Princeton closes parapsychology lab, profs whine conspiracy

[TithonusSyndrome]

A little old, but good news still.

PEAR Lab


Original in the New York Times.

By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: February 10, 2007

PRINCETON, N.J., Feb. 6 — Over almost three decades, a small laboratory at Princeton University managed to embarrass university administrators, outrage Nobel laureates, entice the support of philanthropists and make headlines around the world with its efforts to prove that thoughts can alter the course of events.

But at the end of the month, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, or PEAR, will close, not because of controversy but because, its founder says, it is time. The laboratory has conducted studies on extrasensory perception and telekinesis from its cramped quarters in the basement of the university’s engineering building since 1979. Its equipment is aging, its finances dwindling.

“For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,” said the laboratory’s founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton’s engineering school and an emeritus professor. “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”

Besides the annoying use of the term "telekinesis," which no one in the field uses, and the fact that Princeton University administrators were supposedly embarassed, as though embarassment has any role in evaluating scientific research, this article implies that the PEAR Lab was an academic anomaly reporting anomalous results, and as such, it was justifiably shunned by all sober scientists. What the article does not ask is whether the PEAR Lab's results have been independently confirmed by other scientists. The answer is clearly yes, as anyone can discover with a bit of homework, or by reading Entangled Minds or The Conscious Universe. This makes the Princeton lab's interests not so anomalous after all, and their empirical results not anomalous at all.

Was their work actually dismissed by most scientists? Perhaps in public within university circles, but certainly not in private. As the PEAR Lab found, I've also discovered that there's a large and growing network of mainstream academics who are privately very interested in these topics. But taboos in academia prevent scientists from openly discussing their real interests.

There is much said about the lofty ideals of academic freedom, the freedom to explore any topic with impunity. But the ideal is a myth. It is not possible to study any topic one wishes without risk. Scientists who attempt to study controversial topics will find that they do not get tenure, or if they already have tenure they will not get promotions, and if that fails the administrator will attempt to avoid embarassment and try (usually unsuccessfully) to fire the violator. In this sense the PEAR Lab showed incredible fortitude by simply surviving within an environment that tried every trick in the book to make the lab disappear. This emotional side of supposedly rational academia is a hidden and shameful secret, not often seen by those outside the ivory towers.

I recently had a conversation with an intelligent, highly skeptical scientist who vehemently insisted with unshakable confidence that there is no reason to accept any claims of psychic phenomena because there are no peer-reviewed publications supporting their existence. Thus, any claims to the contrary, even by places like the PEAR Lab, are necessarily flawed or fraud. And further, if there were such evidence, then it would have won the "million dollar prize" by now. Ipso facto, there is no evidence. It's all fraud run by scam artists.

I calmly pointed out that there are in fact hundreds of such publications, most in peer-reviewed journals. The scientist was incredulous, refusing to believe that this could possibly be true, and even if was true, those journals couldn't possibly be any good. I could only sigh. There are tens of thousands of journals. No one can know more than a tiny sliver of information appearing in journals that are not within one's speciality. To assume that because you haven't heard of the information it doesn't exist is the height of hubris. As Prof. Jahn said in the NYTimes piece, “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.” I'm afraid that is quite true.

Woo-woos the internet over are as outraged as they can be; why, Professor Utts proved that the Ganzfield Effect is real! It's a CONSPIRACY!!!

[Mr Bean]

On the one hand, almost nothing useful came out of that lab. On the other hand your closing a place called the Anomalies Research lab. Somehow even though I know it's bunk I still have that tiny bit of hope that something might be discover to give tradition science a prod.

Oh well, they were just a drain on funds then. Still, a man can always dream? And there's always the hope of another Air force project.

[brianeyci]

There is much said about the lofty ideals of academic freedom, the freedom to explore any topic with impunity.

A passive form sentence. Who says what? Or did he just invent something out of his arsehole with no name and no real quotation?

