Is it mind over matter, or mind over data?

Is it mind over matter, or mind over data?

A parapsychological experiment • Image by Francis Wickware (Public Domain)

Originally published 15 June 1998

In a base­ment lab of Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty’s engi­neer­ing school, a group of sci­en­tists is inves­ti­gat­ing the pow­ers of mind over matter.

Physi­cist Robert Jahn is direc­tor of Prince­ton’s Engi­neer­ing Anom­alies Research lab. He is assist­ed by psy­chol­o­gist Bren­da Dunne. They are deter­mined to demon­strate that thought can alter reality.

In a typ­i­cal exper­i­ment, a com­put­er spits out ran­dom num­bers that aver­age 100. Dunne stares at the com­put­er screen and wills the machine to pro­duce num­bers that fall below 100. The num­bers aver­age 99.86. Then she restarts the exper­i­ment and wills the machine to go high. This time the aver­age is 101.14.

The idea is to show that these results can be obtained con­sis­tent­ly, in tri­al after trial.

In oth­er exper­i­ments, a com­put­er con­trols a beat­ing drum or spout­ing foun­tain. The con­cen­trat­ing sub­ject wills the drum to beat faster or the foun­tain to spout higher.

Jahn and Dunne believe they have demon­strat­ed that mind can effect the out­come of about one in every 10,000 ran­dom events. And they believe these results are not sub­ject to the phys­i­cal prox­im­i­ty of the exper­i­men­tal sub­jects and the events they seek to con­trol: mind over mat­ter works at a distance.

Need­less to say, most sci­en­tists scoff at their results, attribut­ing appar­ent devi­a­tions from ran­dom­ness in their exper­i­ments to sta­tis­ti­cal flukes, exper­i­men­tal error, or bad exper­i­men­tal design.

But don’t tell that to the count­less New Age cit­i­zens of the Inter­net, who are quick to jump at the Prince­ton results to say “I told you so!” For them, mind over mat­ter is a vin­di­ca­tion of the human spir­it over the ruth­less mate­ri­al­ism of mod­ern science.

Jahn attrib­ut­es neg­a­tive reac­tion to his work to “sci­en­tif­ic stodgi­ness, sci­en­tif­ic seg­re­ga­tion, and sci­en­tif­ic sec­u­lar­i­ty.” In oth­er words, the sci­en­tif­ic estab­lish­ment is stuffed with closed minds.

Maybe yes, maybe no. As in all aspects of sci­ence, and espe­cial­ly for extra­or­di­nary claims, the work of Jahn and Dunne will stand or fall depend­ing on whether their results can be con­sis­tent­ly repli­cat­ed by skep­tics in care­ful­ly-con­trolled, inde­pen­dent exper­i­ments. For the moment, it is fair to say that their work teeters dan­ger­ous­ly close to pseudoscience.

Which is not to say that Jahn and Dunne are less than seri­ous researchers.

Near­ly 400 years ago, Fran­cis Bacon wrote: “What a man would like to be true, he pref­er­en­tial­ly believes.” And this is the dan­ger that lurks in every search for truth.

Even the most fair-mind­ed observ­er can be led into error by uncon­scious or unex­am­ined prej­u­dices. This is par­tic­u­lar­ly true in exper­i­ments like those of Jahn and Dunne where the size of the effect being observed is close to the lev­el of ran­dom variation.

A good exam­ple of how easy it is to go wrong is the work of the astronomer Adri­aan van Maa­nen on the rota­tion of galaxies.

In the sec­ond decade of the 20th cen­tu­ry, one of the biggest unan­swered ques­tions in astron­o­my was the dis­tance to the so-called “spi­ral neb­u­las”, pin­wheel-shaped whirls of stars and gas. Were the spi­rals inside the Milky Way Galaxy, and there­fore rel­a­tive­ly near­by and small, or were they far beyond the Milky Way and per­haps as large as our own galaxy?

One way to answer this ques­tion was to see if rota­tion­al motion could be detect­ed in the spi­rals. If the spi­rals are small and near­by, they might appear to rotate more quick­ly than if they are larg­er and far away.

Van Maa­nen looked for rota­tion by com­par­ing pho­tographs of face-on spi­rals tak­en some years apart.

In spi­ral after spi­ral he found con­sis­tent evi­dence of rota­tion, as if the spi­ral neb­u­las were unwind­ing. The star dis­place­ments he observed were tiny but appar­ent­ly real. Since van Maa­nen was one of the most respect­ed astronomers in the world for this sort of work, his results were wide­ly accept­ed. His mea­sure­ments sug­gest­ed that the spi­ral neb­u­las were inside the Milky Way.

It took more than a decade for astronomers to real­ize that van Maa­nen’s con­sis­tent and con­vinc­ing mea­sure­ments were in error. In fact, the spi­rals are so far away that it was impos­si­ble to detect a change in the posi­tions of stars dur­ing the inter­vals used by van Maanen.

So what was the source of his error? The his­to­ri­ans of astron­o­my Richard Berendzen, Richard Hart, and Daniel See­ley have exam­ined the issue, and they ruled out sys­tem­at­ic instru­men­tal and com­pu­ta­tion­al errors. It seems that van Maa­nen had a slight per­son­al bias toward believ­ing that the spi­rals were in rota­tion, and his results reflect­ed this bias. In oth­er words, while striv­ing for com­plete objec­tiv­i­ty, his mea­sure­ments were nonethe­less affect­ed by his expectations.

One should always be skep­ti­cal about exper­i­men­tal results that lie close to the mar­gin of sys­tem­at­ic instru­men­tal, com­pu­ta­tion­al, or per­son­al errors. All cur­rent inves­ti­ga­tions of “mind over mat­ter” and oth­er para­nor­mal phe­nom­e­na fall into this category.

That is why such work should be con­sid­ered with a large grain of salt, at least until it is repli­cat­ed sev­er­al times over by skep­ti­cal, inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tors. Sci­ence may indeed be “stodgy” and slow to accept rev­o­lu­tion­ary ideas, but it is that way by design. His­to­ry has taught us how easy it is to see what we want to see.

Share this Musing: