Inside the Mind of God
Breaking Down the Doors of Perception, Part 5
Click here to read the previous installment
B Y   D R.   M A N J I R   S A M A N T A - L A U G H T O N,   M D

Chapter 6:
There Goes the Neighborhood

Section Three: The Skeptics' Corner

BEFORE I CONTINUE, I wish to address the concept of skepticism. Not everyone in the scientific community accepts the above interpretations of physics and the experiments presented. Some even go as far as saying that this is not even a scientific discussion.

It is important for each of us to be discerning when examining theories and experimental data. I have also seen countless misappropriations of scientific terms by people from the so-called 'New Age' sector, who have recognized the need for science, but have not being rigorous in their use of terms or examination of data. Although this practice is widespread and can be unhelpful, there are people trained in science, such as those listed above, who are not so easily dismissible by skeptics. It is the science of this caliber
that I wish to discuss here, as certain arguments are put forward by skeptics that tend to obscure these theories and findings. The main arguments put forward by skeptics are as follows.

The Experimenters Are All Mad/Stupid, Frauds or Cranks
Some experimenters in non-local intention research have conventional credentials such as PhDs. They may have academic posts and some, such as Dr Russell Targ, have even worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).(22) If it is possible to discount all these credentials on the basis of the sort of research they are doing, then what value are any credentials? The devaluation of a person's credentials if they mention the science of non-local consciousness even extends to Nobel Prize winners!

A humorous incident illustrating this occurred when British Nobel Laureate for physics, Brian Josephson, was featured on some commemorative stamps by the Royal Mail.(23) It all started pretty innocuously; the Royal Mail wished to celebrate British Nobelists and feature them on collectable stamps which would be available to purchase as a boxed set.

Josephson, professor of physics at the University of Cambridge and Nobel Prizewinner in 1973, was asked to write a short piece for a booklet accompanying the stamps. It was this article that caused a furor and demonstrated that even a Nobelist is not immune to criticism. The article mentioned non-local connections and that quantum theory might lead to an explanation of processes still not understood within conventional science, such as telepathy.

The subsequent outcry was interesting. Many physicists and other scientists were outraged by the suggestion that telepathy is a subject worthy of scientific consideration. The sticky issue remained that Josephson is a Nobel Laureate and therefore the holder of one of the greatest accolades a person can receive. A Royal Mail spokesperson meekly tried to explain to the press that because he had received this prize, they assumed that he had some knowledge about physics. An unnamed scientist was even quoted discussing, "the trouble with Nobel prizes."(24)

Never Mind the Evidence
Not only are there attempts to discredit the researchers, the research itself is often criticized, sometimes by a denial that it even exists. Skeptics often claim that they would believe that non-local consciousness effects existed if they saw some evidence to prove it, leading to a strange situation; very good research with positive results exist, but by not actually looking at the results, skeptics can honestly claim that they have seen no such evidence.

Rupert Sheldrake noted this during a debate between himself and skeptic, Lewis Wolpert at the Royal Society of Arts. In the transcript, which is available online, Sheldrake notes that Wolpert did not even look at a film that he made about animal telepathy.(25)

"Well, I noticed that when the parrot film was showing, Lewis wasn't looking at it! That film was shown on television ... and in early stage of our investigations, he did the same then. They asked a skeptic to commentate. Lewis appeared on the screen and he said, 'Telepathy is just junk ... there is no evidence whatsoever for any person, animal or thing being telepathic.' The filmmakers were surprised that he hadn't actually asked to see the evidence before he commented on it, and I think, this is rather like the Cardinal Bellarmine, and people not wanting to look through Galileo's Telescope. I think we have a level here of just not wanting to know, which is not real science ..."

I Won't Believe It Till I See It - and If I See It I Won't Believe It
A lot of scientists like to think that they are rational, logical and only deal with hard evidence. But this is simply not the case; evidence exists for non-local effects that would convince scientists if they saw the raw data alone. However, if it is known that the data is linked to non-local effects, it may be rejected even though those same statistics would be accepted if presented as part of another type of study. It seems that the reception of scientific evidence comes down to a matter of belief in the subject being studied.

New Scientist magazine has addressed this issue by comparing the data from two types of trials, some relating to Extra-Sensory Perception (ESP) and the others looking at the effectiveness of a drug called streptokinase, now widely used in the treatment of heart
attacks.(26) The ESP trial data is by far the strongest yet many still insist there is no evidence for this phenomenon, whilst streptokinase is now embraced as being 'evidence-based', with enough proof to be used in critical medical care.

This discrepancy in the acceptance of the two sets of data leads to the comment, "by all the normal rules for assessing scientific evidence, the case for ESP has been made. And yet most scientists refuse to believe the findings, maintaining that ESP simply does not exist."

Even in the face of evidence of non-local effects, some people refuse to believe it exists. This is usually due to a firm adherence in that person's mind as to what is common sense. The common sense view of the universe is usually Newtonian: the view that the universe
is local and disconnected. Science has since proved that this model is simply an approximation to reality. It is actually now more scientific to speak of non-local connections, leaving the outdated scientific paradigm as the one based on belief and not on existing evidence.

Damn the Experiment
As stated before, a common tactic of skeptics is to say that experimenters exploring non-local consciousness are charlatans and frauds. It often follows that their experimental methods are dismissed as shoddy and involving trickery. This is a great discredit to the people working in this field; their positive results are often seen as due to experimental error, bad design or fraud. With any area of research, some experimental designs are better than others. Experiments exploring non-local effects are often compared to a gold standard of trial design: to randomize subjects into two groups, to minimize influences other than the one being studied and to minimize experimenter impact.

An issue rarely raised is the philosophical basis for this type of trial design. For example, the issue of randomness: how can we test if something is truly random? Yet randomness is essential to many trials including medical trials where subjects are assigned to the
group taking the test agent versus the placebo on a random basis.

But how do we know that something is random? Some suggest that the only reason we think something is random is that we are not aware that it is actually ordered. It has even been suggested that the whole concept of randomness is a human superstition.(27) So if we are even questioning the rationale of our standard trial model, than who can really say what is a scientific trial and what is not?

Can we really achieve the other vital ingredient of a good trial: the eradication of the experimenter effect? In this post-quantum world where we are not even certain that objectivity exists, how is it possible to have an objective trial?

An unlikely team is exploring the experimenter effect: a parapsychology researcher in the US, Marilyn Schiltz, and psychologist and skeptic Richard Wiseman, at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. Schlitz has performed some experiments on staring that involve placing a test subject in an isolated room with a video camera pointed at them. In a separate room another subject looks at them through the video link at random moments. The person in the isolated room has to report when they feel that someone is watching them. It is another example of testing non-local consciousness.(28)

Schiltz has found consistently significant results that suggest that people can indeed tell when someone is watching them, even remotely. When Wiseman repeated the experiments, he was unable to replicate the results. Swapping teams and laboratories did not make a difference: Schlitz still gained significant positive results and Wiseman did not. It is being postulated that this is an example of the experimenter effect where the beliefs of the experimenter influences the outcome.

Robert Rosenthal and colleagues have done various studies of the experimenter effect.(29) Could the experimenter effect be a macroscopic demonstration of quantum effects? Does the outcome of the experiment depend on the type of observation? Is this an example of collapsing one reality from infinite possibilities depending on whose consciousness is interacting with it? Many say that quantum effects cannot be seen at this macroscopic level, but some physicists are starting to say that they are and can even be measured.(30)

In the end skepticism maybe a beautiful example of the very paradigm that its members wish to disprove; the universe differs according to your perspective. As physicist Lee Smolin says in his book, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, "we must acknowledge that each observer can have only a limited amount of information about the world and that different observers will have access to different information."(31) This may be why skeptics really are unable to see the existence of non-local effects; they truly do not have access to that information. Non-local effects really do not exist in their reality!

Distasteful though it may be to our 'common sense', non-local effects are increasingly being recognized by science. Although some would not agree that phenomena such as distant intention are explainable by physics, or that they even exist, some physicists are making the link between these abilities and subatomic behavior. More people are realizing that their influence extends beyond their immediate locality, whether they realize this in childhood or from attending a course in Reiki (or something similar). This results in more observers who hold the view that the universe is non-locally connected. As their numbers grow, this view is becoming common sense and the more Newtonian sensibilities are being gradually superseded. We are entering the age of the universal neighborhood!

Join us next month for more
from Punk Science!

© 2006, Dr. Manjir Samanta-Laughton, MD, All Rights Reserved

Excerpted with permission from Punk Science: Inside the Mind of God by Dr. Manjir Samanta-Laughton, published by O Books (ISBN 1905047932). Available for purchase from your local bookseller, or any of the following online locations: www.amazon.com, www.barnesandnoble.com, www.o-books.com.

For more information, check out www.PunkScience.com.

References for Chapter 6, Section Three
(22) Puthoff H, Targ R. Mind-reach. (Hampton Roads) 2005.
(23) Royal Mail achieves philatelic world 'first' with unique Nobel stamps. 2001
http://www.royalmailgroup.com/news/expandarticle.asp?id=264&brand=royal_mail [cited April 2005].
(24) McKie R. Royal Mail's Nobel guru in Telepathy row. The Observer. Sunday September 30 2001.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,560604,00.html.
(25) Sheldrake R. Wolpert L. Telepathy debate - the full text. 15 January 2004.
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html [cited January 2006].
(26) Mathews R. Opposites Detract. New Scientist. 13 March 2004; 39-41.
(27) Stewart I. In the Lap of the Gods. New Scientist. 25 September 2004; 29- 33.
(28) Wiseman R, Schlitz M. Experimenter effects and the Remote Detection of Staring. Journal Of Parapsychology. 1998; 61: 197-208.
(29) Rosenthal R, Fode K L The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science. 1963; 8:183-189. http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050038c.html.
(30) Goswami A. The Visionary Window. (Quest books) 2000.
(31) Smolin L. Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. (Phoenix) 2001.