ON THE CUTTING EDGE 0? RESEARCH.

A NEW HORIZONS RESEARCH PAPER.

Copyright* New Horizons Research Foundation.

Summer 1992.

INTRODUCTION.

What i s i t like to be on the cutting edge of research? Parapsychology i s a subject for research that can quite properly be described as being on the cutting edge, and as parapsychologists, we shall look at i t from this viewpoint. However there are many other areas of sci e n t i f i c research that can also be described as being on the cutting edge, and we hope to talk about some of these also. The purpose of this paper i s to attempt to put into perspective some of the criticisms that have been made of recent years about parapsychologists, and the research that they have been engaged in, and to encourage them to continue in their work despite the discouragement that many are feeling at the present.

There i s no doubt that parapsychological research i s in a decline right now, and there are many reasons for this. Probably the biggest reason for this decline, however, is the continued disparagement, ridicule and criticism that has been heaped upon both the scientist and the subject by some self-called "sceptics" who have almost unlimited access to media and publicity, and whose minds seem completely closed to anything that does not f i t within their own narrow f i e l d of knowledge. They are indeed 'doubting Thomas's" in the highest degree.

Mostly they confine themselves to allegations of fraud on the part of researchers. I t i s certainly true that parapsychology, a l o n g with a l l the other s c i e n c e s , and arts, has seen i t s share of fraudulent arti s t s . We ourselves wrote a paper in May of 1986, some 114 pages long, l i s t i n g frauds and hoaxes, not only in science, but in the fi e l d s of art, literature, history, anthropology, and archaeology, to name a few. (Frauds, Folly, grid F a l l i b i l i t y , New Horizons, May 1986). Nevertheless, because fraud and hoax exist, i t has never been suggested that research into any subject be abandoned because of this. We experience fraud and cheating in every aspect of our lives, and we deal with i t , and we generally recognise i t (sooner or later!), and we become able, as a society, to differentiate between the genuine arti c l e and fraud. We are not, generally speaking, given to "throwing away the baby with the bath water''I

We do not close the Stock Exchange because there are * sometimes fraudulent traders? we do not give up on

the welfare system because there are welfare cheats? we do not stop going to the doctor when we are i l l

•» because some doctors are quacks! We could go on. Simply because cheating and fraud e x i s t we do not give up i n any area of our l i v i n g and research. Why

m should we give up on parapsychology? I t i s true there are many parapsychological phenomena which we cannot yet exp la in . llany people have experiences which ne i ther they themse lves nor we as researchers , can understand. But i t behoves us to keep an open mind, and continue to ask questions and seek answers.

Our c r i t i c s frequent ly have closed minds. They are often somewhat naive , they be l ieve only i n what they themselves know, and they see the world only i n the

^ framework of current knowledge. They have not learned from the past , ne i ther can they look to the fu ture . Bacon, i n the days of King James the F i r s t , c r i t i c i s e d

j some o f h i s contemporaries who claimed there was nothing * more to be discovered, a l l the answers were knowni

Or to b r i n g i t more up-to-date , i n I899 - l e s s than a hundred years ago - Pres ident McKinley received a l e t t e r

J from the D i r e c t o r of the U.S . Patent Of f i ce s ta t ing that "Everything that can be invented has been invented", and the w r i t e r of the l e t t e r recommended that the Pres ident

j close the Patent Of f i ce . I f one took these people s e r i o u s l y nothing new would ever be discovered* and

n we would have remained i n the Stone Age. i

, j

The only a t t i tude a ...genuine s c i e n t i s t should have i s that o f a completely open mind - a b e l i e f and an

j understanding that we c e r t a i n l y do not know a l l the ™* answers, nor are we l i k e l y to i n our own l i f e t i m e „

The excitement l i e s i n looking f o r the answers and perhaps, i f we are lucky, f i n d i n g a few. A research

^ s c i e n t i s t i s a seeker to part s o f the puzzle only , and often i t i s only when a few parts come together do we r e a l i z e that we have a l i t t l e more understanding of

jg what l i f e and l i v i n g on t h i s r p l a n e t i s a l l about.

The object of t h i s paper i s to po int up some of the mistakes the c r i t i c s have made over the years . We would

* l i k e to show how f o o l i s h i t i s to have a closed mind, and hopefu l ly to encourage parapsychologists to have f a i t h i n t h e i r subject , and t h e i r own research.

Every one of us, scientists or not, makes mistakes. Many researchers have "barked up the wrong tree", and many more w i l l do so in the future. We w i l l wander down wrong paths, and w i l l continue to f a l l victim to fraud from time to time. But that should not deter us. To be on the cutting edge of research i s to be vulnerable, both to error and criticism. But i f every researcher who has been cr i t i c i s e d , ridiculed, and derided had given up, we would be missing a great deal today. The c r i t i c s have by no means always been right - far from i t ! .

