A Philosopher's Blog


Posted in Metaphysics, Philosophy, Reasoning/Logic by Michael LaBossiere on January 30, 2011
Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza 1632 - 1677
Image via Wikipedia

Since people often confuse the metaphysics of philosophy with the metaphysics of popular culture (things like healing crystals), it is not surprising that I have been asked what I think about the recent paper on ESP. My quick response is that my general view on ESP has not been changed: I see it as a possibility, but very unlikely. However, it seems worthwhile to consider the research in question (which might actually be an elaborate prank).

Bem’s paper discusses nine experiments he has conducted over the past ten years. The purpose of the research was to test student’s ability to sense random events, most famously the random porn images that students were allegedly able to sense before they appeared on the screen of a computer.

Bem seems to be trying to find some sort of backwards causal connection in that the cause is in the future relative to the effect. Since this is not how causation is supposed to work, this is a rather odd sort of thing.

In one experiment Bem had 100 students take a memory test and then had them practice the words they had used in the test. He claims that “The results show that practicing a set of words after the recall test does, in fact, reach back in time to facilitate the recall of those words.”

In his famous porn experiment, the subjects were asked to pick which virtual curtain concealed an image on the computer. Once the choice was made, a program randomly “placed” an image “behind” one curtain or the other. According to Bem, the subjects were able to pick the curtain that “hid” an image 53% of the time when that image was erotic. They were able to pick non-erotic photos only 50% of the time. He claims that “What I showed was that unselected subjects could sense the erotic photos,” Dr. Bem said, “but my guess is that if you use more talented people, who are better at this, they could find any of the photos.”

While I do find ESP fascinating and the paper interesting, there seem to be some serious problems with the experiments and his inferences.

First, the sample sizes are too small. While I am not a statistician by profession, an experiment requires a sample that is off adequate size. Oversimplifying things a bit, the smaller the sample in an experiment, then the less able it is to discern differences between chance and an actual causal connection. While the subjects presumably were able to pick the erotic image 53% of the time, that does not seem to be statistically significant given the small size of the sample-it could be the result of pure chance rather than sensory powers.

Second, it seems rather important to take into account the notion of regressing to the mean. To use an example, if you give 100 students a true/false test and have them guess the answers, then it is very likely that some of them will guess correctly at a rate higher than 50% and thus seem “lucky.” However, if they are tested again and again, the results will eventually approach the expected 50/50 mark. Interestingly enough, attempts to replicate Bem’s results seem to have failed-which seems like reasonably good evidence that the 53% result was a fluke rather than evidence of ESP.

Third, he makes a rather strong leap to a very definite conclusion based on evidence that fails to warrant such a conclusion. To be specific, he seems to be concluding that his experiments serve as proof for backwards causation. However, even if it is assumed that the results are statistically significant, there seem to be many alternative explanations and these need to be properly considered before accepting backwards causation or special senses that can detect the future.

To use something almost as weird as predicting the future, it could be that the students have the power to sense the states of the computer and are thus able to predict what image it will present. After all, one might argue, sharks can detect minute electrical fields. Maybe humans can do something similar. Interestingly, computers do not actually generate true random numbers and hence it could be argued that people have a way of detecting the states of the computer and what result will probably occur. Of course, that is a rather implausible theory. But no more implausible than backwards causation.

Another odd possibility is that the universe is deterministic (as Hobbes and Spinoza argued). As such, knowing what the future will bring is not a mater of the future causing the past, but a matter of knowing what the past will cause in the future. Philosophers, such as Spinoza, have argued that what appears as chance is actually a matter of ignorance because the universe is deterministic (the future follows of necessity from the past). Spinoza and other thinkers even argued that if a person had the right information (or used some sort of rather unexplained rational intuition) then she could know what will be. So, perhaps Spinoza was right and these students are not getting a vision of the future but intuiting what will arise from current events.

Naturally, it is easy enough to go on and on giving alternatives that are more or less as odd or plausible as ESP. Since many of these are consistent with the alleged evidence, the conclusion Bem draws seems to be rather hasty.

Enhanced by Zemanta

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Asur said, on January 30, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    “So, perhaps Spinoza was right and these students are not getting a vision of the future but intuiting what will arise from current events.”

    I’m a bit protective of Spinoza, Mike, so I hope you’ll forgive me here for zeroing in on a tangential point with the above quote; it cannot be the case that this is an instance of Spinoza being ‘right’, as the students cannot be intuiting the correct answers from Spinoza’s perspective — if so, they would have to be 100% correct in their responses.

    Here’s why: First, knowing what sequence the computer will generate is an instance of knowing a single thing, the computer itself. Second, it is not possible to have both an adequate and an inadequate understanding of the same thing; hence, if the students’ predictions are not 100%, it cannot be the true that they have an adequate understanding of the computer since a false prediction can only be the result of inadequate understanding. Therefore, since intuitive knowledge represents adequate understanding, their knowledge cannot be intuitive.

    This is from his Ethics, EIIP35 and EIIP40S2.

    Sorry, I just couldn’t handle seeing my personal hero linked to psychic college students, even tenuously.

    I wish the New Age community would a find a different term to describe phenomena that ‘transcend’ ordinary physical reality; ‘metaphysics’ being used in that way has never lead me to any good experiences.

    I remember this one girl I was on a date with, she was talking to me about her interests and she mentioned that she loved metaphysics. Well, my heart skipped a beat and I wondered if I had just met my soul mate…until I asked how she became interested in it:

    Girl: Well, my dad is clairvoyant, so I guess it was just natural for me to develop an interest in magic and the supernatural.

    Me: …

    Girl: I had this friend in college who practiced earth magic, and I remember one time, after a ritual, that I walked out of her apartment — which was on the third floor — and felt so grounded that I thought I was on the first floor!

    Me: This date’s over.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 30, 2011 at 7:54 pm

      Perhaps 1) only some of them have the adequate knowledge or 2) they have inadequate understanding of their adequate knowledge. Or not.

      Spinoza seems to allow for people having a partial understanding. But, perhaps I should have gone with something other than using intuition. Of course, Spinoza does not go into great detail about how that intuition stuff works.

      • Asur said, on January 30, 2011 at 9:18 pm

        Hehe, 2) is funny, it sounds like they’d each have to have two minds, one failing to understand what the other knew.

        I agree that Spinoza definitely allows for a partial understanding, it’s the specific topic of EIIP35 where he states that “…falsity cannot consist in absolute privation, nor also in absolute ignorance”, thus it must consist in an understanding that is neither wholly lacking nor wholly complete — i.e., in a partial understanding.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on January 31, 2011 at 3:06 pm

          That would, however, explain a lot about how people behave. I’m reminded a bit of Locke’s remarks about how phrases like “he was beside himself” actually have metaphysical import. If so, then “being of two minds” might be a real possibility. Or not. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: