Failure to Replicate Fallacy

Opinion 4

Abstract

This Opinion uses a research report published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration to address my concerns with what I have come to think of as Failure to Replicate reports. Such reports appear to be legitimate science conducted by Ph.Ds. that show the phenomena have not been replicated under scientifically controlled conditions. The implication taken by skeptics is that the research shows that the reported phenomena are mundane mistaken as paranormal (Apophenia, Pareidolia), illusion due to mental aberration or fraud.

In many cases, such as the one discussed here, the authors designed a research protocol that appears to be based on assumptions for which there is no empirical support. The issues are discussed, and remedies are recommended.

Please note that this essay was written for a website. Except for three references, links are to online reference, rather than to references at the end of this document. Links followed by ↓ are internal links. All else are external.

Problematic Science

This Opinion is about a parapsychological research report I believe conveys a different impression than intended by the authors. The research report is titled A Test of an Occult-Themed Séance: Examining Anomalous Events, Psychosomatic Symptoms, Transliminality, and Electromagnetic Fields. It is published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. ^{(Ref. 1)↓}

Abstract (of reviewed paper)

This paper reports on an Owen and Sparrow (1976) ↓ genre séance study to examine the relationships among transliminality, psychokinesis (PK), general subjective and external anomalous experiences, contagion effects,↓ and small variations in electromagnetic field activity. Eleven participants in two series of séance sessions were observed and recorded for anomalous, subjective, and somatic experiences. No verifiable PK or video-captured anomalous activity occurred, but relationships were found between geomagnetic and electromagnetic field activity during the reporting of subjective anomalous experiences. Electromagnetic fields were found to vary significantly across sessions. Contagion effects were found in the types of reports issued by participants. Transliminality and related measures were unrelated to subjective reports of anomalous phenomena. Implications of electromagnetic and geomagnetic fields associated in time with anomalous somatic reports and future research are discussed.

From the Discussion section of the reviewed paper:

Our goal in the current study was to contextually examine the séance environment, both in its ability to produce anomalous PK phenomena, and also psychological factors such as contagion and transliminality. Although we failed to witness or create any clear cases of PK, our findings indicated that participants had a variety of subjective experiences. Likewise, we were able to demonstrate that contagion effects are evident in the séance setting. The current research also provides a more detailed examination of the role of EMF and GMF in the context of anomalous phenomena. Our findings demonstrated significant variability of EMF and GMF across sessions and exceeded what we would expect an undisturbed distribution of EMF/ GMF to produce. Similar to the external haunting phenomena associated with EMF/GMF in Laythe and Owen (2013),*↓ EMF/GMF spikes were significantly associated in time with the participant’s reported experiences. But the majority of significant findings showed that fewer EMF/GMF were present than chance would expect. The significant absence of EMF/GMF occurred despite higher amounts of spikes in the overall dataset.

* See abstract ^{(Ref. 3)↓} Laythe and Owen sought to determine the relationship, if any, between hallucinations and magnetic fields in haunted locations.

The study tracked the perceptual characteristics of sitters and used electronic monitoring devices with the intention of capturing an objective record of physical phenomena. A digital record of possibly meaningful perturbations of magnetic fields during sessions was maintained and correlated with the audio and visual record.

The paranormalist community benefits anytime an informed, qualified researcher is willing to conduct a study of paranormal phenomena while following a well-considered protocol. This study does appear to be an earnest effort to study the phenomena. However, it is highlighted here because many of the assumptions made by the authors about current understanding of the target phenomena appear to be poorly informed. The result is the publication of the kind of research report I have come to think of as a failure to replicate↓ report. I write about it in this Opinion because such reports too often become a reference for skeptical debunkers.

You may only want the highlights, so I have explained my concerns first, and then included the background material thereafter. That way, you can refer to the supporting material as you feel the need.

My Concerns

Overall, this study does not further our efforts to understand these phenomena. Some parts of it, however, does expand our understanding of what does not work.

Furthers our understanding

1. Calibrated magnetic field measurements: As I understand the report, the authors first monitored the location for a time to establish a reading for the average deviation of local magnetic field. That number was used as a relative zero-reference for that location. Based on my understanding of physics, local magnetic fields and electronics, this appears to be a very smart approach to dealing with the measurement of a notoriously variable parameter.

Magnetic field readings made when sitters reported sensing something out of the ordinary were compared to that average reading. The authors indicated that there was more than the expected coincidence of spikes in the local magnetic field during the sessions, but they did not necessarily correlate with reports from the sitters. I have discussed this in the Psi Influence on Electronic Devices↓ section.

2. Best Practices: Best practices for a séance are discussed in The Circle,↓ In a “Now we know that doesn’t work” sort of way, this study does reinforce reasons for currently accepted practices for conducting a circle. As it is, this study represents a lost opportunity to study the effect of psi on electronic equipment.
3. Human Nature: The study does consider psychological characteristics of people working together while presumably in close contact with unseen influences. There may be value in once again creating a situation in which the well-established human characteristics can be demonstrated. My preference would be to see a focus on how entrainment↓ can be enhanced to improve the psi response.

Fosters doubt

1. Another bone for the skeptics: My first reaction in reading this report was that the authors had created another failure to replicate↓ report that would probably be used to debunk the phenomena I study. My reaction would have been very different had the authors conducted the study using established circle practitioners. Genuine guidance for séance design might have come from the study of a functioning circle. ↓

Having someone show that perturbations in local magnetic field can be detected when physical phenomena occur in a séance setting would provide important understanding for future practices and study. The problem is that no physical phenomena were reported. Realistically, the protocol was flawed, it failed, and there should have been no resulting report.

2. Partially qualified: The three authors of this report work in a university psychology department. As well as I can tell, their degrees are in psychology. The lead author, I think Brian Laythe, indicates that they used 3-axis magnetometers of his design. That would suggest that he has more than a passing understanding of electrical circuity. Certainly, he has participated in many studies concerning magnetic fields and paranormal phenomena, so I have to think that he has the technical background to understand my point about the similarity of his device with devices known to register psi influences. See EVP and Psi Functioning Induced Artifacts↓

If the authors are aware of psi induced artifacts in electronic equipment, they do not reference the theory as a possible explanation for what might cause apparent magnetic field fluctuations. None of the other reports I have read by the lead author indicates his awareness of the possibility.

A best practice for research is to have people participate who have related qualifications. The study would have benefited by the addition of a person trained in electronics and one more familiar with best practices for physical séances and development circles.↓

3. Qualified circle: One of the goals of the study was to see if a séance-like environment would create genuine haunt-like PsychoKinesis (PK) phenomena. The evidence of PK phenomena in physical séances is substantial. The PK is also induced, in that a cookbook approach is taken by some circles to reliably produce PK. While some forms of phenomena are not reliably induced, they are expected. For instance, it is common practice to place objects in the center of the circle with the hope they will be moved about with PK. Other forms of PK may not be as predictable, such as a levitated trumpet, but they are reasonably expected during the session.

Phenomena verbally reported or occurring with sitter contact such as table-tilting may be genuine; however, unless full levitation is detected, table tilting and individual reports of sensing something have little value in research, other than to study human nature, such as the Contagion Effects ↓ mentioned in the study.

The cookbook-like practice for a circle serves to entrain the sitters toward a common frame of mind. The necessary ingredient for a successful circle is the inclusion of qualified practitioners. This may be a physical medium, but it at least includes sitters who have a history of producing phenomena, either individually or as a group.

Thus, it is reasonable to use a séance technique to induce PK. The problem is that one does not gather a bunch of people, put them into a séance environment using one of the common practices, and expect to produce PK. Such a research protocol does not represent a rational interpretation of current understanding about circles. Doing so suggests either ignorance of the practices or a determined attempt to debunk séances. Skeptics will use such a report by learned Ph.Ds. to debunk séances. failure to replicate↓

4. Subjective sitter interaction: Sitter’s subjective reports of movement and feelings were recorded and correlated amongst the sitters and with deviations in magnetic field. Much of the report was concerned with this correlation. The authors also correlated instances in which other sitters agreed by reporting they also felt something. Contagion Effects ↓

On the surface, this is good research showing that the Contagion Effect also occurs in séances. In mental mediumship, a common problem is coloring a message by telling a story that seemed to make the messages more meaningful, when in fact, the message was a miss. Retro Familiar Storytelling is a term I use to describe how a medium changes the story to agree with the sitter’s response. In this, the medium thinks he or she remembers sensing the relevant information.

This feedback is sometimes referred to as feeding the medium which is counterproductive. The medium may not realize that he or she is developing memory of what was mentally sensed based on current feedback. This is a pretty natural human trait which is desirable to overcome when seeking greater lucidity. From the report: Anomalous perceptions, ↓

Thus, one theoretical explanation for anomalous phenomena is that individuals high in transliminality are sensitive to psychosomatic effects created by contagion. (Page 576)^{(Ref. 1)↓}

And

Work in transliminality might also define most haunting experiences as mass psychogenic illness …. Each of these conditions begins with a believed environmental trigger-contagion, not unlike an environmental stimulus interpreted as a haunting. (Page 577)^{(Ref. 1)↓}

The authors correctly noted that shared reaction of sitters is sometimes induced with trickery. I have not experienced this in physical seances we have attended, nor has our development found the technique useful, but the point is clear. Anything that gives the sense something might happen seems to interrupt the mind’s process of making the world as it has always been made.^{(Ref. 2)↓}

5. The protocol may have involved too many variables to properly assess the effectiveness of any one question. One reason this Opinion is so long is that each question requires consideration. As I read it, the report attempted to answer five questions:

Research Question 1 – Will the sitters exhibit Contagion effects?

Research Question 2 – Will the Anomalous perceptions, Paranormal Beliefs and Transliminality tests predict sitter behavior?

Research Question 3 – Will haunt-like PK be produced by the sitters?

Research Question 4 – Will there be a correlation between changes in local magnetic field and reported paranormal experiences?

Research Question 5 – Will there be a correlation between changes in local magnetic field and reported instrument-verified PK events?

The questions are interdependent, but since each represents an unknown, the idea that haunt phenomena were studied in a laboratory environment is a falsehood. None was produced.

6. Using a relatively untested mathematical technique for data analysis, by itself, negates the entire study. Such research tools potentially involve unexpected artifacts which, themselves must be understood before the tool is useful for research.
7. Stated in the conclusion: “While by no means definitive, the current research adds to a body of growing literature where electromagnetic fields are associated with what is perceived as paranormal activity.” I disagree. The authors are assuming they have sufficiently proven their point, even though the primary objective was a failure.

For the record, the research I have seen seems to be ambiguous about whether magnetism is a factor. It certainly is not for Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), which are PK-related phenomena. The authors showed no sign of considering the implications of EVP.

8. Considering the baseless assumption that inexperienced students can be enlisted to function as a successful circle, I must think this report was not peer-reviewed. If it was, one must conclude that the peers were not qualified to review a report on this subject.

To be clear, I like the fact that the authors tried a novel way to produce PK under controlled conditions and that they are experimenting with detection techniques. We really do not know enough about these things to say what will and what will not work. It should also be noted that I am especially sensitive to anything that seems to detract from our efforts to create a cooperative community that bridges the Academic-Layperson Partition. My readers should note that I may be too harsh.

Failure to Replicate Fallacy

We learned from Imants Barušs’ Failure to Replicate report previously published in the same journal, that he used college students as test subjects. None of the students had a history of successful EVP collection. That probably didn’t matter because the practice of recording very long sessions made it unlikelihood the untrained listeners would be able to detect any but the very rare Class A examples. Predictably, all he ended up proving was that it is foolish to conduct research using people who are not known to have recorded EVP. The resulting failure to replicate article has been cited many times by skeptic Wikipedia editors to suggest a reason to doubt the verifiability of EVP and to establish its study as pseudoscience.

We have devoted a lot of time trying to convince parapsychologists that research should be conducted with competent practitioners and using a well-designed protocol. As with any human ability, the production of phenomena is distributed so that anyone might possibly produce a paranormal event but only a few can be expected to produce an event during any one session. For EVP, it is unlikely that the average college student will produce an EVP with the first few tries. It is as unlikely they will recognize an EVP when they heard one.

Paranormal events are, by definition, relatively rare. For instance, transform EVP are sometimes classified as Class A, B and C:

Class C: An estimate 90 -95% are Class C. They are very difficult to make out and should not be shared with others. Certainly, they should not be used as a form of evidence except to establish a norm.

Class B: These represent an estimated 4-5% of all utterances designated as EVP. Transform EVP are typically only a word or two in length, and in Class B, a few understandable syllables are normal. Class B should only be shared with guidance for the listener.

Class A: The rarest form of EVP are Class A utterances in which most, if not all of the examples can be clearly understood without prompting.

Phenomena for a new development circle is probably even less common. Using statistical methods to screen data for events tends to discard target events. For instance, a detectible instance of PK in the seance room would be a Class A by any measure, and rare enough to fall out of a statistical analysis as an outlier.

Limits of Acceptable Data

This is a good place to point out that, for ATransC studies, we felt that examples of Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) produced by way of direct human interaction or reporting were of little use for research. Such examples are useful as a contributing element if they collaborate objective examples.

I like to use the “It’s Frank” example recorded by Karen Mossey. In a hauntings investigation setting, a child spirit had been reported in the home. The family cat was named Frank. A medium said that there was a child in the closet about the time that Frank the cat walked into the closet and Karen recorded the child’s voice saying, “It’s Frank.” By itself, the child spirit reports and the medium’s comment about a child in the closet would not be acceptable to us for research even if they might be profoundly important on a personal level to the home owners. However, they inherited credibility from the EVP as it coincided with the cat named Frank walking into the closet.

A sitter saying that he or she sensed something at the same time a magnetic field detector registered a spike in ambient magnetic field would seem to suggest that the report and the spike would give both mutually inherited credibility. However, refer to the EVP and Psi Functioning Induced Artifacts ↓ note below. There is no precedence for a magnetic field factor from our study of transcommunication, especially EVP.

Magnetic fields are notoriously unstable, and it is difficult to establish a control for what they register. However, the authors have applied a mathematical technique that helps them establish a probability that a spike will occur in any one time period. The technique appears to show a correlation between subjective report and objective detection of a magnetic field event. To be useful, though, it requires further study to establish the ways that naturally occurring artifacts are produced by the algorithm. I do not understand the technique enough to say yes or no. I do applaud the authors for thinking of a new way of dealing with the unpredictability of magnetic fields.

Actual Intention?

While practitioners are the ones who produce the phenomena, they are not necessarily prepared to understand them or how they might be confused with ordinary events. Conversely, psychologists who are academically trained in logical thinking, human nature and the scientific method are seldom able to produce the phenomena and have little hands-on background in the production and treatment of these phenomena. The two are co-depended when it comes to studying things paranormal. That is why we dedicate a lot of effort toward encouraging cooperation between parapsychologists and practitioners.

The Academic-Layperson Partition has always been a hindrance to collaboration between researchers and practitioners. It should be noted here that the partition is probably a naturally occurring, but Ph.D. enforced breakdown between the two groups. It enables some pretty shabby treatment of practitioners and tends to send academics down some pretty silly rabbit holes.

Since academics are so elitist about their learned capability, it seems reasonable to lay this problem at their feet. Thus, I assume the authors have decided to use college students, all the while knowing the likelihood the students would not produce PK phenomena.

Bias in Reporting About Paranormal Phenomena

There are many ways to bias information to make it seem fair while actually conveying a negative sense. Skeptic Wikipedia editors are masters of casting doubt while seeming fair, so I will begin with a few examples.

There was much discussion in the Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) article in Wikipedia over how to describe EVP. You can follow some of the discussion in the Talk page archives, especially Archive 11. Just search the page for “lead.” You can see from the way it is today that the introductory sentence for the article has evolved. But, the real bias is in the second paragraph:

Enthusiasts consider EVP to be a form of paranormal phenomenon often found in recordings with static or other background noise. However, scientists regard EVP as a form of auditory pareidolia (interpreting random sounds as voices in one’s own language) and a pseudoscience promulgated by popular culture. Prosaic explanations for EVP include apophenia (perceiving patterns in random information), equipment artifacts, and hoaxes.

Considering the power of words, enthusiasts implies unprofessional or hobbyists, and therefore with no authority. Note that the first sentence only introduces the phenomenon as it is defined by (implied) not so smart enthusiasts (20 words). That is followed by a very authoritative mention of how EVP has been rejected by science (41 words). Pareidolia and apophenia are redundant, basically meaning the claimant is delusional. Pseudoscience is understood as false science that is a danger to society. Hoaxes is an accusatory term that is applied to virtually all reports of phenomena in Wikipedia.

Skeptics try to seem balanced in their approach to paranormal subjects, but close examination will show that their presentation is biased, usually by minimizing the positive, using inflammatory or demeaning terms and exaggerating the negative by making it seem that scientists have settled the question of the phenomenon as pseudoscience, delusion or fraud. They virtually always use outdated examples.

If I could, I would destroy all the audio from such pioneers as Friedrich Jürgenson and Konstantin Raudive. While it is historically interesting, the very poor examples are often used to debunk EVP.  Of course, modern ghost hunters post more than enough very poor examples to supply the debunkers.

A second example is the Wikipedia article about Rupert Sheldrake. He holds a Ph.D. in biology with a specialty in plant physiology. One of the more difficult edit wars that sprung up after the TED controversy (see Opinion 2, Morphic Fields), was between skeptic editors wanting to downplay Sheldrake’s academic qualifications and the more balanced editors wanting to write it as it is.

If you search the Talk page archives for biologist, you will find in Archive 21 that one of the more hardcore skeptic editors (jps) argued with one of the moderate editors (Iantresman) over the decision to include biologist as part of his credentials in the lead paragraph. To this day, it is not but parapsychologist is.

It seems clear that skeptics think that saying Sheldrake is a biologist gives him academic authority. It has taken a lot of arguing between skeptic and moderate editors to include “he worked as a biochemist.” Notice the last line of the introduction “They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake’s books and public appearances undermines the public’s understanding of science.^[a]” By clicking on Reference [a], you can see that they have eighteen references to prove that scientists think Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance is pseudoscience and a danger to society. Reference [b] at the end of the A New Science of Life section, “His analyses of results have also drawn criticism.^[b]” links to 31 references. Many are redundant and virtually all of them go to skeptic publications.

The idea is to show that the science is overwhelmingly against Sheldrake’s ideas, but in fact, the final ruling of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science set the rule allowing any dominant group of editors, which is always skeptic in paranormal subjects, to exclude virtually all of the parapsychological literature unless it suits their argument.

From results of the arbitration which is now the rule:

Fringe science

1) In this ruling, the term “fringe science” refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science.

Prominence

4) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Relevant comparisons

9) The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

The effect of this sort of biasing can be seen in the Electronic Voice Phenomena article in Wikipedia. Take a look at the Failure to Replicate ITC article on ethericstudies.org. It was published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration which is the same organization that published the subject of this Opinion. As a Wikipedia editor, references I tried to use from that journal, as well as articles published by the Parapsychological Association (PA) and the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) were rejected by the dominant editors because they were fringe publications. Yet they used Barušs’ Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon article eight times in the EVP article because it supported their negative bias.

Also, consider how the recent work of the SSE journal’s editor has been used to attack the Felix Experimental Group’s physical medium by the Rational Wiki in the Kai Mügge article.

Bias in Parapsychological Research Reports

Skeptics like using articles written by members of the paranormalist community. A poorly considered comment about possible but unsubstantiated trickery in mediumship or indiscernible EVP examples can be like handing them our stick to beat us. There is a balance between intelligently policing our community and the mob-like attacks I sometimes see in social media; a balance that only takes a little mindfulness to find.

It is important to candidly report research findings. However, it is intellectually dishonest to do so under false cover of scientific or academic authority. For instance, Barušs is not trained in the study of EVP, either through experience or academically, yet he published claimed research under cloak of his professorship in psychology. The technique he used was flawed beyond redemption and his conclusions were simply baseless. His two reports should have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The fact that they were brings doubt to the whole idea of peer review. Who are the EVP experts who thought the articles were good science?