Genuine and hon@st criticisms has a very real and worthwhile place in science. We could not advance without i t , but the c r i t i c , along with the scientist, i s required to be completely openminded. A l l too often, and especially in the f i e l d of parapsychology, the c r i t i c i s emotionally involved in a belief system that inhibits his or her a b i l i t y to be openminded. In fairness i t has to be said that the same applies to some scientists, in whatever f i e l d they may be operating.

In 1978 an organization was formed which had as i t s specific aims the examination of research done by parapsychologists, obviously with a view to 'debunking' or discrediting much of the work being done in this f i e l d . While some of their criticisms were valid, i t was clear that the authors of the papers written decrying parapsychology were often biased themselves against the subject. In their very f i r s t publication (Zetetic Scholar- Vol. 1. No.l, 1978) the conclusion of the lead a r t i c l e reads as follows -» "The problem of balance between Skepticism (criticism, inclination to reject), and belief (openness, i n c l i n a t i o n to accept) remains. This i s the problem of the growth of sci e n t i f i c knowledge. And yet, a certain bias against paranormal claims i s not necessarily nothing but an irrat i o n a l prejudice. I t may well be that true s c i e n t i f i c objectivity in psychic investigations and in UFO research positively requires a negative "bias towards the phenomena

This organisation has been the source of most of the criticism and derision that parapsychologists have encountered during the last twelve or thirteen years. The authors of this paper, and subsequent ones, take the view that parapsychology, in particular, but any other scejiince on the "cutting edge" should be approached with a negative attitude from the beginning. I t i s our view that a scientist should be truly openminded. Simply because

being studied".

c e r t a i n fac t s that he or she may come across do not f i t i n with current accepted theories does not mean that these fac t s should he treated with l e s s respect . The a t t i tude should be more i n accord with the famous quotat ion that Shakespeare put i n the mouth of Hamlet, (Act . 3 ) . "There are more things i n heaven and earth, Horat io , than are ever dreamed of". In our view i t i s f o o l i s h , and indeed arrogant , to think otherwise.

A word o f caut ion. I t i s , o f course, axiomatic that a normal commonly understood explanat ion, should be accepted f o r an apparent paranormal event, before accept ing the unusual . But, f a i l i n g a normal explanation, an unusual or paranormal explanation should not be ruled out .

THE CUTTING EDGE.

A s c i e n t i s t working on the cut t ing edge of science needs to be a somewhat s p e c i a l person. He/she must be honest - t o t a l l y - , f l e x i b l e , s e l f - conf ident , and stubborn. Such a s c i e n t i s t also needs imagination. Sel f -conf idence i s e s s e n t i a l . I t i s too easy, e s p e c i a l l y f o r a younger s c i e n t i s t to be completely overwhelmed by the reputat ions of o lder and supposedly wiser col leagues . But many of these well-known researchers have been completely wrong i n t h e i r pronouncements, as we s h a l l show l a t e r i n t h i s paper. Too often the person who has been too long involved i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d of research becomes closed-minded and i s unable to see the p o t e n t i a l i n new ideas . Much cutting-edge research has been done by people coming fresh into a f i e l d , with a new look at problems. Many of the world's most important d i scover ies have been made by ordinary people who have trusted t h e i r own judgements and followed t h e i r own i n s t i n c t s , regardless o f the r i d i c u l e o f the be t t er known s c i e n t i s t s . Most o f these d i scover ies have been i n advance of t h e i r times. They were unacceptable to the s c i e n t i f i c community simply because they d id not f i t into the pat tern of knowledge as i t existed at that moment. We s h a l l now quote many examples i n various f i e l d s of s c i e n t i f i c research.

A s c i e n t i s t who was both r i g h t and wrong was G a l i l e o . In the e a r l y 17th Century i t was genera l ly be l ieved that the earth stood s t i l l and the heavens revolved round the ear th . G a l i l e o ' s s c i e n t i f i c observations led him to state that the reverse was true, that the earth rotated on i t s ax i s , and so t h i s was why the s tars and planets appeared to revo lve . He was r i d i c u l e d and outcast f o r t h i s theory, which we now know to be t r u e . However, G a l i l e o h imsel f refused to accept K e p l e r ' s theory that the moon's r o t a t i o n was responsible f o r the formation of ti^es i n the oceans on earth , and i t was i n f a c t much l a t e r that the phenomenon of t i d a l movement was understood.

We are indebted to the authors of two books f o r much of what fol lows regarding the f a l l i b i l i t y of s c i e n t i f i c p r e d i c t i o n . The main source of our information has been a book c a l l e d Fact s and F a l l a c i e s , by Chr i s Morgan and David Langford, publ ished i n 1981 by Webb and Bower. Another source we have used i s the Reader's Digest book, a l so named ffacts and F a l l a c i e s published i n 1988. Other information has been found i n various magazine and newspaper a r t i c l e s .

I n the fo l lowing examples we s h a l l t r y to give only opinions o f people who might have been expected to know what they were t a l k i n g about, that i s to say, s c i e n t i s t s who should have some understanding o f the p o s s i b i l i t i e s . General members of the p u b l i c , however eminent they may be i n t h e i r own sphere, are apt to make t o t a l l y inappropriate remarks, f o r which they may be forg iven , they know no b e t t e r . For instance , D .H. Lawrence i s quoted as having sa id "Whatever the sun may be, i t i s c e r t a i n l y not a b a l l o f flaming gas". George Bernard Shaw, i n 1910, remarked "When astronomers t e l l me that a s tar i s so f a r o f f that i t s l i g h t takes a thousand years to reach us, the magnitude o f the l i e seems to me i n a r t i s t i c " . Such quotations abound. The authors may be forgiven, as we have s a i d . But we expect a more r a t i o n a l approach and response from a tra ined s c i e n t i s t .

We s h a l l confine ourselves to more recent times f o r much of what fo l lows. S c i e n t i f i c d iscovery grew more slowly i n preceding centuries , but the twentieth century has seen an explosion of s c i e n t i f i c discovery that i s i n c r e d i b l e . I t i s hard to keep pace with what new things are being discovered almost d a i l y . We have a wonderful wealth at our f i n g e r t i p s . For those of us born at the ear ly par t o f t h i s century i t has been an amazing journey.

At the beginning of th i s century people moved around on foot , b i c y c l e , by horse drawn power, and by steam t r a i n . On water they t r a v e l l e d by boat. There had been a great deal of controversy over the p o t e n t i a l use o f steam t r a i n s . An eminent doctor had pronounced t h a t , " R a i l t r a v e l at high speed i s not pos s ib l e , because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia". Napoleon's rep ly to an American engineer, Robert F u l t o n , who suggested that he could defeat B r i t a i n by the use o f steam-powered ships was "What s i r , you would make a ship s a i l against the wind and currents by l i g h t i n g a bonf ire underhher decks? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to l i s t e n to such nonsense". One occasion when the B r i t i s h people should f e e l g r a t e f u l that a new s c i e n t i f i c discovery should be r i d i c u l e d ! What might have happened i n h i s t o r y had B r i t a i n been conquored by Napoleon!

But aeroplanes came into being at the beginning of t h i s century. Lord K e l v i n , Pres ident of the Royal Society , i n 1895 pronounced that ,"Heavier than a i r f l y i n g machines are impossible" The Royal Society i s the most p r e s t i g i o u s

assoc ia t ion^ of s c i e n t i s t s i n existence - i t ' s Pres ident should be l i s t e n e d to - but , impossible or not, today we have the aeroplane. In the l i g h t of knowledge current at that time he was t h e o r e t i c a l l y correc t , but the par t that the v i s c o s i t y o f a i r p lays i n aerodynamics was not known or understood at that time. Even though that p r i n c i p l e was not understood, people were experimenting with f l y i n g machines, and f ind ing out that even though they should not be able to f l y , i n fac t they d i d ! . According to the laws o f aerodynamics bumble bees should not be able to f l y - but we a l l know they do! . Frank Whi t t l e , the inventor o f the j e t engine, showed h i s design to the Professor o f Aeronaut ica l Engineering a t Cambridge Univers i ty - sure ly one o f the world's foremost experts on aerodynamics, to be met with the response,"Very i n t e r e s t i n g , Whit t l e , my boy, but i t w i l l never work". Fortunate ly Whitt le continued to pursue h i s research and ignored that pronouncement.

Communication i n t h i s century has changed i n ways beyond b e l i e f . In the e a r l y days o f t h i s century, although the telephone had been invented, very few p r i v a t e households had access to one. In terna t iona l telephone communication was s t i l l slow and labor ious , and very u n r e l i a b l e . A l e t t e r to New Zealand, f or instance, took s ix weeks by boat to a r r i v e , and a rep ly took the same amount of time. Correspondence with f r i ends and f a m i l i e s overseas was very sporadic . Nowadays one can p i c k up a telephone, and with the a i d o f s a t e l l i t e s , one can d i a l and speak i n s t a n t l y to almost anyone i n the world. We have r a d i o , t e l e v i s i o n , computers, fax machines, v ideos , and an immense range o f instruments f o r communication.

