MARTIN GARDNER Notes of a Psi-Watcher

Magicians in the Psi Lab: Many Misconceptions

Harry Collins, a University of Bath spotting new methods they are of little sociologist, is best known for his ex­ value as observers. treme relativistic philosophy of science He feels that magicians should not (see my review of Frames of Meaning, be allowed to monitor experiments be­ which he coauthored, in the Fall 1983 cause they are usually unfriendly issue of Free Inquiry), and for having toward psi research and have a vested caught a group of spoon-bending chil­ interest in seeing psychics discredited. dren at cheating. The New Scientist Collins doesn't mention the belief of (June 30, 1983) printed his "Magicians most parapsychologists that hostile ob­ in the Laboratory: A New Role to servers inhibit psi phenomena, but even Play," in which he discusses what he aside from this he thinks magicians would calls the "vexed relationship" between have a damaging effect on experiments magicians and psi researchers. His ar­ if they were allowed to monitor them. ticle contains many misconceptions How, then, can conjurors help? about magic; but, before detailing One way, Collins says, is by breaking them, first a sketch of his views. their code of secrecy and explaining to Randi's recent Project Alpha, researchers how cheating can be done. Collins writes, has reminded us again If magicians are unwilling to do this, of how easily psi researchers can be they should serve as "protocol break­ hoodwinked. Because the history of ers," by demonstrating the same para­ paranormal research has been riddled normal phenomena under the same with fraud, Collins wisely recommends controls applied to the psychic. If they that, no matter how innocent a subject fail to break the protocol, this "would may appear, experiments must be de­ act as a certificate of competence in signed on the assumption that the sub­ experimental design." ject is "a notorious cheat." Unfortu­ Misconception I: Collins fails to nately, he adds, completely fraud-proof distinguish stage performers from magi­ tests are impossible because there is no cians who specialize in close-up magic. way to anticipate new methods of Throughout his article he repeatedly cheating. Since magicians know stand­ refers to "stage magicians" and "illu­ ard ways, they can be enormously use­ sionists." The distinction is vital, ful as advisors. But because they are because the methods used by psychic not much better than nonmagicians in charlatans have almost nothing in

Winter 1983-84 111 common with stage magic. Although to any knowledgeable close-up magi­ psychics like Uri Geller and Nina cian who sees the charlatan perform. Kulagina may use a few concealed When new tricks come on the "gimmicks" (magnets, "invisible" thread, market, dealers like to advertise them nail writers, palmed mirrors, and so in magic periodicals with glowing de­ on), for the most part they perform scriptions that seem to rule out all close-up magic that requires no appara­ standard methods. Magicians are often tus. extremely good in guessing the modus Some stage magicians are know­ operandi from the ad, without even ledgeable about close-up magic, but seeing the trick performed. Of course, not necessarily so. A stage performer is if they actually saw the trick demon­ essentially an actor playing the role of strated, it would be enormously easier. a magician, relying for his miracles on And if they saw it more than once, it costly equipment designed by others. would be a rare trick indeed that would Any good actor could easily take over resist unraveling. Doug Henning's role in the Broadway A few years ago my friend Persi musical Merlin, for example, and the Diaconis, a statistician who is also a stage illusions would work just as well. skilled card magician, telephoned to say It is important for psi researchers to that a certain Oriental conjuror was know this. Otherwise they might seek appearing that night on television and the help of a prominent stage perform­ would be performing a sensational new er who has less knowledge of close-up trick with a silk. The silk is twisted like magic than thousands of amateurs. a rope, cut in half, the halves rolled Misconception 2: Collins is per­ into a ball, and when unrolled, the silk suaded that magicians are not much is restored. Persi had not yet seen the better than scientists in spotting new trick, but had heard it described by ways to cheat. He concedes that "skilled puzzled magicians. After discussing practitioners of deception" may be several methods, we finally agreed on better than scientists in seeing loop­ what we thought was the most proba­ holes develop in an experiment, but he ble technique. When we watched the adds, "I think it would be hard to show that night, our hypothesis was demonstrate this." verified. The point is that we guessed On the contrary, it is easy to the method before we even saw the demonstrate. Collins could convince trick. himself of this simply by accompanying Sometimes it is impossible to guess someone like Randi to a magic conven­ from a description. When 1 was a tion at which dealers demonstrate new young man in Chicago, Joe Berg's tricks for the first time and see how he magic shop advertised a miracle called compares with Randi in figuring them the "none-such ribbon effect." A out. It is true that magicians some­ ribbon, the ad said, is cleanly cut in times fool other magicians, but not half and the ends widely separated. often and not for long. The "magician's After the restoration, the ribbon is the magician" who enjoys inventing tricks same length as before. No ribbon is to fool his colleagues bears no resem­ added or taken away, and no adhe- blance to the psychic charlatan. The sives, magnets, or other secret aids are charlatan is usually a mediocre per­ needed. I was unable to guess the former who has hit on some crude method. A few days later, in Joe's methods of deception all his own—meth­ shop, 1 asked him to demonstrate the ods that are transparent almost at once trick. As soon as he did, I understood.