Because of a number of anti-survival articles by the SSE, I have come to think of them as generally anti-survival and caution you to be extra discerning to recognize hidden biases when reading their material. But, the other organizations are not all that helpful to us. We are taught to think of parapsychologists as our scientists. We look to them for guidance and tend to accept everything they say as truth. In return, many in their rank are deceptive about the actual purpose of their research.

The Society for Psychical Research, for instance, has published anti-survival, even anti-practitioner material. Their Psi Encyclopedia has become a platform for subtle bias against survival, clearly reflecting the point of view of the establishment.

In fact, only a small percentage of parapsychologists work as if they think there is a possibility that the survival hypothesis is correct. Most are either Anomalistic Psychologists, or if they accept the existence of psychic functioning, Exceptional Experiences Psychologists. Consider reading the Open Letter to Paranormalists: Limits of science, trust and responsibility, especially the What You Need to Know About Science Section.

Circular Referencing

A common technique used by anomalistic psychologists is to test recruits to determine how prone they are to believe in paranormal phenomena and then to show them a series of pictures to see if the test subject will identify any of them as paranormal. The scientists then report that people prone to believe in things paranormal are more likely to identify evidence of showing paranormal phenomena. The conclusion typically goes something like “People who are prone to believe in the paranormal tend to mistake ordinary events as paranormal. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that people reporting paranormal experiences are misattributing ordinary experiences as paranormal.” This is circular referencing, an extreme of intellectual laziness.

Anomalistic psychologist researchers ignore the possibility that people prone to believing in things paranormal may be that way because they have come face-to-face with things paranormal. Consider how the author of “What is Anomalistic Psychology?” explains his view of paranormal:

“Alleged phenomena that cannot be accounted for in terms of conventional scientific theories.” He explains that, “Anomalistic psychology may be defined as the study of extraordinary phenomena of behavior and experience, including (but not restricted to) those which are often labeled ‘paranormal.’ It is directed towards understanding bizarre experiences that many people have without assuming a priori that there is anything paranormal involved. It entails attempting to explain paranormal and related beliefs and ostensibly paranormal experiences in terms of known psychological and physical factors.”

There are numerous examples of this kind of research posted on the Internet. One good example is Paranormal Believers and religious people are more prone to seeing faces that aren’t really there. My concern is that many such articles are published in journals of the organizations most of us think are trying to help us understand our survival-related paranormal experiences. For the most part, they are not. Even more deceptive, the articles are not identified as being intended to prove we are deluded. Instead, they are written in ways that make it difficult to tell unless you are another anomalistic or exceptional experiences psychologist.

Reader’s Rating

A Best Practice is usually a document maintained by an organization that spells out how something is expected to be done for that organization. For instance, one might explain how vacation days will be allocated to assure 7-24 coverage of customer service. In some cases, the idea of best practices has become part of our social dialog. For instance, “Did you follow the best practices when you did that?”

The Survival-Related Media Review and Rating Best Practice is my recommendation for how the community might provide feedback to authors and future readers. It has not been vetted by others in the community. As a draft, it should not be considered an established practice. Here is my application of the recommended rating system on this report:

Title:  A Test of an Occult-Themed Séance: Examining Anomalous Events, Psychosomatic Symptoms,
Transliminality, and Electromagnetic Fields.

Author:  Laythe, Brian R.; Laythe, Elizabeth Cooper; Woodward, Lucinda.

Publisher:  Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 572–624, 2017.

SRM Rating:  2.8

Comment:

This opinion addresses my concerns this might be a Failure to Replicate report. Such reports appear to be legitimate science conducted by Ph.Ds. that show the phenomena has not been replicated under scientifically controlled conditions. The implication taken by skeptics is that the research shows that the reported phenomena are mundane mistaken as paranormal (Apophenia, Pareidolia), illusion due to mental aberration or fraud.

Rating Components:

Intentional Bias:     3

Current Relevance:     4

Survival Point of View:     1

Collaboration:     1

Ethics:     5

The manual forms of this review are:

SRM Rating: 2.8

SRM Rating: 2.8 (Bias – 3; Relevance – 4; Survival – 1; Collaboration – 1; Ethics – 5)

Closing Comment

You will have noticed that your fellow paranormalists complain about the New Age-like environment our community has become. Examples of the problem are paranormalists selling questionable products and services to other paranormalists, relatively uninformed people claiming abilities and examples that simply do not stand close examination and people promoting nonsensical theories with little proof or attention to the implications.

I understand how these complaints come about. Of course, I am one of the complainers.

There will always be the lazy seekers … more wannabes than people willing to do the work to gain understanding. The rest of us must not forget that ghost hunting, even self-delusion about the nature of personal ability might be gateway experiences that eventually lead to true seeking. We can never stop answering their questions or stop trying to teach. You will be surprised at how much you learn when you teach.

This Opinion is one of those teaching essays that seems to me to be more like howling at the moon than making any real contribution. It is easier, and I suspect more fun, to just complain than to struggle through the complexity of my argument. But, in fact, your ability to study these phenomena is not assured. Do you think people in a society controlled by religion can openly study EVP? Scientism is a religion.

There are a lot of really smart people for whom the claim that these phenomena are real is offensive. They would make you go away if they could. They are much better organized and more likely to succeed than we are likely to agree … on about anything.

Read this Opinion again and examine the references. Give the points a little thought. You need not agree with all of it. The one thing you need to agree about is that it is better to speak up and let others know if you do not agree. Make sure you know what you are talking about … not just opinion … and stand up for the idea of a more rational community.

My Notes

From the abstract of the article being reviewed, Owen and Sparrow (1976) is:

Owen, I. M., & Sparrow, M. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure in Psychokinesis. New York. Harper & Row (brief: unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/68076-conjuring-up-philip/)

There is a good explanation of the Philip study in Predictions of The Model of Pragmatic Information About RSPK ^{(Ref. 2)↓}:

One can even combine Batcheldor’s technique of the sitter group with an experimentally produced spiritualistic tale, to yield fantastic results. A group around the Canadian parapsychologist Iris Owen did such an experiment, in which the sitters deliberately “constructed” an artificial spirit. To do so, they invented the tragic-romantic story of an English squire by the name of Philip, who lived in the middle of the 17th century. The details of the story were carefully elaborated. At the same time, however, the group took great care to prevent a resemblance to any existing historical entity. The fictitious squire Philip fell in love with the beautiful gypsy girl Margo, but could not face the consequences of this romance, and finally committed suicide. Since then, he has been a spirit, and was conjured up during the Canadian pseudo-spiritualistic sèance. And indeed, he came into being, produced rapping sounds in the table and finally demonstrated the whole spectrum of spiritualistic manifestations. The complete experiment has been described in an interesting book “Conjuring up Philip” by Iris Owen and Margaret Sparrow (1976). The book clearly demonstrates that spiritualistic phenomena can also be produced by invented “pseudo-spirits”. In this respect, it is an impressive illustration of Batcheldor’s model. (Ref. 2, Page 108)