Marcgni ' s success i n t r a n s - a t l a n t i c communication by radio was acheived i n the face of a l l accepted knowledge o f the time. I t was pointed out that because of the curvature of the earth , radio waves aimed from England to America would miss t h e i r target and jus t go s t r a i g h t out in to space. However, Marconi was r i g h t f o r a reason unknown or not appreciated by h imse l f or anyone e l se . Radio waves are r e f l e c t e d back to the ear th ' s surface by the ionosphere. Even t h i s "unknown" f a c t was known i n p r i n c i p l e , because the existence o f the ionosphere had been ind ica ted a few years prev ious ly by a s c i e n t i s t c a l l e d Ba l four Stewart; h i s work went unnoticed.

Lord K e l v i n , Wil l iam Thomson, Professor o f Natural Phi losphy i n the U n i v e r s i t y of Glasgow from 1846 to 1899» was one of the most d i s t ingui shed and invent ive mathematicians and p h y s i c i s t s o f the nineteenth century. He was however very unlucky i n several o f h i s pronouncements. In a d d i t i o n to saying that f l y i n g with heavier than a i r machines was impossible, he stated that "radio has no future". He also declared that X-rays would prove to be a hoax. A t y p i c a l example of a s c i e n t i s t who could not look to the future , and understand how things and knowledge can change. Obviously he could not imagine an expansion of the knowledge current at that time. And yet he was one of the foremost s c i e n t i s t s o f h i s day, and some of h i s achievements have been declared immortal. A b r i l l i a n t man, with ' tunne l ' v i s i o n .

Two more quotations from 'experts ' who should know b e t t e r . Thomas J . Watson, o f IBM remarked "I think there i s a world market f o r about f i v e computers". The Managing D i r e c t o r of the In terna t iona l Monetary Fund i n 1959 stated "In a l l i k e l i h o o d world i n f l a t i o n i s over".

From communication we would l i k e to move on to energy and power. At the ear ly par t o f the century e l e c t r i c i t y was i n i t s infancy, and i n 1916 the House of Commons set up a spec ia l committee to decide whether the government should b u i l d another gas s t a t i o n f o r the purpose o f l i g h t i n g London's s treets , or wether they should look to e l e c t r i c i t y i n the future for t h i s purpose. The committee, a f t e r due d e l i b e r a t i o n , and i n v e s t i g a t i o n , reported that the new gas s ta t i on should be b u i l t "There was no future i n e l e c t r i c a l l i g h t i n g " . Sometimes discoveries are there, but the scientists cannot imagine t h e i r p o t e n t i a l ! London's s treets continued to be l i t by gas l i gh t for several decades a f t e r t h i s .

We a l l are f a m i l i a r with the various pronouncements that have been with regard to the p o s s i b i l i t e s of atomic research. S ir 'Ernest Rutherford, who f i r s t conceived the idea o f the atomic nucleus i n 1923 stated,"There i s by no means the same cer ta in ty today as a decade ago that the atoms of an element contain hidden sources o f energy". And then, ten years l a t e r , a f t e r he had h imse l f located the hidden sources, he said,"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom i s a very poor kind o f t h i n g . Anyone who looks for a source of power i n the transformation of the atom i s t a l k i n g moonshine". D r . Robert M i l l i k a n ,

Nobel P r i z e winner i n 1923 said "There i s no l i k e l i h o o d man can ever tap the power of the atom. The g l i b supposi t ion o f u t i l i z i n g atomic energy when our coa l has run out i s completely u n s c i e n t i f i c , a Utopian dream, a c h i l d i s h bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few foo lproof devices into the great majori ty of elements that const i tute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up i n the process of d i s i n t e g r a t i o n " . J . B . S . Haldane, another b r i l l i a n t s c i e n t i s t , was equal ly scept ica l ,"On thermodynamical grounds which I can hardly summarize s h o r t y , I do not much be l i eve i n the commercial p o s s i b i l i t y of induced r a d i o - a c t i v i t y " .

Perhaps the area i n which more emotion i s s t i r r e d up> than i n any other i s the f i e l d of medical research. Our heal th i s a very precious th ing , and i t i s perhaps the most important concern of most i n d i v i d u a l s . Medical knowledge has advanced r a p i d l y during t h i s century. Genera l ly speaking these days medical research i s so c lo se ly c o n t r o l l e d , and s p e c i a l i s e d , there i s l i t t l e controversy over methodology and treatment of i l l n e s s e s and complaints . In the past we are a l l f a m i l i a r with the s t o r i e s o f Jenner and the smallpox vaccine, L i s t e r and h i s a n t i s e p t i c methods, and Sfimmelweiss and h i s theories on puerpural fever . These, and many other innovative researchers were r i d i c u l e d and denigrated i n t h e i r time f o r the d i scover ies that they made. There have been several instances o f outr ight fraud i n medical research of recent years, and i t i s not the purpose o f t h i s paper to document them.

