Dr Mishlove,
I still haven't gotten a copy of the PK man, but I figure this
Geller
thing has to be discussed in greater detail because I can't prevent
the
bias that it creates in my mind, simply because what I know about
it
makes it perfectly clear to me that it was a case of outright
fraud.
But I'm stuck having to admit that my view is based entirely
on what
I've read by the age of 23, whereas you're much older and have actually
met the people who wrote the books my view is based on. The
conversation is greatly unbalanced in your favour and I'm trying to
avoid sounding like the know it all/know nothing I am. But I'm
also
stuck wondering how it's possible to continue believing it despite
what
I see as obvious evidence to the contrary.
First, there's his pre-American history, where he was charged
with fraud
in Israel.
Caught once doesn't mean guilty forever but...
His early official bio left alot open to question. The
URI version of
the Time incident differs so much from the version signed by
the others
involved that it makes it perfectly clear that one of the two
is lying.
Then there was the main plot...I was left asking why the Egyptian God
Horus would bestow such powers on this individual so that he
could bend
spoons on t.v.. Did he have an argument with the spoon
god or what? If
he was capable of transporting from place to place, healing
the dying,
etc., why would he do these things only once each? What
could be
gained, from Horus' point of view, from Geller having such powers and
using them for entertainment only?
The evidence that he used fraud for his public performances,
both on
stage and on television, DOES outweigh the anecdotes of non-public
performances such as the plant moving incident, the astral projection
to
Brazil, the lenscap photograph, the apparent psychic healing
of an anonymous girl and, of course, the mung bean incident.
Why would Geller cheat on the little parlour tricks on stage
and in
front of cameras, and save the less easily explained miracles
for
private parties for the few?
Has Geller ever been asked to "Make the movie run backwards?"
while on stage or on camera? In front of scientific observers? Did
the person in question mention the idea to anyone else prior to giving
the sprout to Geller? You say it was an experiment, but I've been involved
in many "experiments" around a bong and bottle of rye and the results,
though fascinating, had to be written off because they couldn't be repeated
in more formal conditions.
How much was the incident discussed between the participants/observers
prior to your hearing about it? I myself have observed the transition
many anecdotes go through before becoming cemented. Often, he
people
who were there refuse to bend on what happened once the conclusion
is
reached on what the incident meant, even when faced with a tape
recording of the initial discussion, where initial observations are
often different from the final version.
The fact that this person was described by you as a friend,
I can
understand your unwillingness to question his side of the story.
Randi's Santa Clause analogy applies here, when 9 out of ten
cases show
that no Santa Clause was involved in the distribution of gifts,
why
should we forever leave the 10th case open to debate simply because
no
one would own up to it?
Also, I can understand the reason why James Randi would lose
face in
scientific circles for calling someone a liar. In parliament,
members
are not permitted to call each other liars and must say the person
is
"mistaken", even when it is obvious that the person is lying.
In
addition, in Canada, police can lie in court because the rules
call for
3 witnesses to refute an officer's testimony. It's considered
wrong for
someone to say that this allows police to lie, because, after
all, we
must respect police because they have taken oaths never to abuse
their
powers. We should trust this oath because...we have to.
That's what it
comes down to.
I understand that there are similar rules, although unwritten,
in
scientific circles, particularily fields such as yours, and it
is also
pretty standard among unofficial occultnik circles I've been
acquainted
with.
It's pretty hard to work one's way around this, and one
faces
accusations of bias and closed mindedness if one looks at what
is
obviously a case of fraud and says so.
Someone like Randi wouldn't balk at calling a spade a spade,
however,
and the whole SRI thing was pretty stupid to begin with.
One does not
call upon a physicist to study the mating habits of kangaroos,
unless
there was a particular facet of it which applied directly to
his field
of expertise. The SRI researchers were mathemeticians,
and allowed
Geller a whole bunch of leway that he shouldn't have had, but
they did
so because they took Geller at his word to begin with.
After all, much
like Jesus, he wouldn't perform in front of skeptics.
From what I've read, the scientists weren't assisting him in
any other
way than not knowing what they were doing. They seemed honest
in their
efforts, but it shouldn't have been their efforts.
The Bill Clinton analogy doesn't stand, because Bill Clinton didn't
do anything wrong in direct relation to his office, in direct relation
to his job of running the country, the reason for his being worth discussion.
Geller was proven to be a cheat on several incidences that WERE related
to his "office".
The Geller scenario IS extremely important, because the continued
acceptance of many of his claims in spite of the evidence tarnishes
your
work in a great way.
Is the PK man another Geller? It's a bias I can't prevent myself
from
taking into the book, simply because the Geller incident stands
so
boldly in mind. In all fairness, the same question that
applies to Geller, if he's been caught cheating before is it likely that
he cheats all the time, applies to you, if you as a researcher have either
been snowed, or needed to believe it so much that you allowed yourself
to be snowed, in this way by Geller, how careful could this later research
be?
By the way, on a totally different topic, I recently read Torr
Norretrander's "The User Illusion", which theorizes that consciousness
is not real. I'm sure you've already read it, and would
like to know
what you thought of it. I'm having a hard time deciding,
and since your
original letter reminded me I had it in my library, I've been
referring
to Roots Of Consciousness for a different perspective on some
of the
concepts he discusses, and have found that some parts in User
Illusion
make Roots Of Consciousness easier to understand.
His analyzis of the Maxwell's Demon dilemna was similar to the
one in
Roots Of Consciousness, but was used to illustrate a totally
different
point. The "Physiological Mechanisms Of Consciousness" section
of your book was the one I referred to most.
Both books are seemingly on the same subject, though your
book should
be called "History Of What People Have Thought About Consciousness".
Daniel Johnson