Predictions of The Model of Pragmatic Information About RSPK also has a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between sitter and phenomena. Especially see page 108-109. That part discusses the work of British psychical researcher Kenneth Batcheldor (1921-1988) who specialized in the study of psychokinesis. He is quoted as saying:

“There’s something about table-tipping that enables a group of ordinary people to succeed in generating PK without even trying, provided they are reasonably open-minded. It is this—in most cases the table will start to move due to unconscious muscular activity. This can give an amazing illusion that the table is moving of its own accord as if animated by some mysterious force. You get the impression you are already succeeding in generating paranormal movements. This has precisely the same impact on you as real success would have—it sweeps your doubts aside and produces total faith.”

Batcheldor’s Model for Production of PK

According to Batcheldor, three conditions in which sitter sessions are most likely to produce PK are a high degree of belief in the phenomena, low ownership resistance and low witness inhibition. Essentially, what matters most for success is the amount of belief over doubt when a macro-PK event takes place. (Ref. 1, Page 574)

Belief: Worldview limits our ability to consciously accept an idea. If the experience does not resemble past experience or lessons held in Worldview, Worldview, witnessing a paranormal event might very well produce a Reject outcome of the Perceptual Loop resulting in the witness’s inability to experience the event. This is also true in the case of production of PK. See the Perception essay.

Ownership resistance: Batcheldor held that PK is more likely produced if individual sitters do not know if he or she is the source of the PK. This is thought to be one of the reasons a group of sitters seems more likely to produce phenomena than does an individual.

Witness inhibition: Due to its possibly shocking nature, reluctance to encounter phenomena could inhibit the sitter’s ability to produce PK. It is often said that seeking is only for the brave. A fear reaction to the first encounter can prevent future encounters. A possible reason for this is in the twelve corollaries of First Sight Theory discussed in Opinion 3: First Sight Theory, especially the Bidirectionality Corollary: In this summative process, the person may turn toward information (signed positively) to include it in the construction of experience, affect or action, or turn away from information (signed negatively) and exclude it.

I am going to add one more factor for the production of phenomena.

Entrainment: A useful state of awareness for the production of phenomena (and greater lucidity) is thought to be established by following a sequence of tasks. These are usually based on experience and are typically a routine designed to enhance the sense of normality while permitting the person (sitter and medium) to develop ever greater focus. With practice, each step in the process becomes associated with a state of awareness in much the same way a person who learns to count to ten to become relaxed may eventually just say “Ten” to relax.

Every séance I have witnessed has followed such a routine. In effect, the process of preparing for a séance, the induction process such as group singing, and repeated rounds of effort-relaxation-effort again guides the medium and sitters into ever deeper meditative states of awareness A person familiar with physical mediumship séances will recognize this process, and also that it is reversed as the medium gradually retreats from the deepest trance.

Robert Monroe also adopted this approach in the development of Hemi-Sync® sessions. Think of entrainment as teaching your mostly unconscious-conscious mind interface to recognize an intended state of lucidity. And thereafter, being able to recall that state as intended.

Also, consider the reunions induced by Raymond Moody with is Psychomanteum. He used triggers, such as memory of the loved one, an introspective mood and meditation to induce a state in which the client might more easily visualize the target loved one.

Transliminality: See First Sight Theory Liminality Corollary:

The arousal of anticipatory networks of ideas and feelings resulting from unconscious psi information may be considered liminal ones, in terms of the boundary between conscious and unconscious thought. Habitual interest in liminal experiences facilitates expression of psi processes (openness), leading to unconscious reference to psi material (and other streams of unconscious material). A more positive, open, secure state of mind will tend to facilitate reference to a broader spectrum of contextual, potentially liminal experience.

Here, luminal means on the threshold between unconscious and conscious; just becoming conscious. In the context of this article, transliminality means the conscious awareness of psychological material. Considering the way the authors used the term as a characteristic of a sitter, I would translate the term to mean lucidity as in the degree to which the channel of awareness between conscious self and sensing of environmental psi signals has been developed for greater clarity. This is the interface between the Attention Complex and Conscious Self depicted in the Lucidity diagram.

 

 

Psychokinesis (PK): PK is a form of psi functioning in which mind influences physical objects. Poltergeist activity is considered a form of Recurrent Spontaneous PsychoKinesis (RSPK).

See James Carpenter’s What if statements in Opinion 3: First Sight Theory.

1. “What if ESP is like subliminal perception?
2. What if psychokinesis is like unconsciously but psychologically meaningful expressive behaviors?”

The main difference between traditional parapsychology informed by RSPK and more contemporary parapsychology informed by Fist Sight Theory is that, in RSPK, the expression of a psychokinetic influence is seen as a response to felt need like fear or focused intention, while in First Sight, the expression of psychokinetic influence is modeled as an unavoidable aspect of our expression. Everything we think produces a psychokinetic influence.

Contagion Effects: From the article being reviewed, “… contagion effects in research represent the unconscious mimicry of behaviors, emotions, or somatic experiences from one individual to another or to a group” ^{(page 576 Ref. 1↓)} As I understand this point, an example might be one sitter saying that the table seemed to move. After the first report, other sitters might report the same sense of movement. What I refer to as Retro Familiar Storytelling for mediumship is referred to here as the Contagion Effect. Sitters mentally look back at their experience of the previous few seconds and decide that they also had the experience. In effect, this is a false memory.

In any form of experience that is mostly subjective, suggestions tend to cause related sensations. For instance, a group of people in a dark, supposedly haunted building will tend toward fearfulness if one of the members is outwardly fearful.

In a séance, one person reporting a sense of a presence will tend to cause other sitters to have a similar sense. That is why some researchers, such as Batcheldor (above), sometimes tricked sitters into thinking something was happening by causing the table to move a little. The trick tended to overcome doubt and allow the sitters to be more receptive to their inadvertent expression of PK.

Somatic: This means of the physical body as opposed to mental; of the mind.

About the Research Report

Let me make it clear up front that there are some good aspects of this research report that I do not want to ignore. With that said, I wish the report had not been published. It should not have passed peer review in the first place. I will explain, but first, here is a brief description of the protocol.

Method

The authors set up a curtained enclosure in the middle of a larger room. They had cameras, audio recorders and magnetic field meters concealed in the curtain. A table was set up in the middle of the enclosure which had a camera under the table to detect fraud. A competent physical medium would be able to adapt to such a setting, and after getting past the sense of being monitored, should be able to produce detectible, measurable phenomena.