I t i s probably f a i r to say that the cut t ing edge o f medical research i n t h i s day and age l i e s i n the area o f w h o l i s t i c hea l th . There are those who say that the person as a whole needs to be healed i n any medical c r i s i s and not the i n d i v i d u a l complaint. I t i s important i n t h i s area of science, however, as i t i s i n a l l the other areas, to keep an open mind. We c e r t a i n l y do not know a l l the answers yet . We have read a report about a kidney transplant pat i ent i n Dulwich H o s p i t a l , London, who had developed an i n f e c t i o n i n the operat ion i n c i s i o n that would not c l e a r up. A young doctor i n the h o s p i t a l remembered a remedy he had seen native doctors p r a c t i c i n g t r a d i t i o n a l medicine use success fu l ly i n South A f r i c a . He l a i d s t r i p s of a papaya f r u i t across the infected wound. The wound healed. This unorthodox medical success, achieved i n 1977, was met with r i d i c u l e . Even the doctor admitted "It 's not awfully s c i e n t i f i c " . But i t worked.

As parapsychologists over the years we have become aware of many u n s c i e n t i f i c and unorthodox hea l ing methods used by some people who claim e i t h e r to have unusual powers or extraordinary knowledge. Some of these methods, of course, are fraudulent , and are e a s i l y exposed as such. Others however have been found to work, i n spite o f the fac t that according to our present state of knowledge t h i s should not be the case. In these cases, which are u s u a l l y o f the type that orthodox medicine i s unable to he lp , i t i s reasonable to accept that fac tors may be i n operat ion that we do not, as yet , understand or know about.

Spacef l ight has probably been one of the greatest achievements o f science i n t h i s century, together with a l l the ' s p i n - o f f s ' that have accompanied t h i s work. Many of the ideas and theories that were the s t u f f of " s c i e n c e - f i c t i o n - romances have a c t u a l l y come true during the l a t t e r h a l f o f the century. Those o f us who can remember the invent ion of popular r a d i o , can also remember that the inventors of t h i s form of communication were apt to say that "soon we w i l l not only be able to hear voices from many miles away without any v i s i b l e connection ( i . e . telephone wires) , but w i l l be able to see the person t a l k i n g as wel l on a screen i n front of us". To which the standard rep ly seemed to be, i n a s a r c a s t i c manner," yes,',and man w i l l a lso walk on the moon"/ Both p o s s i b i l i t i e s seemed h i g h l y u n l i k e l y i n the l a t e 1920's. But we had t e l e v i s i o n i n the immediate post war years, and men d id indeed walk on the moon i n the 1960's. In 1940 Ba ird was t r y i n g to i n t e r e s t i n h i s new invent ion , t e l e v i s i o n , and was t o l d by h i s colleagues that"the transmission o f images, e s p e c i a l l y mentioning fog as an impediment, was impossible'' . Various experts of the time are quoted as saying ' t e l e v i s i o n won't matter i n your l i f e t i m e or mine' or ' t e l e v i s i o n won't l a s t -i t ' s a f l a s h i n the p a n ' .

But to re turn t© space f l ight . Cut t ing edge s c i e n t i s t s were toying with ideas of t h i s kind o f t r a v e l i n the ear ly years of the century, but whenever t h e i r ideas were mooted they were met with extreme scept is im and r i d i c u l e . Professor Bickerton i n 1926 wrote,"This f o o l i s h idea of shooting at the moon i s an example o f the absurd length to which-^vicious speculat ion w i l l carry s c i e n t i s t s working i n thought-t ight compartments. Let us c r i t i c a l l y examine the proposa l . For a p r o j e c t i l e e n t i r e l y to escape the g r a v i t a t i o n o f the earth , i t needs a v e l o c i t y of 7 mi les

a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at th i s speed i s 15,180 c a l o r i e s . . The energy o f our most v i o l e n t explosive - n i t r o g l y c e r i n e - i s l e s s than 1,500 c a l o r i e s per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry , i t has only one-tenth of the energy necessary to escape the earth . . Hence the propos i t i on appears to be b a s i c a l l y impossible".

