldrake’s book should perhaps be Although statistical precision is manda- burned. As he fumed in Nature, “This in- Seth Segall in White Plains: tory, the statistical argument is a fig leaf furiating tract . . . is the best candidate for covering the nakedness of materialism. burning there has been for many years.”53 It’s interesting that the Times could This spat will not be resolved by statistics, Maddox’s indignation toward Sheldrake not locate a scientist willing to seri- because the basic argument is not about continued to fester over the years. In an ously entertain that Bem’s results how to massage the numbers, but hinges interview broadcast on BBC television in could conceivably turn out to be on fundamental differences in worldview. 1994, he continued, ”Sheldrake is putting true. Such scientists do exist, as wit- Even if Bem’s findings are validated by forward magic instead of science, and that nessed by the landmark book Variet- ies of Anomalous Experience published statistical analyses acceptable to critics, can be condemned in exactly the language in 2000 by the American Psychologi- the critics can always dismiss them by re- that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, 53 cal Association and edited by Etzel sorting to another of their favorite bolt- and for the same reason. It is heresy.” Cardeña, Steven Jay Lynn, and Stan- holes, that of “theoretical implausibility.” Maddox would not let up. In Nature, in ley Krippner.30 That book contained This is a go-to objection when all else fails. 1999, he reviewed Sheldrake’s book Dogs a review of psi-related research by This argument says that some experimen- That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Elizabeth Targ, Marilyn Schlitz, and tal findings are so counterintuitive and Home and Other Unexplained Powers of Ani- Harvey Irwin that fairly reviewed the nonsensical they should be rejected in mals,54 saying, “Rupert Sheldrake is stead- conceptual and methodological is- principle, damn the evidence. This is es- fastly incorrigible in the particular sense sues involved in psi-related research sentially the criticism of philosopher An- that he persists in error. That is the chief as well as the results of psi research up until that date. Bem’s research will no thony Gottlieb, mentioned above. To re- import of his eighth and latest book. Its doubt be subject to replication many iterate, “But even if Daryl Bem’s study . . . main message is that animals, especially times over, and we will be able to tell turns out to be gold-standard science and dogs, use telepathy in routine communi- in a short period of time whether it breaks none of the standard procedural cations. The interest of this case is that the opens up new possibilities or proves rules, one can still be confident that its author was a regular scientist, with a Cam-

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 131 bridge PhD in biochemistry, until he or ignore findings that simply make total lack of evidential support for chose pursuits that stand in relation to sci- no sense.28 . . . [S]ome scientists . . . their respective ideology . . . . Today ence as does alternative medicine to med- insist that a “theory of everything” is the collective evidence is conclusive: icine proper.”55 (Note the drive-by shot at just around the corner, and then I know of no responsible investigator alternative medicine. We always make we’ll essentially know it all—any day who has concluded otherwise . . . . now. It hasn’t happened, and it The situation for the materialist is tempting targets.) Maddox seemed not to won’t happen. The reason is not for logically the same as that of the cre- care that Sheldrake’s hypothesis is but- any lack of effort or intelligence. It’s ationist. Both materialist and cre- tressed by dozens of experiments that that the very underlying worldview ationist must ignore, debunk, and have been done over the years. Dr. Shel- is flawed . . . . This is the underlying ridicule the scientific findings that drake’s impeccable response to Maddox problem: we have ignored a critical have refuted their beliefs.57 can be found on his Website at http:// component of the cosmos, shunted www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/ it out of the way because we didn’t maddox.html. know what to do with it. This com- A “BAGHDAD BOB” SCENARIO 56 Maddox’s crusade against Sheldrake ponent is consciousness. The evidence favoring Bem-type phenom- lasted for more than two decades, until ena is neither rare, marginal, nor inacces- Maddox’s death in 2009. His condemna- The fact that 96% of the universe is sible. Dspite the squawking by pseu- tion of Sheldrake rested on his status as comprised of dark matter and dark energy, doskeptics who claim otherwise, this editor of Nature. He did not concern him- the nature of which is a big fat mystery, research has been replicated by researchers self with evidence; he believed his author- means that materialistic scientists are igno- around the world and is freely available for ity sufficed. His criticism began with ridi- rant of 96% of their subject matter. They anyone who cares to look. The time-worn, cule and degenerated into ad hominem are in no position to lecture Professor Bem perennial objections to this material have attacks. A similar attitude toward Professor and other researchers concerned with the been eviscerated recently by more schol- Bem can be detected in the disparaging nonlocal