Notes of a Psi-Watcher

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.

Load more