In Germany Hermann Oberth had designed a World War I rocket which ant i c ipa ted the V - 2 i t h i s was re jec ted by the German War M i n i s t r y as fantasy. He wrote h i s Ph .D. thes is on t h i s rocket , and i n 1922, the U n i v e r s i t y o f Heidelberg rejected i t . He began to publ i sh h i s theories and again the top s c i e n t i s t s i n Germany re jec ted h i s work out of hand. (For tunate ly f o r B r i t a i n , and the r e s t of the world, as i t turns out IJ A workable rocket was not f i n a l l y designed by German s c i e n t i s t s u n t i l l a t e during the Second World War, and although i t played an important par t i n that war, i t was too l a t e to enable Germany to achieve the domination that might have been had Oberth's theories been taken s e r i o u s l y some twenty years e a r l i e r .

In 1936 Dr . Richard Woolley, an eminent astronomer, reviewing an a r t i c l e speculat ing about the p o s s i b i l i t y o f launching rockets into space i s quoted as fol lows 1-"It must be sa id at once that the whole procedure sketched i n the present volume presents d i f f i c u l t i e s o f so fundamental a nature that we are forced to dismiss the not ion as e s s e n t i a l l y impract icable , i n spi te of the author 's i n s i s t e n t appeal to put aside pre jud ice , and to r e c o l l e c t the supposed i m p o s s i b i l i t y of h e a v i e r - t h a n - a i r f l i g h t before i t was a c t u a l l y accomplished. An analogy such as t h i s may be mis leading, and we be l ieve i t to be so i n t h i s case". Twenty years l a t e r , i n 1956, i n h i s capaci ty as Astronomer Royal , Woolley i s quoted as saying, "Space t r a v e l i s u t t e r b i l g e " .

Lee De Fores t , the ' 'father of e l e c t r o n i c s " i n 1957 i s quoted as saying "But to place a man i n a mult i - s tage rocket and pro jec t him into the c o n t r o l l i n g g r a v i t a t i o n a l f i e l d o f the moon, where the passenger can make s c i e n t i f i c observations, perhaps land a l i v e , and then return to earth - a l l that const i tutes a dream worthy o f J u l e s Verne".

P a t r i c k Moore, doyen of i n t e l l i g e n t amatu^rs, i n 1958 sa id i n r e l a t i o n to space t rave l ,"To hope f o r an e a r l y success i s being h igh ly o v e r - o p t i m i s t i c " .

m Fourteen months l a t e r yncn went -round the moon, and returned sa fe ly to earth .

We have mentioned Napoleon's r e j e c t i o n of steam dr iven ** ships to invade B r i t a i n , and the German reluctance to

accept the ear ly rocket design. The fortunes o f war have been a l t e r e d i n many ways perhaps by t h i s kind of

mt re luctance . While watching a tank demonstration i n 1916 an ADC to F i e l d Marshal l Haig remarked,"The idea that cava lry w i l l be replaced by these i r o n coaches i s

y absurd. I t i s l i t t l e short o f treasonous." Haig i s a l so on record as s ta t ing that the machine gun i s a "gross ly overrated weapon". When Cfinan Doyle wrote an a r t i c l e p r e d i c t i n g the submarine b l o n d e o f England i t provoked the fo l lowing response from Admiral S i r Compton Dombile,"Most improbable and more l i k e one o f Ju l e s Verne's s tor ies" .

" - As l a t e as 19-+5 Dr . Vannevar Bush i s quoted as saying about high-angle rockets used as weapons; - "I say, t e c h n i c a l l y , I don't think anyone i n the world knows how

m to do such a th ing , and I f e e l confident that i t w i l l not be done f o r a very long per iod of time to come . . I think we can leave that out o f our th ink ing . I wish

md the American p u b l i c would leave i t out o f t h e i r th inking".

And Admiral Wi l l iam Leahy,speaking to President Truman i n 19-+5» on the eve o f the dropping of the f i r s t atomic bomb,"This i s the biggest f o o l thing we have ever done. The bomb w i l l never go of f , and I speak as an expert i n explosives". One might agree with the f i r s t par t o f the remark, but as an "expert" i n explosives he was not very good.

ny I t i s worth quoting from our previous paper Fraud, F o l l y , and F a l l i b i l i t y , to po int out how the absence of an appropriate theory can e f f e c t i v e l y block the acceptance o f new knowledge. Many of the s o - c a l l e d "experts" quoted

a B above (and indeed they were genuine experts i n t h e i r f i e l d s i n many cases) made the c r i t i c i s m s that they d id because the theor ies being propounded d id not f i t into the

mt acceptable range of knowledge as i t existed at the time. They d id not f i t i n with what the expert knew; so , therefore , they were imposs ible . These people could not look

jig a t what was being propounded with an open mind. Even when something c l e a r l y worked, because i t should not work according to the state o f t h e i r knowledge, they denied i t .