manifestations of consciousness arly books and treatises than I can name 58-60 comments of some of his critics. about how the universe does or does not here. This situation is summarized by If a Skeptic’s Museum is ever built, work. researchers Adrian Parker, of the Depart- Maddox’s tirades should be put under It is as if I, as an internal medicine phy- ment of Psychology, Goteborg University, glass on prominent display as a prototyp- sician, said to you, “I would like to be your and Göran Brusewitz, of the Swedish So- ical example of the hostility of “experts” doctor. While it’s true I know nothing ciety for Psychical Research, in their paper toward unconventional findings in sci- about 96 percent of the organs in your “A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi”: ence, where mind and consciousness are body, trust me.” You would probably con- “It appears quite clear . . . that irrespective concerned. sider me an impertinent fool who is un- of what interpretation is given to specific worthy of your trust, as you should. Why research reports, the overall results . . . are should the supercilious materialists who indicative of an anomalous process of in- DESPERATION denounce Bem’s consciousness-related ex- formation transfer, and they are not mar- The passion of the anti-Bem blather sug- periments, and whose subject matter is lit- ginal and neither are they impossible to gests desperation and panic. Panic is an erally in the dark and almost wholly un- replicate. In the face of this, the critic who emotion that characterizes a retreating known, be regarded otherwise? merely goes on asserting there is no evi- army that has lost the battle and perhaps Neal Grossman, professor emeritus of dence . . . . is using a tactic reminiscent of the war. You would not know it, however, the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraq’s for- by the self-satisfied certainty and the tri- rare academic philosopher and historian mer Information Minister, in blindly as- umphal rhetoric of many materialistic sci- of science who is well informed about the serting there are no American troops in entists. But as renowned physician and research surrounding the nonlocal expres- Baghdad.”61 cell biologist Robert Lanza and astrono- sions of consciousness. He suggests that Al-Sahhaf gained prominence during mer Bob Berman report in their book Bio- materialism is hopelessly incapable of ac- the 2003 American invasion of Iraq for his centrism, the reality within materialistic sci- counting for these events and deserves a sunny, bombastic, daily press briefings in ence is far different: decent burial: Baghdad. He was given the moniker “Baghdad Bob” by Western observers. On Our understanding of the universe Materialism—the belief that con- April 7, he told the world that Americans has reached a dead end . . . . But it’s sciousness is produced by or is the were committing suicide by the hundreds worse than that. Until recently, we same thing as the physical brain—is at the gates of the city, and that there were thought we knew what the universe one of those beliefs that have already no American troops in Baghdad, although was made of, but it now turns out been proved false by science. How- American tanks were cruising the streets a that 96 percent of the universe is ever, . . . it will take another genera- few hundred yards from the site of his composed of dark matter and dark tion before these facts are recognized press conference.62 energy, and we have virtually no idea by mainstream academia. Old para- what they are . . . . Our understand- digms never go gently into the night: Baghdad Bob would make an excellent ing of the fundamentals of the uni- they go screaming and kicking. And patron saint for those scientists who dog- verse is actually retreating before our the defenders of materialism today gedly deny the evidence for the nonlocal eyes. The more data we gather, the are indeed screaming and kicking expressions of consciousness. The Bagh- more we’ve had to juggle our theories ever more loudly, perhaps because of dad Bob scenario is a modern version of

132 EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 Explorations the fairy tale of the emperor’s new clothes, physics and its analysis is left to other dis- “[I]t is difficult to overstate the impor- in which the king’s admirers pretend not ciplines. This is unsatisfactory . . . . It may tance of research into these phenomena,” to notice his nakedness. As Lanza and Ber- well be . . . that present-day physics repre- states physicist Richard Shoup of the man put it, “It’s one thing to respect au- sents . . . a limiting case—valid for inani- Boundary Institute, which is dedicated to thority, [but people are beginning to no- mate objects. It will have to be replaced by researching nonlocal phenomena related tice that] the emperor seems to have new laws, based on new concepts, if organ- to consciousness.72 “Progress in this area,” skimped on his wardrobe budget.”63 isms with consciousness are concerned.”66 Shoup states, “may well lead to a reformu- The bankruptcy of the materialistic ap- lation and re-interpretation of quantum proach to consciousness is now being theory . . . and thus to deep reconsidera- VIOLATIONS OF PREJUDICE, NOT THE openly admitted. As the theoretical biolo- tion of some parts of physics. Even the LAWS OF NATURE gist and complex systems researcher Stuart scientific method itself, based largely on a The