Skepticism
Skepticism
March, 2004
Not long ago I was asked if Dr. Gary Schwartz's professional career was going the way of Pons & Fleischmann. Pons & Fleischmann made a big splash with their initial announcement of cold fusion in 1989. But as the attempts to replicate the experiment by other labs met with failure, and Pons & Fleischmann failed to produce any positive results, they faded to obscurity. After the news made by Schwartz's books on his study of mediums is he headed for the same fate?
Initially I had answered no. For all the problems with the claims of Pons & Fleischmann, they were trying to do legitimate science. They brought their work up before real scientists, when improvements to their methods were suggested they were tried. Schwartz on the other hand submitted his work to journals specializing in the paranormal. There is also the fact that favorites of the paranormal world never seem to fade. Famed psychic Edward Cayce is still referred to even though his predicted dates for the rise of Atlantis and the Second Coming have long since passed.
On Second Thought...
Some time later I thought about the question again. Perhaps there is more of a similarity than I first considered. Schwartz has different demands on him than the paranormalists. Paranormalists here being used to refer to the people who claim paranormal powers. For example Cayce, Geller, Edward, and Popoff. Schwartz is not a paranormalist, he is a pseudoscientist. Instead of claiming paranormal ability, he is merely claiming evidence of it through faulty scientific claims.
The paranormalist claims to have a power or ability. The only thing they need to do is to demonstrate this 'ability'. There is no other demand on them other than to provide this demonstration. In this way, people like John Edward can perform the exact same act over and over with no complaints. It is what is expected of him. Over a long period of time the fascination might wear off, but the belief in the act likely will not. It would be more of a surprise if they stopped performing the same tricks.
The pseudoscientist on the other hand has does not have this advantage. Science is supposed to advance, to learn new things and make new discoveries. The experiments of great scientists may have been earth shattering in their time, but today the same experiments would likely only be done as a method of teaching students or demonstration. The great experiments of old are not likely to be done by current researchers. At the very least we would expect to see refinements done. The same basic experiment might be done but with variations that give more detailed results, or test particular aspects of the experiment.
Likewise pseudoscience needs to at least give the appearance of advancing. A faulty experiment that claims to prove the paranormal will be widely accepted by believers. However if the researcher merely does the exact same experiment over and over the reaction might be "Yes, we know that. What else have you discovered?"
When You Come To A Fork In The Road...
How can the pseudoscientist 'advance'? There are two basic ways to give the illusion of advancement. One is refining the experiment. Small changes to fix problems with the protocols, perhaps presented to try and silence critics. While plugging the holes in the protocols is a good idea, often we see that only a couple are plugged while many more are left in place, still invalidating the experiment. Sometimes new holes are created when the old ones are plugged. It gives the impression of improvement, and may in fact reduce the problems with an experiment. But there still remains problems that make it invalid.
The best possible direction to take is where problems are corrected and no new ones are created. In time this could lead to valid experiments that can withstand criticism. The problem is that when this is done the pseudoscientists will usually find diminishing returns. Spectacular results are reduced to statistical insignificance. These results do not receive the same attention the earlier incredible results are given. The pseudoscientist has reached a dead end. The only option left is to go the second route of illusionary advancements.
The second method is simply to keep creating new types of experiments. Why fix the problems with the old experiment when you can simply start over with something that appears totally new? You do not have to be testing for anything different, it is just in the presentation. For example PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) researches the idea of humans telekinetically influencing machines. These experiments include random number generators, fountains, pendulums, robots, and other devices. Essentially the problems with one of these experiments can be found in all the others. Questionable events counted as ‘hits’, questionable analysis to calculate probability of such ‘hits’. Rather than fix them a new experiment is designed, a new device to use is found. They repeat the same problems but that is hidden by making it look like a totally new experiment.
A "Schwartz" Eating (White) Crow?
In his experiments Dr. Schwartz has been using the first method. Small improvements are made for each new round of his experiments, despite having the advantage of many other problems and possible corrections pointed out to him. The latest I am aware of is what is termed the "White Crow" readings. While there are still some serious questions on how they were done, they appear at least to attempt to use double blind protocols. The result? A slight positive result that is within chance results. Nothing remarkable. It is only by extrapolating that result to a larger, more suitable number of test subjects does he make it appear as if there was some significance. The 66% positive result rate for 6 subjects is statistically insignificant, so Schwartz states how if there were 25 subjects it would be significant, acting as if they had achieved that result with that many subjects.
It would appear Dr. Schwartz has reached the dead end. What will he do now? Will he continue in this line only to find negative results, which would likely never see the light of day? Then his time in the spotlight will come to an end. Will he change to a new direction, coming up with different looking experiments that will repeat the problems of the past ones? This would allow him to continue to be in the paranormal spotlight, with no real change or advancement. Or could he surprise everyone and become a real scientist?
Time will tell the route his career will go.
