ithout going into the whole matter here (see Braude, 1986, for
a more complete discussion), we should note, firstly, that the
skeptic's appeal to modern technology is a double-edged sword.
Turn-of-the-century technological primitiveness affected not
only the means for detecting fraud, but also the means for producing
it. Just as there were no small electrical devices (such as miniature
video cameras) capable of catching fraudulent mediums in the act,
there were also no similar devices capable of producing the large-scale
phenomena for which we have good evidence. Forget about those
phenomena explainable, in principle, by means of slight-of-hand
and diversion techniques. There is a substantial residue of phenomena
produced under conditions in which no accomplice or device could
have been concealed, and also phenomena which even today's technology
cannot simulate (e.g., D.D. Home's materialized hands).
ne of my favorite examples concerns D.D. Home's accordion phenomena.
Many observers report that Home was able to make accordions play
untouched, or when held at the end away from the keys. Sometimes
the accordions were said to play melodies on request. Now, Home
preferred to have the accordion do its thing under the seance
table; he said the power was strongest there. Obviously,
that could be cause for suspicion; but to a more generous open-minded
investigator it might simply indicate Home's own idiosyncratic
beliefs about the workings of psi. William Crookes fell into
that latter category; but he also realized why others might quite
reasonably, be concerned about phenomena which
the medium preferred
to produce under the table. So Crookes devised a way to test
the phenomena while still honoring Home's preferences.
irst, Crookes bought a new accordion for the occasion; hence
it was not Home's own instrument, nor one he had an opportunity
to tamper with beforehand. Second, Crookes picked Home up at
his apartment and watched him change clothes; thus, he could determine
that Home was not concealing a device capable of producing the
phenomena (although in the 1870's, it is unclear what such a device
could have been). Crookes then took Home to his house, where
he had built a special cage for the accordion. The cage fit under
Crookes' dining room table, and there was only enough space above
it for Home to reach in and hold the accordion at the end away
from the keys. There was not enough room for Home to reach down
further and manipulate the instrument and its keyboard. Observers
were stationed on both sides of Home, and another went under the
table with a lamp in order to observe the accordion. Under those
and slightly revised conditions (such as running an electrical
current through the cage, and also Home removing his hand from
the accordion, placing both his hands on the table), the accordion
was reported to have expanded and contracted, played simple melodies,
and floated about inside the cage (for more details, see Crookes,
1871; Medhurst, Goldney and Barrington, 1972; and Braude, 1986).
consider this to be an interesting and important piece of evidence.
The fact is, as the skeptic likes to note, we don't see such things
any more. But if we cannot explain that fact by appealing to
the advent of modern technology (or a greater degree of gullibility
around the turn of the century), what sense can we make of it?
I submit that fear of psi has probably played a major role.
e should note, firstly, that the dramatic PK occurring around
the turn of the century took place within the context of the spiritualist
movement, which was enormously popular at the time, and which
gave rise to the widespread practice of holding seances around
a table for the purpose of contacting deceased friends and relatives.
Furthermore, the great mediums of that era were all sincere spiritualists.
They believed that they were merely facilitating phenomena produced
by discarnate spirits; they did not believe they actually produced
the phenomena themselves. So psychologically, those individuals
were off the hook no matter what happened. If nothing (or only
boring phenomena) occurred, the medium could always attribute
the failures to an inept communicator or a bad connection
between this world and the spirit world. More importantly, however,
when impressive phenomena occurred, mediums did not have to fear
the extent of their own powers. They did not have to worry about
what they might produce (consciously or unconsciously) outside
the safe confines of the seance room.
s time went on, more and more people, both in and out of the
field of psychical research, took seriously the possibility that
physical mediums might be PK agents. And even when the mediums
and other spiritualists resisted this belief, the fact remains
that the belief was increasingly "in the air" and more
difficult to ignore. I suspect that this must have had an effect
on the psychology of mediumship generally, because mediums were
more often likely to be concerned about having powers they could
not control. So it is not surprising to find that the best mediums
of the twentieth century had increasingly less intimidating repertoires
of phenomena. By the time we come to Rudi Schneider in the 1920's
and 30's the most sensational phenomena tended merely to be medium-sized
object movements. And more recently, alleged PK Superstars
such as Nina Kulagina and Felicia Parise produced even smaller-scale
phenomena (see, Honorton, 1974; Kail, et al., 1976; Pratt and
Keil, 1973; Ullman, 1974; Watkins and Watkins, 1974).
oreover, it is interesting to note how much PK Superstars of
the second half of this century seem to suffer when producing
their phenomena. Earlier mediums went into a trance, and occasionally
were exhausted afterwards. But more modern PK stars seem, rather,
to be making a conscious effort. They acknowledge their own role
in the production of the phenomena, and it is not surprising,
then, that they should have to work so hard (say) to make a cigarette
or pill bottle move a millimeter or an inch. In fact, consider
how convenient that is psychologically. If a psychic has to expend
such an effort to do so little, then (in a careless line of thought
characteristic of much self-deception) it will seem that no (or
only a fatal) human PK effort could produce a phenomena worth
worrying about.
cannot let the topic of the fear of psi drop without noting
another of its manifestations, one that is common today as it
was during the heyday of spiritualism. It continues to amaze
me how otherwise smart people argue against the existence of psi
generally and its more dramatic manifestations in particular.
There are, of course, careful and reflective critics of the field.
But too often critics resort easily to lines of argument they
would be quick to detect as sleazy or indefensible in other contexts.
It is almost as if a veil of idiocy suddenly descends on those who are otherwise penetrating and intelligent. It is unlikely that in most other contexts skeptics would resort
so readily to ad hominem arguments, or try to generalize
from the weakest cases. But (to take that last offense as an
example) quite often one finds skeptics arguing, say, that the
case of D.D. Home should be ignored because the small-scale phenomena
might be mimicked by slight-of-hand, or because the most poorly-documented
bits of evidence (such as the alleged levitation out the window
at Ashley House) are weak.
ow are we supposed to believe that
all of a sudden, these critics don't understand that the best
documented pieces of evidence are the ones that count? It is
obvious that many skeptics are intelligent people, and I suggest
that it is highly unlikely that they simply suffer occasional
and uncontrolled spasms of stupidity. If they did, they would
presumably no occur so exclusively in connection with parapsychology.
It is much more plausible that many skeptics are simply in a
kind of conceptual panic, and that their fear of psi is little
different from what I felt back in 1968.
Stephen E. Braude, PHD is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County and a past President
of the Parapsychological Association. He may be reached by email
References
PNotN homepage