materialistic assumptions that under- Kauffman puts it, “Nobody has the faint- concept of limited causality and forward lie the denunciations by Bem’s critics are est idea what consciousness is . . . I don’t influence, may be in need of re-examina- already being abandoned. During the 20th have any idea. Nor does anybody else, in- tion.”73 century, the goal of neuroscience was to cluding the philosophers of mind.”67 Phi- In addition to Greene, Josephson, and understand the workings of the mind in losopher Jerry A. Fodor expressed a similar Shoup, many outstanding physicists have terms of the physical laws governing the opinion, saying, “Nobody has the slightest essentially asked, what’s the big deal about material brain. It was an article of faith idea how anything material could be con- the sort of phenomena Bem reported? For that a thorough understanding of the scious. Nobody even knows what it would example, the eminent physicist Gerald brain’s atoms and molecules would lead to be like to have the slightest idea about how Feinberg stated, “If such phenomena in- an understanding of consciousness itself. anything material could be conscious. So deed occur, no change in the fundamental In short, the working assumption, which much for the philosophy of conscious- equations of physics would be needed to still widely prevails, was that mind equals ness.”68 Theoretical physicist Freeman describe them.”74 French theoretical phys- brain. As astronomer Carl Sagan said, Dyson agrees: “The origin of life is a total icist O. Costa de Beauregard agreed, ob- “[The brain’s] workings—what we some- mystery, and so is the existence of human serving, “Today’s physics allows for the times call mind—are a consequence of its consciousness. We have no clear idea how existence of so-called ‘paranormal’ phe- anatomy and physiology, and nothing the electrical discharges occurring in nerve nomena of telepathy, precognition, and more.”64 Or, as Nobelist Francis Crick ob- cells in our brains are connected with our psychokinesis . . . . The whole concept of served, “. . . . a person’s mental activities feelings and desires and actions.”69 ‘non-locality’ in contemporary physics re- are entirely due to the behavior of nerve 75 cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and The materialistic approach to con- quires this possibility.” Yale University molecules that make up and influence sciousness requires a one-way, forward- physicist Henry Margenau concurred, say- them.”65 acting view of the mind and time, which ing, “Strangely, it does not seem possible These confident assertions disregard prohibits the possibility of future knowl- to find the scientific laws or principles vi- warnings from within physics itself that edge and the retrotemporal flow of infor- olated by the existence of [psi phenom- the materialistic approach may be funda- mation. But the laws of physics do not ena]. We can find contradictions between mentally irrational. One example will prohibit information moving from the fu- [their occurrence] and our culturally ac- make the point. In his famous 1969 essay ture to the present. As Columbia Univer- cepted view of reality—but not—as many “Are We Machines?” Nobel physicist Eu- sity physicist Brian Greene says, “No- of us have believed—between [their occur- gene P. Wigner observed that in quantum where in any of these laws do we find a rence] and the scientific laws that have 76 physics, “The primitive facts in terms of stipulation that they apply one way in been so laboriously developed.” which the laws are formulated are not po- time but not the other . . . in theory events When materialistic scientists condemn 70 sitions of atoms but the results of observa- can unfold in reverse order.” In other Professor Bem’s findings as “craziness, tions. It seems inconsistent . . . to explain words, Bem’s findings violate not the laws pure craziness;” when they expatiate the state of the mind of the observer, his of nature, but the ingrained prejudices of sagely on the essential nature of con- apperceptions of the result of an observa- his critics about how the world should sciousness by alluding to neuronal activ- tion, in terms of concepts, such as posi- work. ity, neurotransmitters, receptor sites, and tions of atoms, which have to be ex- Brian Josephson, a Nobel physicist at functional magnetic resonance imaging plained, then, in terms of the content of Cambridge University, is among the phys- patterns; when they triumphantly pro- consciousness.” This circular reasoning is icists who have probed experiments such claim that it is now proved that mind simply ignored by the Crickish dogma as Bem’s, in which physiological changes equals brain; when they confidently as- that “the atoms, ions, and molecules” ac- occur in the subject before the stimulus sure us that the overall picture of con- count for mind itself. Wigner would have happens. He concludes, “So far, the evi- sciousness is known, and that only the fine none of it, going on to say, “[W]hen it dence seems compelling. What seems to details remain to be filled in—when they [quantum mechanics] uses the concept of be happening is that information is com- say these things, the tendency has been to observations as the basic concept in terms ing from the future. In fact, it’s not clear in assume that they understand what they are of which it formulates its laws, quantum physics why you can’t see the future. In talking about and to give them the benefit mechanics is ‘passing the buck’: the con- physics, you certainly cannot completely of the doubt. However, Bem’s findings cept of observations is outside the realm of rule out this effect.”71 and the accumulated data from a century

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 133 of consciousness research suggest that there are no replicable findings in parapsy- mired in its own dogma, scientism. Bem’s their buoyant pronouncements represent chology. Bem asked Sagan whether he had experiments are the modern equivalent of not understanding but a clotted intellec- taken the time to take a look at the con- Galileo’s telescope, down which the au- tual enterprise that has foundered from its temporary research findings. When Sagan thorities refuse to peer. As bioscientist own inertia. The result is the illusion of admitted he had not, Bem suggested he do Knox describes the current situation: understanding, illustrated in the following so before continuing to make such an as- story: sertion. Sagan promised he would, and Recall the learned men of Galileo’s asked Bem to send him a copy of a re- time who refused to look in the tele- search paper Bem had recently completed [Once upon a time] in an isolated scope. They were of the opinion that with Charles Honorton, Director of the village there was a small Jewish com- data from telescopes was not rele- munity. A famous rabbi once came Psychophysiological Laboratory in Prince- vant. The same thing is happening to the neighboring city to speak and, ton, New Jersey, which Bem did shortly today, except that the limiting doc- as the people of the village were eager afterward.79 The subject of the paper was a trine is not coming from the Catholic to learn what the great teacher would meta-analysis of a host of Ganzfeld stud- Church. It is coming from science— say, they sent a young man to listen. ies, in which an individual who is experi- the new religion of the 21st century. The dogma of this new religion is as When he returned he said, “The encing mild sensory deprivation attempts rigid as that of the earlier church in rabbi spoke three times. The first talk to describe information being sent to him was brilliant—clear and simple. I un- dictating what is and is not accept- in ways that do not involve sensory medi- able in the scientific purview.82 derstood every word. The second was ation. The paper made an impact. Sagan even better—deep and subtle. The called Bem and invited him to present the third was by far the finest—a great and Knox points to an announcement in unforgettable experience. I under- data and arguments to Sagan’s senior sem- the journal Science in 2009 for plans for a stood nothing, and the rabbi himself inar called “Critical Thinking.” Bem com- new medical research facility in London 77 didn’t understand much either. plied shortly thereafter. The next thing that was being called the “Cathedral of Bem heard of their discussion was the fol- Science.”83 The language is revealing: Sci- Or as psychologist C. G. Jung put it, lowing passage which appeared in Sagan’s ence has it’s own dogma; now it will have “This extreme uncertainty of human com- last book, The Demon-Haunted World: its own church. Knox says sadly, “We have prehension makes the intellectual hubbub finally come full circle.”32 not only ridiculous, but also deplorably [T]here are three claims in the ESP dull.”78 field which, in my opinion, deserve A PERSONAL NOTE Despite this situation, many scholars serious study: (1) that by thought When I entered the University of Texas at are beginning to agree, at least privately, alone humans can (barely) affect ran- Austin in my late teens, I fell in love with that the materialistic approach to con- dom number generators in comput- science. During that period of my life, ma- sciousness is incomplete. In one survey of ers; (2) that people under mild sen- terialistic explanations were for me the an- more than 1,100 college professors in the sory deprivation can receive thoughts or images projected at them; and (3) swer to everything. But by the time I fin- United States, 55% of natural scientists, that young children sometimes re- ished medical school, my love affair with 66% of social scientists (psychologists ex- port the details of a previous life, materialism had begun to fade. Too many cluded), and 77% of academics in the arts, which upon checking turn out to be questions relating to the nature of con- humanities, and education reported be- accurate and which they could not sciousness and how it behaves seemed lieving that extrasensory perception or have known about in any other way unanswered and unanswerable from a ma- ESP is either an established fact or a likely than reincarnation.81 terialist perspective. Moreover, the dedi- possibility.79,80 cated materialists I knew seemed incurious If this sounds like a radical conversion, and intellectually lazy and cowardly, ig- it was not, for Sagan’s next words were: “I BEM AND SAGAN noring entire bodies of evidence as if they pick these claims not because I think Materialists do sometimes change their did not exist, and willing to condemn they’re likely to be valid (I don’t), but as views, at least somewhat. As related by these areas with essentially no knowledge examples of contentions that might be Stephan A. Schwartz in his inspiring book of what they were about. true. [These] . . . three have at least some, Opening to the Infinite,14 one such instance During the years of postgraduate train- although still dubious, experimental sup- involved Bem himself, when in 1994 he ing and internal medicine practice that fol- port. Of course, I could be wrong.”81 Al- spoke with Cornell fellow faculty member lowed, questions relating to the nature of though a minimal concession, it was at Carl Sagan. Sagan was well known as a consciousness took on clinical signifi- least a departure from dogmatic absolut- popularizer and communicator of the cance. Sometimes consciousness-related ism. It’s Sagan’s “might” that’s important. space and natural sciences, famous for his events were of life-and-death importance. 1980 television series Cosmos: A Personal Examples of nonlocal knowing, such as Voyage. He was also a prominent cheer- THE CATHEDRAL OF SCIENCE precognitive dreams of clinical events, ap- leader for a materialist view of conscious- The conflict over Bem’s findings reveals peared in my own experience and that of ness and a brutal critic of parapsychology. an unfortunate development—science, physician and nurse colleagues of mine, As Bem and Sagan talked, Sagan repeated which fought for centuries to free itself who would share them with me. One phy- the skeptics’ perennial complaint that from the dogma of the Church, is now sician revealed that she routinely dreams

134 EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 Explorations the precise values of her patients’ lab LESSONS FROM THE BIRDS 5. Bem D. Feeling the future: experimental tests—before she orders the tests. My pa- In recent years, ornithologists have discov- evidence for anomalous retroactive influ- tients, as well as individuals who read my ered that songbirds sing louder and at a ences on cognition and affect. Available at: books on these issues, flooded me with higher frequency in noisy urban environ- http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf. Ac- cessed January 22, 2011. their accounts, often beginning with, “I’ve ments than in quiet rural settings. The rea- 6. Carey B. Journal’s paper on ESP expected never told anyone this, but . . .” Some pa- son, the experts believe, is that they are to prompt outrage. nytimes.com. Available at: competing with background noise to be tients’ lives were saved because they “just http://community.nytimes.com/comments/ knew” they had a problem, although phys- heard. This pattern is widespread, having www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/ ical exams and exotic tests proved normal. been documented in London, Paris, 06esp.html. Accessed January 22, 2011. One woman dreamed the winning lottery Prague, Amsterdam, and other cities. But 7. Hofstadter D. A cutoff for craziness. numbers—not once, but twice. there’s a catch: in singing louder, the qual- New York Times online. Available at: http:// Over the years I devoured the rich liter- ity of the song is degraded, with fewer syl- www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/ 89-91 ature in this field, in which research began lables per second. 01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes- in earnest in the late 19th century. These I mean no disrespect to the birds, but psychic/a-cutoff-for-craziness. January 7, 2011. Accessed February 2, 2011. efforts have attracted men and women of certain humans, as we’ve seen, have re- cently been behaving in the same way. Of- 8. Helfand D. An assault on rational- the keenest intellect and abilities, a few of fended by experimental findings they find ity. New York Times online. Available at: whom I have been privileged to know. offensive, their strategy has been to shout http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/ Gradually for me, the intellectual burden louder. 2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes- of materialism simply became too great. I psychic/esp-and-the-assault-on-rationality. Perhaps critics and proponents alike bailed out. January 7, 2011. Accessed February 2, 2011. could simply take a deep breath and real- So, having temporarily given my heart 9. Krauss LM. No sacred mantle. New York ize that we’re all in the same boat. Our Times online. Available at: http://www. to materialism as a young man, I under- understanding will always be partial, no stand its seductions. I also understand the nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/ matter how far science progresses. Our 06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic/ desire of critics to protect the traditions of worldviews will always be in need of reno- publication-is-not-a-sacred-mantle. January science, so hard-won over centuries, from vation and updating. This realization 7, 2011. Accessed February 6, 2011. being cheapened and polluted. However, might help us turn down the volume. It 10. Gottlieb A. A miracle, if true. New York although I respect the sincere efforts of might mean more civility, tolerance, and Times online. Available at: http://www. Bem’s critics in defending the noble tradi- humility in both politics and science. nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/ tions of science, I say to them: In exclud- We might draw inspiration from novel- 06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes- ing empirical findings you find distasteful, ist Aldous Huxley, who understood these psychic/esp-findings-a-miracle-if-true. Jan- such as Professor Bem’s, you are not de- inevitable uncertainties, saying, “I am en- uary 7, 2011. Accessed February 6, 2011. fending science but degrading it. Science tirely on the side of the mystery. I mean, 11. Jahn RG, Dunne BJ. Consciousness and the Source of Reality. Princeton, NJ: ICRL Press; does not need the kind of protection you any attempts to explain away the mystery 2011. are attempting to provide. is ridiculous . . . . I believe in the profound 12. Jahn RG, Dunne BJ. Margins of Reality: The I suspect Professor Bem looks on the and unfathomable mystery of life . . . which Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. 