It is not possible to study any topic one wishes without risk.

If I study bullshit I should be fired. Tenure means this problem is far less serious than in any other professions. Isn't he the one arguing against the ivory tower, and if so shouldn't academia be more in line with real world employment?

This emotional side of supposedly rational academia is a hidden and shameful secret, not often seen by those outside the ivory towers.

Getting mad at pseudoscience is somehow irrational and shameful? I'm sick of this idea that emotion leads to irrationality. Yes, irrational people are often emotional, but the converse is not true. How do you think academics get the fortitude to go through so much schooling? They have passion for their work, and it doesn't make them any worse for it.

There are tens of thousands of journals. No one can know more than a tiny sliver of information appearing in journals that are not within one's speciality. To assume that because you haven't heard of the information it doesn't exist is the height of hubris.

Wrong. Shifting the burden of proof. Might as well say it's the "height of hubris" to assume that god doesn't exist.

As Prof. Jahn said in the NYTimes piece, “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.” I'm afraid that is quite true.

Only true if you assume the lab has produced results, and only if you assume "people" means the general public instead of academics. Why don't you get to the meat of the matter Mr. Carey and try to disseminate the results of the lab to the general public, what popular science writers are supposed to do? Because you write style over substance crap, discussing the conspiracy itself rather than the lab's findings. Lazy hack writing and conspiracy theory.

[Rye]

I hope it went like this:

Parapsych: I trust you're moving us to a better place on campus?

Dean: No, we're moving you OFF CAMPUS. The Board of Regents has decided to terminate your grant. You are to vacate these premises immediately. This University will no longer continue any funding of any kind for your group's activities.

Parapsych: But the kids love us.

Dean: we believe that the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You, however, seem to regard science as some kind of "dodge" or "hustle." Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. You're a poor scientist, and you have no place in this department or in this University.

Parapsych: I guess my confidence in the Regents was misplaced. They did this to Galileo, too.

Dean: It could be worse. They took the astronomer Phileas and staked his head to the town gate.

[Anguirus]

So if these guys really are serious, they should be able to go independent and start catching ghosts. That'll show those academics.

[CJvR]

So if these guys really are serious, they should be able to go independent and start catching ghosts. That'll show those academics.

You beat me to it! Ghostbusters!!!

[Uraniun235]

So if these guys really are serious, they should be able to go independent and start catching ghosts. That'll show those academics.

You beat me to it! Ghostbusters!!!

I'm pretty sure Rye got there first.

[Cykeisme]

There's something strange.. IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
There's something weird.. AND IT DON'T LOOK GOOD

[Guardsman Bass]

In all fairness, it was good to close the lab, because the testing they did failed to produce any solid evidence of psi phenomena. According to this article, their experimental procedure was to set up random number generators of 0s and 1s, and have the test subjects try to influence them mentally to skew the numbers of either 0s or 1s beyond the skew expected by random chance. In that, they failed; they only produced a very marginal difference from random chance (50% hits on a number), and the experiment, when duplicated by others, only brought random chance odds.

[Patrick Degan]

On the one hand, almost nothing useful came out of that lab.

Hey, it's the lab that gave us Peter Venkman.

[CaptHawkeye]

On the one hand, almost nothing useful came out of that lab.

Hey, it's the lab that gave us Peter Venkman.

Not to mention military grade, back mounted proton projectors capable of destroying the universe if handled poorly. I wonder if these guys are going to move into a firehouse? I should probably call the EPA to make sure they aren't doing anything strange.

[kheegster]

Well, any mention of PEAR around here is certainly enough to cause professors' eyes to roll to the back of their heads.

However, my current advisor, who used to be in charge of university finances, tells me that the money was specifically donated by a benefactor to set up the lab, and presumably one of his predecessors shrugged and went 'why not?'.

Having said that, their method of investigation *was* scientific, and all they've done is to confirm empirically the null hypothesis that ESP doesn't exist.