M

In the per iod 1914-1916 a young p h y s i c i s t , Michael Po lany i (a forebear o f the Canadian Nobel prizewinner for Chemistry, John P o l a n y i , ) published a theory of the adsorpt ion of gases on s o l i d s . This theory assumed that the force a t t r a c t i n g a gas molecule to the surface was independent of the presence o £ other gas molecules. He was able to produce strong experimental evidence i n favour o f h i s theory. However i t was rejected so strongly that he gave up defending i t and kept a low p r o f i l e , i n case he should be expel led from h i s profess ion; he chose to work on other research topics i n phys ic s . The reason f o r the r e j e c t i o n of h i s theory was that at the time the ro l e o f the so - ca l l ed Van der Waals forces (named for the Dutch p h y s i c i s t Van der Waals) i n ho ld ing matter together had only jus t been discovered. These are e l e c t r i c a l forces , so i t was assumed that any forces between matter and matter must be e l e c t r i c a l . On such an assumption P o l y a n i ' s theory had to be wrong. Only some twenty years l a t e r , i n the 1930's were new forces discovered (those o f quantum mechanical resonance). Even a f t e r that, i t took another twenty years for P o l y a n i ' s o r i g i n a l theory and the fac t s which evoked them to be accepted. Po lyani took h i s r e j e c t i o n p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y ; indeed he became a well-known phi losopher of science.

In the 1960's he wrote ; "This miscarriage of s c i e n t i f i c method could not have been avoided . . . . there must be at a l l times a predominantly accepted s c i e n t i f i c view of the nature o f th ings , i n the l i g h t o f which research i s j o i n t l y conducted by members of the community o f s c i e n t i s t s . A strong presumption i s that any evidence which contradicts that view i s i n v a l i d must p r e v a i l . Such evidence has to be disregarded, even i f i t cannot be accounted f o r , i n the hope that i t w i l l eventual ly turn out to be fa l s e or i r r e l e v a n t " . These words seem to character ize a very sa int o f sc ience . Indeed while one may applaud t h e i r unsel fcentred h u m i l i t y , one could perhaps f e e l there i s a lso a place i n the world o f science f o r l e s s s a i n t l y reac t ions . A f t e r a l l , why should honest work be thrown out because of what , i s , i n the end, only se l f - centred unimaginative b igo try?

Gunther S. Stent, wr i t ing i n the S c i e n t i f i c American (Dec. 1972, 222 P«P« 8/*~93) i n an a r t i c l e "Prematurity and Uniquene i n S c i e n t i f i c Discovery" says,"A discovery i s premature i f i t s impl i ca t ions cannot be connected by a ser ies of simple

l o g i c a l steps to canonical or genera l ly accepted knowledge". This may be true , and " i f t i s t r u e , t i s p i ty" as one of Shakespeare's characters says. Another way o f put t ing i t i s that human s p i r i t s f o r the most par t lack the stamina enabling them to l i v e with uncer ta inty .

THE WORLD OF TOMORROW.

I t i s sa lutary to look back and see where we went wrong i n our a t t i t u d e s to those s c i e n t i s t s who were on the c u t t i n g edge i n the times past .

What i s very c l e a r i s that i n spite of the miraculous and wonderful discoveres that have been made i n t h i s century, there are s t i l l p lenty o f d i scover ie s yet to be made. Knowledge advances at a r a p i d pace each day.

In the f i e l d of medicine, f o r instance, wonderful advances are occuring i n surgery. Time magazine, March 1992, c a r r i e s an a r t i c l e descr ib ing how with the a i d of palm -s ize video cameras, miniatur ized sc3S59-3?s and s tap ler , lung surgery can be performed almost b lood le s s ly , l eav ing a small i n c i s i o n that can be closed with a few s t i t ches , and a band-a id . Videoscope surgery can dramat ica l ly reduce s u r g i c a l trauma. I am sure that i n the e a r l y days o f the discovery of videos and t e l e v i s i o n , the idea o f t h e i r use i n major surgery was probably the l a s t thought i n the minds of the inventors . The authors o f the a r t i c l e p r e d i c t that while videoscope surgery w i l l never completely replace open surgery, i t i s coming c l o s e r than anyone r e a l i s e d i n t h i s replacement. For instance, three quarters o f near ly 600,000 g a l l bladders removed annually i n the U .S . are removed i n t h i s manner.