112 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 8 1 am free to give away the secret because this clinker of a trick has never been performed by a magician, and never will be. The "ribbon" proved to be crepe paper. It was genuinely cut, the halves folded into a parcel, one half palmed away, then the other half was pulled out of the fist in such a manner that it stretched to twice it's original length! New methods of deception are invariably based on ancient general principles that any experienced conjur­ or knows in his bones. No magician could have witnessed the none-such ribbon effect without seeing at once how it worked, even though no one had ever before thought of restoring a ribbon in this peculiar way. Scientists are helpless in the hands of a clever such misdirection. Nonmagicians are charlatan, whether he uses old or new not. Incidentally, in Slade's day many methods, but knowledgeable magicians scientists were totally convinced that are far from helpless regardless of how his slate writing was genuine. Is it not unorthodox the new methods may be. curious that chalked messages appear­ Their ability to detect fraud by novel ing on slates have disappeared from techniques is vastly superior to that of the repertoire of modern psychics? any investigator without a magic back­ Conjurors obviously can be of ground, even if he has a high I.Q. and great help in designing protocols, but a Nobel Prize. if a charlatan is using new methods, or Misconception 3: The suggestion performing a feat never performed that magicians should advise but not before (such as Ted Serios's trick with observe is naive. Until a magician Polaroid cameras), it is almost essential actually sees a clever psychic perform, that he be observed initially by a magi­ he is in a poor position to know what cian. True, in many cases a committee controls should be adopted. It is no of magicians may, on the basis of a good to rely on a scientist's memory of careful, accurate description of a psy­ what he saw, because such memories chic's performance, figure out how the are notoriously faulty. Good magic is psychic could be cheating and suggest carefully designed to conceal a trick's adequate controls. In some cases, how­ most essential aspects, and even what a ever, the memories of psi researchers magician says is planned to make a are too vague and flawed to permit spectator forget crucial details. The such reconstruction. Only by seeing the medium Henry Slade, for example, was psychic do his or her thing can the once tested by a group of scientists. No magician make intelligent guesses and one recalled afterward that a slate had not waste the researcher's time by sug­ "accidentally" slipped out of Slade's gesting twenty different ways the hands and dropped on the rug. Yet it psychic could have cheated. Of course was at just this instant that Slade it is essential that a psychic not know a switched slates. Magicians are alert to magician is present. Psi powers have a

Winter 1983-84 113 way of evaporating even if the psychic their psychic bending unobserved. A only suspects a magician may be pre­ ridiculously easy way to settle this hy­ sent. The reason D. D. Home was pothesis would be to videotape the never caught cheating was that Home youngsters secretly, the way Collins took extreme precautions to perform did. If Hasted ever tried this, I haven't miracles only in the presence of persons heard of it. It is passing strange that he knew to be untrained in magic. parapsychologists who become con­ Suppose a club suspects a member vinced that psychics can bend metal of cheating at card games. How should seem absolutely incapable of devising a members go about catching him? It is simple trap. This augurs ill for the hope folly to ask an expert on card-swind­ that they will ever seek the aid of magi­ ling to design precautions, because cians in any significant way. there are thousands of ways to cheat. I Misconception 4: It is naive to can show you fifty ways to false shuffle suppose that most researchers are a deck, and as many ways of getting capable of setting up controls for a secret peeks of top and bottom cards. magician that are identical to those Persi can demonstrate twenty different imposed on a psychic in the past exper­ ways to deal the second card instead of iment. If a videotape of an entire exper­ the top one, some by using only one iment is made, without breaks, it might hand. There are dozens of subtle ways be possible; but even here there are to mark certain cards in the course of major difficulties. Take the case of Ted a game. Nor is it feasible for a card Serios. Suppose a tape had been made "mechanic" to give club members an that showed Ted holding his "gizmo" adequate course in cheating. It would (rolled piece of paper) in front of the require many months. Obviously noth­ camera lens and a picture of the Eiffel ing is gained by having the mechanic Tower appearing on the film. A magi­ sit in on games if the hustler knows cian asked to break protocols would who he is. And how can club members ask: Was the gizmo examined immedi­ be sure that the hustler doesn't know? ately before the event was recorded? The fact is that there is only one The researcher may honestly say yes; good way to settle the matter. A trap but unless a magician had been there, must be set. Let the expert observe a there is no way to rule out the possibil­ game secretly, either through a peep­ ity that Ted palmed an optical device hole or a carefully constructed one-way into the gizmo after it had been ex­ mirror. This is such a simple way to amined. Even if the tape showed the trap a cheat that one of the great gizmo being examined, if Ted were marvels of modern psi research is that careful of camera angles nothing on the the only researchers of recent decades film would reveal palming. Similarly, who have used it seem to be Collins an adequate tape would have to show and the parapsychologists in Dr. the gizmo examined immediately after Rhine's laboratory who set a peephole the camera snapped, and in such a way trap for their director, Walter Levy. that it ruled out Ted palming a device out of the gizmo. Consider the sad case of John Hasted, a Birkbeck College physicist Jule Eisenbud, who wrote an who firmly believes that children can entire book about Ted, has repeatedly paranormally bend paperclips inside a challenged Randi to break his proto­ glass sphere, provided the sphere has a cols. Why has Randi refused? Because hole in it and the children are allowed Eisenbud, having learned from magi­ to take it into another room and do cians how Ted could have cheated, now