92 hornet’s nest he has stirred up with a bit of has a . . . divine quality about it.” New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; detached amusement. He happens to be, 1987. after all, a stage magician who has a keen —Larry Dossey, MD 13. Schwartz SA. The Secret Vaults of Time. Char- sense of humor.84 He might even agree Executive Editor lottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publish- with some of the accusations. Is he a her- ing Company; New Edition; 2005. Origi- etic, as his critics suggest? Of course. As nal publication: New York, NY: Grosset & astrophysicist Thomas Gold put it, “Her- REFERENCES Dunlap; 1978. 14. Schwartz SA. Opening to the Infinite: The Art esy [in science] is thought of as a bad 1. Kettering CF. Quoted in: Quotes on truths and beliefs. Typology.net. Available at: and Science of Nonlocal Awareness. Buda, TX: thing, whereas it should be just the oppo- Nemoseen; 2007. site.”85 Is Bem foolish? Certainly. As http://www.typology.net/quotes/maria. html. Accessed February 9, 2010. 15. Larson E. Did psychic powers give firm a Whitehead stated, “Almost all really new 2. Apple Dictionary. Macintosh OS X. Janu- killing in the silver market? Wall Street Jour- ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness ary 23, 2011. nal. October 22, 1984. 86 when they are first produced.” Has he 3. Schwartz SA. The denier movements cri- 16. Dossey L. The Power of Premonitions: How violated current theories? Absolutely, and tique evolution, climate change, and non- Knowing the Future Can Shape Our Lives. proud of it: “The farther the experiment is local consciousness. Explore (NY). 2010;6: New York, NY: Dutton; 2009:54–56. from theory, the closer it is to the Nobel 135-142. 17. Dean D, Mihalasky J. Executive ESP. Engle- Prize,” said Nobel chemist Frédéric Joliot- 4. Benen S. Most scientists politically liberal wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1974. 18. Hyman R. Quoted in: Carey B. Journal’s pa- Curie.87 Has Bem broken the rules? It de- (reality must have a liberal bias). alterne- t.org. July 13, 2009. Available at: http:// per on ESP expected to prompt outrage. ny- pends on how you look at it. As the great www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141264/ times.com. Available at: http://community. inventor Thomas Edison said, “There most_scientists_politically_liberal_(reality_ nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/ ain’t no rules around here! We’re trying to must_have_a_liberal_bias/. Accessed Janu- 2011/01/06/science/06esp.html. Accessed accomplish something!”88 ary 25, 2011. January 22, 2011.

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 135 19. Hyman R. A critical overview of parapsy- ton, FL: Brown Walker Press; 2010:117– line. Available at: http://www.nytimes. chology. In: Kurtz P, ed. A Skeptic’s Hand- 118. com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp- book of Parapsychology. Buffalo, NY: Pro- 33. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philos- study-when-science-goes-psychic/esp-and- metheus Books; 1985:89. ophy. New York: Philosophical Library; the-assault-on-rationality. Accessed Feb- 20. Judd C. Quoted in: Carey B. Journal’s paper 1948:129. ruary 6, 2011. on ESP expected to prompt outrage. nyti- 34. Wilber K, ed. Quantum Questions: The Mys- 48. Carey B. You might already know this . . . mes.com. Available at: http://community. tical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists. nytimes.com. Available at: http://www. nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/ Boston, MA: Shambhala; 1984. nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp. 2011/01/06/science/06esp.html. Accessed 35. James J. The Mysterious Universe. New York, html. Accessed January 23, 2011. January 22, 2011. NY: MacMillan; 1932:168. 49. Bayesian probability. Wikipedia. Available 21. Aldhous P. Is this evidence that we can see 36. Wigner E. Quoted in: Lanza R, Berman B. at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_ the future? newscientist.com. November 11, Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are probability. Accessed January 29, 2011. 2010. Available at: http://www.newscientist. the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of 50. Targ R, Puthoff H. Mind-Reach. Scientists com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that- the Universe. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Look at Psychic Ability. New York, NY: Del- we-can-see-the-future.html Accessed Febru- Inc.; 2009:81. ta; 1977:169. ary 4, 2011. 37. Cho A. After a chort delay, quantum me- 51. Sheldrake R. How widely is blind assess- 22. Galak J, Nelson LD. A replication of the Pro- chanics becomes even weider. Sciencemag. ment used in scientific research? Altern Ther cedures from Bem (2010, Study 8) and a fail- org. February 16, 2007. Available at: Health Med. 1999;5:88-91. ure to replicate the same results. SSRN.com. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/ 52. Sheldrake R. A New Science of Life: The Hy- October 31, 2010. Available at: http:// 2007/02/16-04.html. Accessed February 7, pothesis of Formative Causation. London: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ 2011. Blond and Briggs; 1981. idϭ1699970. Accessed February 4, 2011. 38. Chandler K. The Mind Paradigm: A Central 53. Sheldrake R. Sir John Maddox—book for 23. Schnabel J. Don’t mess with my reality. Model of Mental and Physical Reality. San burning. Sheldrake.org. Available at: http:// hereticalnotions.com. Available at: http:// Jose, CA: Author’s Choice Press; 2001. www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/ 39. Broad CD. Lectures on Psychical Research: In- hereticalnotions.com/2011/01/16/dont- maddox.html. Accessed January 22, 2011. corporating the Perrott Lectures given in Cam- mess-with-my-reality/. Accessed January 54. Sheldrake R. Dogs That Know When Their bridge University in 1959 and 1960. New 22, 2011. Owners Are Coming Home. Reprint edition. York, NY: Humanities Press; 1962:6. 24. Krulwich R. Could it be? Spooky experi- New York, NY: Three Rivers; 2000. 40. Huxley TH. Quoted in: QuoteWorld.org. ments that “see” the future. npr.org. Avail- 55. Maddox J. Quoted in: Sheldrake R. Sir Available at: http://www.quoteworld.org/ able at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/ John Maddox—book for burning. sheldrake. quotes/6974. Accessed September 22, 2011/01/04/132622672/could-it-be-spooky- org. Available at: http://www.sheldrake. 2007. experiments-that-see-the-future. Accessed org/D&C/controversies/maddox.html. 41. Truzzi M. On the reception of unconven- January 22, 2011. Accessed January 22, 2011. tional scientific claims. In: Mauskopf SH, 25. Radin D. Entangled Minds. New York, NY: 56. Lanza R, Berman B. Biocentrism: How Life ed. The Reception of Unconventional Science, Paraview/Simon & Schuster; 2006:161– and Consciousness are the Keys to Understand- AAAS Selected Symposium 25. Boulder, CO; 180. ing the True Nature of the Universe. Dallas, Westview Press; 1979:130. 26. Braud W. Wellness implications of retroac- TX: BenBella Books, Inc.; 2009:8. 42. Watson JD. The Double Helix. New York, tive intentional influence: exploring an NY: Touchstone; 2001:14. 57. Grossman N. Foreword to: Science and the outrageous hypothesis. Altern Ther Health 43. Eysenck H. Quoted in: Koestler A. The Near-Death Experience by Chris Carter. Roch- Med. 2000;6:37-48. Available at: http:// Roots of Coincidence. New York, NY: Ran- ester, VT: Inner Traditions; 2010:x-xi. inclusivepsychology.com/uploads/Wellness dom House; 1972:15. 58. Carter C. Parapsychology and the Skeptics. ImplicationsOfRetroactiveIntentionalInflu 44. Bob. Comment on: Carey B. Journal’s Pittsburgh, PA: Sterlinghouse; 2007. ence.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2011. paper on ESP expected to prompt out- 59. Tart CT. The End of Materialism: How Evi- 27. Cardeña E, Lynn SJ, Krippner S., eds. Va- rage. nytimes.com. Available at: http:// dence of the Paranormal is Bringing Science and rieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining community.nytimes.com/comments/www. Spirit Together. Oakland, CA: New Harbin- the Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp. ger; 2009. American Psychological Association; 2000: html. Accessed January 22, 2011. 60. Kelly EF, Kelly EW, Crabtree A, Gauld A, 222. 45. Caleb. Comment on: David Helfand, An Grosso M, Greyson B. Irreducible Mind: To- 28. Lanza R, Berman B. Biocentrism: How Life assault on rationality. New York Times on- ward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Lan- and Consciousness are the Keys to Understand- line. Available at: http://www.nytimes. ham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2007. ing the True Nature of the Universe. Dallas, com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp- 61. Parker A, Brusewitz G. A compendium of TX: BenBella Books, Inc.; 2009:1–9. study-when-science-goes-psychic/esp-and- the evidence for psi. Eur J Parapsychol. 2003; 29. Radin D. The Conscious Universe. San Fran- the-assault-on-rationality. Accessed Feb- 18:33-51. cisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco; 1997. ruary 6, 2011. 62. Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf. Wikipedia. 30. Radin D. Entangled Minds. New York, NY: 46. Segall S. Comment on: David Helfand, an Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Paraview/Simon & Schuster; 2006. assault on rationality. New York Times on- Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf. Accessed 31. Kelly EF, Kelly EW, Crabtree A, Gauld A, line. Available at: http://www.nytimes. February 4, 2011. Grosso M, Greyson B. Irreducible Mind: To- com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp- 63. Lanza R, Berman B. Biocentrism: How Life ward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Lan- study-when-science-goes-psychic/esp-and- and Consciousness are the Keys to Understand- ham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2007: the-assault-on-rationality. Accessed Feb- ing the True Nature of the Universe. Dallas, 645–655. ruary 6, 2011. TX: BenBella Books, Inc.; 2009:6 32. Knox SS. Science, God and the Nature of Re- 47. Pat. Comment on: David Helfand, an as- 64. Sagan C. The Dragons of Eden. New York, ality: Bias in Biomedical Research. Boca Ra- sault on rationality. New York Times on- NY: Random House; 1977:7.