The U . S . Department of Defence has developed a system, c a l l e d NAVSTAR. Using a c o n s t e l l a t i o n o f 18 navigat ion s a t e l l i t e s o r b i t i n g the earth once every 12 hours, at a height o f 11,000 n a u t i c a l mi les , and a speed of 5 miles persecond, the system w i l l ensure that ge t t ing l o s t may be a th ing of the past . The system w i l l be i n f u l l use by the year 2,000. P r i m a r i l y f or defence purposes, the system w i l l track ships , locate wrecks and hazardous wastes on the sea f l o o r , and eventual ly motoris ts , and i n d i v i d u a l people i n remote areas w i l l be able to lock into the system.

S c i e n t i s t s are working on the cut t ing edge of science i n many f i e l d s of research. Goesta Wol l in has been researching weather patterns and the e f fec t of the earth ' s magnetic f i e l d s . Geophysic ists have been s c e p t i c a l o f h i s theor ies , po int ing out that Wol l in has never been able to show exact ly how magelQtism and climate are l i n k e d . Nevertheless, observations based on h i s pred ic t ions have been proved to be correc t , and now, at l a s t , weathermen are accepting h i s research, and we are now for the f i r s t time becoming able to ant i c ipate and prepare f o r "freakish" storms.

In the f i e l d s o f space t r a v e l and astronomy i t i s very c l e a r that our s c i e n t i s t s are s t i l l i n the very ear ly stages of research and understanding of the complex nature of our universe . An a r t i c l e i n the Reader ' s Digest book, Facts and Fallacy^states^"Astronomy i s poised at the beginning of a new era of research and understanding Looking fur ther ahead, a space s ta t i on i n o r b i t around the earth , or perhaps a base on the moon, seems to be the l o g i c a l working environment f o r astonomers of the fu ture . Proposals f or a permanent base p lat form, to be constructed i n o r b i t and equipped to study a l l cosmic r a d i a t i o n s , e x i s t . Advances made i n the past 30 years may seem miniscule when compared with those that the next 30 years could br ing" .

In the f i e l d of computer sciences researchers are looking for programmes that can not only solve problems from information at hand, but also tes t and improve i t s answers and techniques, and the techniqeues i&sd i : Used to work them out. A programme that can think f o r i t s e l f and discover e n t i r e l y new information i n the process - an a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e } i n f a c t .

The future of microe lec tronics i s unl imited - s c i e n t i s t s t a l k o f robots and computers capable of performing almost a l l tasks known to mankind. e

In the f i e l d s o f b io logy researchers are looking at ways to feed the world's populations from the stores o f food i n our oceans, new and innovative ways o f growing crops, deal ing with pests , are being discovered y e a r l y ,

S c i e n t i s t s are explor ing new ways of harnessing the sun's energy, with i t s p o - t e n t i a l f o r prov id ing almost a l l o f the world's energy needs.

The p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n the f i e l d s of genet ic research are mind boggl ing, and we l l known to most readers of science magazines. A popular novel wr i t ten some years ago purported to be the true story o f someone who had been " c loned' \ The story turned out to be f i c t i o n , but there i s no doubt that researchers on "the c u t t i n g edge" are ge t t ing very near to making that p o s s i b i l i t y come true . I n c i d e n t a l l y , much innovative research has had i t s beginnings i n the minds o f science f i c t i o n wr i ters - those imaginative people who l e t t h e i r minds wander over the i n t r i g u i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f where current s c i e n t i f i c research might l ead . We have heard science f i c t i o n re ferred to as the " s c i e n t i s t s ' comics", perhaps a very apt d e s c r i p t i o n .

W i l l our cars dr ive themselves i n the future?

W i l l we t r a v e l the whole world i n 80 minutes by hypersonic t rave l?

W i l l we be able to p r e d i c t earthquakes with accuracy?

These and many more such questions are wait ing to be answered by research scirJg/tists on the ' c u t t i n g edge' o f sc ience .

CONCLUSION.

So where does t h i s leave us as parapsychologists? Parapsychology i s not a hard science, genera l ly speaking. Most paranormal events occur outside the laboratory . Most paranormal events occur to ordinary people i n the course o f t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s ; they are not e a s i l y i s o l a t e d . This should not however discourage us . Some paranormal events, i n p a r t i c u l a r telepathy and psychokines is , can be r e p l i c a t e d under laboratory condi t ions . As parapsychologists who have worked f o r many years i n t h i s f i e l d we be l ieve that both te lepathy and psychokinesis ex i s t , they are r e a l phenomena, and we be l ieve there i s ample evidence f o r t h e i r existence. However, our c r i t i c s r i d i c u l e anyone who attempts to make sense o f these phenomena, or who accepts even the p o s s i b i l i t y that they are r e a l .

We hope what we have said i n t h i s paper w i l l help researchers to have the courage to continue with t h e i r work and not be deterred by such r i d i c u l e and c r i t i c i s m . They w i l l be i n good company?