The researchers based their assumptions on previous work concerning hauntings investigators. There has also been prior work correlating supposed haunt events with changes in environmental magnetism. The author’s apparent intention was to bring the field research of haunt phenomena into the laboratory using a séance model. From the authors: “Thus, we define haunt phenomena and séance phenomena to include EVP, apportation, light anomalies, as well as PK as externally documentable events via camera or audio recorder.” ^{(Page 573 Ref. 1↓)}

• A distinction was made between external events able to be objectively experienced by others either directly or via instruments and subjective events that only existed as a report by a sitter.
• A distinction was also made between electromagnetism and geomagnetism. I will simply refer to magnetism or magnetic fields.
• Special attention was given to the effects of social contagion in the séance environment. ^{(Page 575 Ref. 1↓)}
• Also, transliminality. From the authors, “Thus, one theoretical explanation for anomalous phenomena is that individuals high in transliminality are sensitive to psychosomatic effects created by contagion.” ^{(Page 576 Ref. 1↓)} and “Work in transliminality might also define most haunting experiences as Mass Psychogenic Illness (MPI)” ^{(Page 577 Ref. 1↓)}

Please note that the Mass Psychogenic Illness (MPI) referred to here, concerns a group of people convincing one another that they share an illness, perhaps from an imagined food poisoning. The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) from Reference 2 is used amongst psi researchers. It roughly says, that “psi-phenomena are non-local correlations in psycho-physical systems instead of signals or forces. Such non-local correlations, however, limit the psi-effects due to the conditions of the psycho-physical system, which is mainly described by the “meaning” of the situation i.e. pragmatic information.” ^{Ref. 2 (Page 99)↓}

• ElectroMagnetic Frequency (EMF) phenomena seem to be the primary objective of this study. While the authors acknowledge theories that low-level magnetic fields create perceived anomalous phenomena they focused on comparing time and intensity of detected changes of magnetic field with paranormal events reported during the sessions. (The authors referred to this as Externally Vetted Anomalous Phenomena.) Since no objective events were detected, the comparisons were with subjective reports of the sitters.^{(Page 579 Ref. 1↓)}
• College students were enlisted to act as sitters. Two sets of séances were conducted with different sitters: Series 1 = 5 sitters for 10 sessions. Series 2 = 6 sitters for 9 sessions. All sitters were tested:

Anomalous Perceptions: measures distress, intrusiveness and frequency of anomalous experience

Paranormal Beliefs: measures degree of belief in each of seven dimensions of mysticism: traditional religious belief, psi, witchcraft, superstition, spiritualism, extraordinary life forms and precognition.

Transliminality: measures magical ideation, mystical experience, absorption, hyperesthesia, manic experience, dream interpretation and fantasy proneness.

• One of the goals of the study was to see if a séance-like environment would create genuine haunt-like macro-PK phenomena. The evidence of PK phenomena in physical séances is substantial. It is also induced, in that a cookbook approach is taken by some circles to produce PK. While some forms are expected, as evidenced by the common practice of placing objects in the circle to be moved about by PK. Some forms of PK may not be as predictable, such as a levitated trumpet, but they are reasonably expected during the session.

Thus, it is reasonable to use a séance technique to induce PK. The problem is that one does not gather a bunch of people, put them into a séance environment using one of the common practices, and expect to produce PK. Such a protocol does not represent a rational interpretation of current circle understanding. Doing so suggests either ignorance of the practices or a determined attempt to debunk the practice.

• The study produced no physical phenomena that were detected with cameras or audio recorders and that could be decisively identified as PK.
• Session routine: After checking for proper function of detectors, “The team of participants were then allowed into the séance setting and directed to sit at a small lightweight table surrounded by black curtains. Researchers were posted in a separate room outside these curtains. All participants were clearly reminded at each session to verbally speak any sensation or event that they felt or witnessed as it happened. Participants were then verbally cued by the researchers to begin their five-minute opening meditation, which was guided by the investigator reading each step to the participants. After the opening meditation was completed, the séance session commenced, which varied between 25 and 50 minutes. Variation in session length occurred because participant investment in the session was critical to the experiment. In some cases, despite multiple efforts, participants could not get any feelings or signs of “activity,” and would ask the research assistants to cease the session.” ^{(Page 585 Ref. 1↓)}

The Presence of PK

There is an ongoing debate about whether field studies, such as attending a séance in the circle’s usual space, are useful for research. The more controlled conditions of a laboratory are presently preferred amongst parapsychologists. In this study, the authors attempted to produce the sort of PK events in a laboratory that is sometimes reported during hauntings investigation. Instead of contriving a controlled environment to replicate a haunted location, they chose to use a séance setting to produce physical phenomena.

Note that haunt phenomena are spontaneous in the sense that a physical person is not thought to be the cause. It is possible that the supposed ghost causes phenomena in reaction to the presence of people, and to that extent, they are induced.

This is an important point. Physical phenomena of the séance setting are thought to be caused by a discarnate personality in response to the beckoning of the sitters. Thus, the induced-spontaneous distinction is less defined. In that sense.

Attention needs to be paid to the relationship between the sitter, the supposed discarnate communicator and the circle. One of the ways to examine this relationship is to look for secondary phenomena that occur at the same time or triggers that are followed by phenomena. For instance, asking the supposed communicating personality to move an object and the movement of which can be detected by a camera.

At the root of most academic studies of magnetic fields and haunt phenomena is an assumption that, under the right conditions, the fields can cause hallucinations. Given that the majority of Ph.Ds. studying paranormal phenomena seem to be of the Anomalistic Psychologists school, it is reasonable to speculate that this study is really about disproving the paranormality of the reported haunt phenomena. This is something you need to decide for yourself, as I simply do not know the author’s motives.

The Circle

In spiritualist tradition, a physical mediumship séance is a highly controlled process in which sitters cooperate to form a trans-etheric communication channel. If the same sitters are involved in routine gatherings, the circle is thought of as a development group. If a known competent physical medium is not in the group, the assumption is that all sitters will develop their innate capability.

In development circle tradition, it is intended that one or more of the sitters will eventually evolve into an effective physical medium. This can take years of regular meetings and does not always produce a medium, or even a group channel.

It is also part of Spiritualist tradition that physical mediums work in cooperation with one or more discarnate personalities (the control). The medium is expected to be directed by the control as to the next steps in the medium’s development. While the circle usually has a circle leader who is not the medium, the real leader of a mature circle is the control. It is the control who dictates what will be allowed during a séance in terms of who the sitters are, number of people and devices such as cameras or recorders. For instance, the control will determine if and when the medium is able to be exposed to the amount of light needed for pictures.

There is clear evidence the physical medium can be harmed if ectoplasm is present, and the medium is startled, say by a sudden light, loud noise or someone grabbing at the ectoplasm. The presence of technology, such as cameras and microphones might also hinder channel formation because of their distraction. 

While there is always the possibility of a sitter with unexpected talent, I know of no situation in which a circle composed of paid sitters has been able to produce physical phenomena in only ten sessions. Realistically, the only research that can be expected to be conducted as prescribed in the protocol of this study would concern the social interaction of the sitters concerning contagion and possibly a little group PK.

The Medium

From the Spiritualist perspective, people are only the conduit through which phenomena are produced by discarnate personalities. A mental medium is one who is more sensitive to etheric influences than most people and who is able to clearly convey information from the etheric communicator. A physical medium is one who enables the etheric communicator to cause physical effects such as levitation, spirit lights, ectoplasmic materializations and direct voices, presumably through the medium.

In terms of the Implicit Cosmology, the ability to distinguish between information coming from the medium’s worldview and that coming from etheric communicators is referred to as lucidity. The more lucid the medium, the better he or she is able to convey information from the etheric communicators without coloring the message with their personal thoughts. This is an essential quality for mediums wishing to serve others.

Conversely, relatively little lucidity means the person is more apt to think the information they sense from their mind is coming from spirit when in fact, it is coming from their worldview. His is discussed in the How We Think essay.

Practitioner or Operator

When Lisa and I assumed leadership of the ATransC, we began referring to EVP recording sessions as experiments and people conducting the recordings as experimenters. That was mainly because virtually every session included changes in sound source and recording method as everyone sought the perfect combination. Every session was an attempt to improve communication. In fact, we did not know what worked best.

The term experiment implies science and few of the sessions were intended to be an application of science. We also address a wider audience these days. Now we say that a practitioner is a person who applies principles intended to cause phenomena. This may be via instruments or it may be one of the modes of personal mediumship such as mental or physical mediumship or the expression of healing intention.

In ITC, an operator is one who turns on a device with the expectation that phenomena will occur. In the case of personal mediumship, a person who follows a set of instructions to behave as a medium or a healer begins as an operator. In time, and with considerable practice, the person might be better considered a practitioner. A person who begins with extraordinary ability might be considered a practitioner, but it has been our experience that even then, practice and education are important.

An important point of order in the operator-practitioner relationship is that the person should never be the judge as to which applies. We too easily fool ourselves. It is also difficult to know when we have learned enough about the subject to make an informed judgment.

The distinction between operator and practitioner is important to this discussion. A practitioner works in a partnership with the etheric communicator while an operator is more a passive witness to the process. An experimental protocol which requires a séance implies the expectation that the sitters will be practitioners. College students may be practitioners but are probably only operators.

EVP and Psi Functioning Induced Artifacts

The sensor stage of a magnetic field detector is a coil of wire. A changing magnetic field induces an electric current in the copper windings, so a very weak magnetic field will induce a measurable electric current in a coil made with many turns as is used in these devices.

I am not sure how it is done today, but in the past, telephone circuits included coils to interface a long-hall, four-wire circuit with a local two-wire circuit. As you can see in the diagram below, a balanced set of coils were used. The coils were tuned (ZB) so that there was sufficient feedback in the two-wire side to produce a little noise in the receive side of a handset. That gave the sense of a live circuit. If the circuit was not tuned correctly, the feedback could cause an echo-like hollow sound or very loud howling sound.

The telephone circuit EVP technique was in common use when we assumed leadership of the ATransC. We think the near-threshold instability of the telephone circuit created a chaotic signal environment that was easier to influence with intentionality. In effect, the telephone circuit was a sound conditioner device that added uncertainty to the circuit. Since those days, digital telephone systems have become the rule, and that signal conditioning quality is probably no longer present in your home’s landline telephone set.

The point is that magnetic field detector devices have many of the qualities thought to be needed for EVP. It is reasonable to think that our etheric communicators might try using the circuit for voice production. But, of course, the devices are not equipped for voice. An effort to use one for EVP would look like a detected change in magnetic field when there really was none. A psi-induced artifact, if you will.

A second possibility comes from the way psi functioning affects the output of a Random Event Generator (REG). Note that all the research séance sessions began with a guided meditation, so it was intended that the sitters would be in the body asleep-mind awake state of awareness thought to be conducive to focus psi functioning. There is plenty of reason to think that a meditating sitter might report sensing something and cause the other sitters to entrain with that alert to produce a sizable collective psi influence which would potentially register as a spike in the sensitive electronic equipment of the magnetic field detectors.

To determine if the magnetic field sensors were reacting to a psi signal, rather than a change in magnetic field, the study might be repeated with a magnetic field detector and REG placed in a chamber shielded from magnetism. If it is psi, both should register a change at the same time. Of course, that would not eliminate the possibility that the reported changes in field are actually attempts to produce EVP.

As a footnote, it was reported in a different SSE journal article that magnetic field sensors detected changes in magnetic field while a healer was expressing healing intention. (The article, Anomalous magnetic field activity during a bioenergy healing experiment) For the same reasons detailed above, I suggested the possibility of EVP or psi induced artifacts to the editor. My attempt to collaborate was rudely rebuffed by the editor.

The bottom line is that I am not aware of a substantiated precedence for the involvement of magnetism in ITC. We are aware of several studies trying to identify a connection between geomagnetic conditions and EVP collection, but all were indecisive. Here, I intend substantiated to mean that contending theories were at least considered.

Psi Influence on Electronic Devices

This is a brief discussion of the response of audio recorders, Random Event Generators (REG) and magnetic field detectors to the influence of intention expressed via psychokinesis (PK).

Transform Versus Opportunistic

We have learned through ATransC to make a distinction between opportunistic EVP and transform EVP.

Opportunistic EVP
The most commonly used opportunistic techniques require the etheric communicator to:

• Change environmental energy such as electromagnetic fields, magnetism and temperature. This usually involves accessing buffer addresses containing bits of pre-recorded speech.
• Change in the randomness of a random process such as an REG or noise generation program. EVPmaker is an early example of this. This technique involves detecting changes in the random process to select buffer addresses containing pre-recorded speech.
• Cause one or more radio broadcasters to speak the words required for the intended message. This is in the radio-sweep technique which typically involves sweeping the local radio channels in three to ten-second cycles. The resulting bits of sound is supposed to contain the message. Equipment for this began as Frank’s Box, Radio Hack and Spirit Box.

Transform EVP
Transform EVP is collected with the use of any audio recorder. It can be shown that transform EVP are formed in the audio recorder by (we think) imposing intended order on chaotic audio-frequency noise, probably in a single transistor junction. Current theory is that voice formation is via stochastic amplification of a weak psychokinetic (psi) signal. Stochastic amplification requires a nonlinear process which is found in a transistor junction. See Locating EVP Formation and Detecting False Positives

The difference between opportunistic and transform phenomena is that opportunistic EVP are formed from persistent or existing material, while in transform EVP, the voice is formed by changing available sound into the intended speech. Many different forms of trans-etheric influence appear to share the same physical processes being acted on by intention in transform EVP. For instance, precipitation and direct voice are transform phenomena. That is, they are formed by imposing order on chaotic processes.

Random Event Generator

Many psi functioning studies depend on monitoring the influence of intention (a form of psi function referred to as psychokinesis or PK) on a random process. Many metal balls falling through a maze of evenly distributed obstructions should produce a normal distribution of balls at the bottom (Bell Curve). In psi experiments, the test subject is asked to intend the balls to favor a side to produce a lopsided curve.

A good Random Event Generators (REG) is one that produces as random a signal as possible. I have a Psyleron REG, the software for which, includes a display as shown above. In one test of the device, I showed the computer screen display from the device to a well-known physical medium. We were talking about something else and I interrupted the conversation to ask him to look at the device. I gave him a brief explanation, but then we went on to more important subjects. Later I noticed that the display had begun to show a much less random output (above the red line) as he looked at the device and listened to my explanation. The display quickly returned to normal randomness as we moved on to other subjects.

My point is that, even though I am pretty good at focusing attention, I am unable to move the device as much as that physical medium. The experience proved that attention changes random processes. For the record, it should be noted that the physical medium’s influence on the REG confirmed his ability as current theory predicts.

The comparison I wish to make in this section is between the transform effect of intended order on random processes as they are processed in nonlinear systems. That is, the effect of psi functioning on the ambient noise processed in the transistor circuitry of audio recorders, REGs and magnetic field detectors. All three are functionally different but they share similar internal circuity.

Magnetic Field Detectors

The only real difference between a magnetic field detector and an audio recorder is the way the input and output stages are designed. They both have an intermediate amplifier stage which includes at least one transistor junction. An audio recorder is designed to send the output of the amplifier stage to a speaker and memory circuit. As such, they are designed to detect, save and present voice signals.

The output of the amplifier stage of a magnetic field detector is designed to move a meter and perhaps turn on a light. In the case of this study, the output signal was also sent to a data event recorder. The devices are not capable of producing a voice output.

While there is precedence for psi influence of REGs, the relationship between magnetic fields and PK is ambiguous. EVP depend on influence via PK, and in fact, EVP have been collected in chambers shielded from radio frequency radiation and magnetic fields. We are reasonably certain magnetic fields, (electromagnetic radiation or geomagnetism) are not involved in the formation of EVP because of such shielded chamber studies and cross-country, real-time EVP recording sessions involving two remotely located people.

Collective Amplification

Another factor I should mention is that there is some indication that groups of people working in concert have a larger effect on REGs than do individuals. It is important that, when researchers conduct experiments using electronic equipment, consideration is given to the possibility that psi will unavoidably influence their test equipment. There is no known way to shield from psi influence.

In a séance environment, if contagion is involved, it should produce a cascading effect on monitoring equipment. For instance, a small spike might be noticed with the first report, but subsequent spikes should grow in amplitude as other sitters decide they have also experienced the same sense.

References

1. Laythe, Brian R.; Laythe, Elizabeth Cooper; Woodward, Lucinda. “A Test of an Occult-Themed Séance: Examining Anomalous Events, Psychosomatic Symptoms, Transliminality, and Electromagnetic Fields.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 31, No. 4, pp. 572–624, 2017. scientificexploration.org/docs/31/jse_31_4_Laythe.pdf.
2. Lucadou, Walter von; Zahradnik, Frauke. “Predictions of The Model of Pragmatic Information About RSPK.” Parapsychological Association. archived.parapsych.org/papers/09.pdf.

Abstract

The model of pragmatic information (MPI) is applied to RSPK phenomena and leads to several predictions. The first prediction is that RSPK phenomena show two clusters of phenomena, which can be considered as structural and functional anomalous RSPK- phenomena. RSPK-phenomena are considered as a kind of “external psychosomatic” reaction, expressing a hidden problem, which cannot be recognized by the persons concerned. The second prediction is that the development of RSPK cases contains four phases, which are called “surprise phase”, “displacement phase”, “decline phase”, and “suppression phase.” In the surprise phase the RSPK-activity starts rapidly with strong effects, but they are not attributed to the focus person. This happens in the displacement phase where the phenomena usually change in an unpredictable way. In the decline-phase the “message of the poltergeist” is understood and the phenomena are expected, therefore the phenomena disappear. The final suppression phase can be understood as a kind of reaction of the society. These phases can be derived from a fundamental equation of the MPI, which describes the RSPK phenomena in complementary terms of “autonomy” and “reliability” (from the point of view of the RSPK-system) and of “novelty” and “confirmation” (form the point of view of the external observer). The dynamics of RSPK is described as the dynamics of pragmatic information within a hierarchically nested system, which is created by the persons involved (focus person, naïve and critical observers) and the reaction of the society. The third prediction is that observers can control the RSPK activity by their observation or documentation. This is the result of a kind of “uncertainty relation” of the MPI, which says that the effect-size of the phenomena is limited by the quality of their documentation. This also holds for so-called sitter-group experiments. In a single case it was possible to demonstrate that the system theoretical approach of the MPI leads to different predictions than the usual psychological interpretation of the elusiveness of PK-phenomena. The fourth prediction is that we have to expect two types of RSPK cases, which we called the active RSPK case and the passive, respectively.

3. Laythe, Brian R.; Owen, Kay. (2013). “A critical test of the EMF–paranormal phenomena theory: Evidence from a haunted site without electricity-generating fields.” Journal of Parapsychology. 77:212–236. http://israenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/EMF.pdf.

Abstract

Previous research in electromagnetic and geomagnetic fields (EMF and GMF) and their relationship to paranormal phenomena has been performed under the theoretical assumptions of hallucination due to GMFfields. The current study tests the possibility that nonhallucinatory paranormal phenomena are also associated with EMF/GMF fields. EMF and GMF perturbations were examined in context of collected potential phenomena with data logging equipment at a haunted site with no electricity. Overall results indicate that EMF and GMF fields were significantly greater in both magnitude and variability inside-the-location compared to outside-the-location baseline measurements. Differences in GMF magnitude were small compared to EMF. Through correlation, EMF/GMF fields were demonstrated to change in range and location throughout the duration of the investigation. Results involving individual reviewed phenomena indicate that phenomena are strongly and significantly associated with serial EMF and GMF spikes, that both increases and decreases in EMF/GMF fields are not differentially predictive of phenomena, and that increases in the number (i.e., duration) of serial spikes do not differentially predict phenomena.