114 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 8 wants to impose on Randi controls that chologist willing to listen how Geller were never imposed on Ted. Magicians bends keys. Surely Collins knows about think Randi has already broken Eisen- my Science article (reprinted in Sci­ bud's protocols; but Eisenbud does not ence: Good, Bad, and Bogus) that ex­ think so, and neither do many top poses the secrets of eyeless vision, ex­ parapsychologists. Researchers typi­ cept for Kuda Bux's method—and that cally demand of magicians that they was because Kuda made his living with repeat past miracles under conditions it. Surely Collins knows of the two radically unlike those that prevailed books by Uriah Fuller, on sale in magic when the "psychic" produced them. stores, that give away all of Geller's The fact is that there is no way to make basic techniques. Randi and I will sure controls are identical unless a happily tell anyone how Nina Kulagina magician has been there to see the uses invisible threads to move matches psychic perform. Memories of research­ and float table-tennis balls, and how ers untrained in magic are far too Felicia Parise could have moved a pill unreliable. Of course one could ask bottle for Charles Honorton. How that a magician and a psychic produce Collins got the impression that magi­ a paranormal event under identical cians are reluctant to explain secrets of controls, supervised by outsiders, but psychic fraud is beyond me. Even the what psychic charlatan would ever secrets of legitimate magic are readily agree to such a test? available to any psi researcher who Misconception 5: Collins makes cares to buy a few dozen modern books much of his belief that magicians refuse on the subject. to give away methods used by psychics. Misconception 6: Collins actually, They do indeed refuse to give away thinks that if magicians were routinely secrets of tricks by which professional asked to observe psychic wonders it magicians earn a legitimate living, would wreck science. It is not just that including entertainers like Kreskin who fraud is possible in all experiments and pose as psychics; but at the low level of there aren't enough magicians to go prestidigitation on which psychics oper­ around; but psi research, like all re­ ate, magicians have never hesitated to search, is a vast social enterprise exten­ give away secrets. ding over long periods of time. It As Collins knows, Houdini con­ simply would not work, says Collins, if stantly exposed the methods of fraud­ hostile magicians were perpetually ulent mediums. Randi has tirelessly underfoot. explained the methods of Uri Geller What Collins ignores here are two and other mountebanks. The three all-important distinctions. One is magicians who investigated Serios for between the operations of nature and Popular Photography (October 1967) human nature; the other is between explained in detail how to produce all ordinary and extraordinary phenom­ of Ted's effects with an optical gim­ ena. As I like to say, electrons and mick. One of the three, Charles gerbils don't cheat. Even among psy­ Reynolds (who designs illusions for chics, very few claim such fantastic Doug Henning and other stage per­ powers as the ability to bend metal by formers) is certainly not going to tell PK, translocate objects, and levitate Collins how Doug vanished an elephant tables. It is only when exceedingly rare or how David Copperfield made the miracles like these are seriously inves­ Statue of Liberty disappear, but he tigated that it is essential to call in an minds not at all telling any parapsy- expert on the art of close-up cheating.

Winter 1983-84 115 And it is essential in many cases that ton, and Charles Tart that those events the expert be there to watch, not just were genuine. Who can take seriously give advice at some later date to today J. B. Rhine's claim that Hubert researchers who, more often than not, Pearce correctly guessed 25 ESP cards in the past have paid not the slightest in a row? Only Rhine observed this attention to such advice. miracle, and there are 20 ways Pearce Some of the most widely heralded could have cheated. When a psychic miracles are one-time events that the produces events this extraordinary, it psychic never does again, such as the is impossible to imagine that he or she time Geller translocated a dog through would ever submit to retesting under the walls of Puharich's house, or Felicia controls recommended by a magician, moved a pill bottle, or Charles Tart's let alone being observed by a magician sleeping subject guessed the number on during the retesting. a card that Tart had put on a shelf In sum: if parapsychologists seek­ above her line of vision. Since no ex­ ing the aid of magicians tried to follow pert on fraud was there as an observer, Collins's naive guidelines, it is easy to no one should take seriously the claims predict the outcome. In a word— of Andrija Puharich, Charles Honor- zilch. •

116 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 8