136 EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 Explorations 65. Crick F. The Astonishing Hypothesis. New 75. De Beauregard OC. The paranormal is not 86. Whitehead AN. Quoted in: Quotes on York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. excluded from physics. J Sci Explorat. 1998; truths and beliefs. Typology.net. Available 66. Wigner EP. Are we machines? Proc Am Phi- 12:315-320. at: http://www.typology.net/quotes/maria. los Soc. 1969;113:95-101. 76. Margenau H. Quoted in: LeShan L. The html. Accessed February 9, 2011. 67. Kauffman S. God enough. Interview of Science of the Paranormal. Northampton- 87. Joliot-Curie F. Quoted in: Quotes on Stuart Kauffman by Steve Paulson. Salon. shire, UK: Aquarian Press; 1987:118. truths and beliefs. Typology.net. Available com. Available at: http://www.salon. 77. Petersen A. In: French AP, Kennedy PJ, eds. at:http://www.typology.net/quotes/maria. com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_ Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume. Cam- html. Accessed February 9, 2011. kauffman/index1.html. Accessed January bridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 88. Edison TA. Quoted in: Quotes on truths 30, 2010. 1985:299. and beliefs. Typology.net. Available at: 78. Jung CG. Psychology and the Occult. Prince- 68. Fodor J. The big idea: Can there be a sci- http://www.typology.net/quotes/maria. ence of mind? Times Literary Suppl. July 3, ton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1977: html. Accessed February 9, 2011. 1992:5-7. 136. 89. Potvin DA, Parris KM, Mulder RA. Geo- 69. Dyson F. How we know. The New York Re- 79. Wagner MW, Monnet M. Attitudes of col- graphically pervasive effects of urban noise view of Books. March 10, 2011; LVIII:8-12. lege professors toward extra-sensory per- ception. Zetetic Scholar. 1979;5:7-17. on frequency and syllable rate of songs and 70. Greene B. The Fabric of the Cosmos. New 80. Bem DJ, Honorton C. Does psi exist? Rep- calls in silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). Pro- York, NY: Vintage; 2005:145. licable evidence for an anomalous process ceedings of the Royal Society B online. 71. Josephson B. Is this really proof that of information transfer. Psychol Bull. 1994; Royalsocietypublishing.org. Available at: man can see into the future? Daily Mail 115:4-8. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ (London). dailymail.co.uk. May 4, 2007. 81. Sagan C. The Demon-Haunted World. New content/early/2011/01/05/rspb.2010.2296. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co. York, NY: Random House; 1996:302. uk/sciencetech/article-452833/Is-REALLY- Accessed January 20, 2011. 82. Knox SS. Science, God and the Nature of Re- proof-man-future.html. Accessed January 90. Brumm H. The impact of environmental ality: Bias in Biomedical Research. Boca Ra- 26, 2011. noise on song amplitude of a territorial ton, FL: Brown Walker Press; 2010:140. bird. J Anim Ecol. 2004;73:434-440. 72. Boundary Institute. Available at: http:// 83. Travis J. Plans for London ‘cathedral of sci- 91. Highfield R. Palace great tits learn to sing www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/index. ence’ unveiled. Science. 2009;326:1468- louder to cope with the noise of city html. Accessed January 25, 2011. 1469. life. The Telegraph online. Available at: 73. Shoup R. Physics without causality—theory 84. Daryl Bem reenacts Stanford prison ex- telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph. and evidence. Paper presented to the Soci- periment with a twist. YouTube.com. ety for Scientific Exploration, 26th Annual Available at: http://www.youtube. co.uk/news/uknews/1536010/Palace- Meeting, East Lansing, Michigan, May 30- com/watch?vϭDeUbEuj1B-Q. Accessed great-tits-learn-to-sing-louder-to-cope- June 2; 2007:12. February 9, 2011. with-the-noise-of-city-life.html. Decem- 74. Feinberg G. Precognition—a memory of 85. Gold T. Quoted in: Quotes on truths and ber 4, 2006. Accessed January 20, 2011. things future. In: Oteri L, ed. Quantum beliefs. Available at: Typology.net. http:// 92. Huxley A. Quoted in: Bedford S. Aldous Physics and Parapsychology. New York, NY: www.typology.net/quotes/maria.html. Ac- Huxley: A Biography. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Parapsychology Foundation; 1975. cessed February 9, 2011. Dee; 1974:727.

Explorations EXPLORE May/June 2011, Vol. 7, No. 3 137