對專業打假者詹姆斯·蘭迪的評論

詹姆斯·蘭迪

文:夷人

詹姆斯·蘭迪 (James Randi )大名鼎鼎,在「科學打假」領域,是「神」一般的存在,國內的「打假先驅」,如司馬之流,也是以其為榜樣,把同一套做法拷貝過來,一樣混得風生水起。而普通的唯物論者,在反對超自然現象時,事必稱「蘭迪」,以求終結話題,達到一錘定音的壓倒性效果。只不過,因為資訊的選擇性偏見,大家對蘭迪的印象,多停留在懸賞打假的噱頭上,顯得有些片面。我想,現在是時候了,且讓這些曾經風光實則齷齪的人物出來曬曬太陽吧。

詹姆斯·蘭迪

這裡我翻譯一篇文章,它是一位暢銷書作者Michael Prescott對蘭迪的評價。不求轉變懷疑論者的態度,但至少以後在引用此人觀點之時,先能有多一些了解。

這篇文章不僅僅只是一個網上吐槽,它夠得上一篇論文的質量。讀者欣賞此文時,除了需要閱讀文中給出的大量參考文獻,也還要註意字裡行間潛藏的知識。比如蘭迪的「匿名消息來源」是誰?大名鼎鼎的Hebard教授為甚麼給出不同的證詞?誰在鼓勵蘭迪,並在後面主導抹黑戰役?到底誰在撒謊?對Nature論文的質疑如此站不住腳,為甚麼最後還是被要求撤稿?

超自然現象的合理質疑誠然有益,像蘭迪這樣捏造事實的行徑已經超越常規的質疑範疇,但如果您只把問題歸結為蘭迪的不誠實,將會遺漏更大的一部分資訊。個人看來,蘭迪只是某種背後勢力推到前臺的打手罷了,不管有意還是無意,他成為一把揮向超自然研究的刀子。我們只有把所有的疑問放在陰謀論框架下,才可能理解其背後的紛爭。世上本無太多難解的謎題,只因我們不敢去做更大的想象。

另外,去年美國軍方已經正式承認UFO的存在,且用現有知識無法解釋,因此它應該稱得上所謂的「超自然」現象。不知蘭迪是否會把獎金發給美軍飛行員或者UFO?我想這不大可能,因為根據蘭迪的條件,UFO需要在他面前以他認可的方式繞一圈跳個舞,估計才符合領取獎金的資格吧。


Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi

那些荒謬的瑣事:對詹姆斯·蘭迪先生的幾點質疑

Years ago, when I was a full-fledged skeptic, atheist, and rationalist, I read James Randi’s 1980 book Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions. Randi is an accomplished magician and a professional skeptic, dedicating to disproving any and all claims of what he considers pseudoscience. In line with this agenda, and as its title suggests, Flim-Flam is a concerted attack on miscellaneous purported irrationalities – everything from the pop-culture writings of Erich von Daniken to the more serious investigations of professional parapsychologists. I enjoyed the book, which reinforced my belief system at the time.

多年前,當我還是一個成熟的懷疑論者,無神論者和理性主義者時,我拜讀了詹姆斯·蘭迪(James Randi)在1980年出版的大作:《 荒謬絕倫! 通靈,超感官知覺,獨角獸與其他妄想》(Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions)

蘭迪(Randi)是一位經驗豐富的魔術師和專業懷疑論者,他致力於反駁他認為是偽科學的所有主張。 與這個目的相一致,正如其標題所暗示的那樣,」Flim-Flam」這本書,是對所謂各種非理性行為的無差別攻擊,從Erich von Daniken的流行文化著作到專業超心理學家的嚴肅研究。 在那個時候,我喜歡這本書,因為它鞏固了我的信仰體系。

Recently I picked up Flim-Flam again. Having changed my mind about many things over the past twenty years, I responded to it much differently this time. I was particularly struck by the book’s hectoring, sarcastic tone. Randi pictures psychic researchers as medieval fools clad in “caps and bells” and likens the delivery of an announcement at a parapsychology conference to the birth of “Rosemary’s Baby.” After debunking all manner of alleged frauds, he opens the book’s epilogue with the words, “The tumbrels now stand empty but ready for another trip to the square” – a reference to the French Revolution, in which carts (“tumbrels”) of victims were driven daily to the guillotine. Randi evidently pictures himself as the executioner who lowers the blade. In passing, two points might be made about this metaphor: the French Revolution was a product of “scientific rationalism” run amok … and most of its victims were innocent.

最近,我重新閱讀了「Flim-Flam」。 在過去的二十年裡,我對許多事物的觀感都發生重大轉變,所以閱讀該書所帶來的反應也變得截然不同。 書中挖苦與諷刺的語氣讓我尤為震驚,蘭迪將靈學研究人員描繪成戴著「帽子和鈴鐺」的中世紀傻瓜,並把在超心理學會議上發表的聲明比作「Rosemary’s baby」的誕生(”Rosemary』s baby”是1968年美國的心理學恐怖片,一位母親認為自己的孩子不屬於這個世界)。 在揭露了各種所謂欺詐行為之後,他在書的結尾寫道:「現在,農車已經空了,但準備再去廣場拉些回來」 ,這句話影射法國大革命,描述了滿載受害者的推車每天被送往斷頭臺。 蘭迪顯然把自己想象成是放下鍘刀的劊子手。 順便說一句,關於這個比喻,有兩點值得一提:法國大革命是「科學理性主義」狂奔的產物……而它的大多數受害者都是無辜的。

Still, the tedious nastiness of Flim-Flam does not tell us anything about its accuracy. Intrigued, I decided to check out a few of Randi’s claims in detail.

I chose to focus on Chapter Eight, Randi’s dissection of the experiments of Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, two well-known parapsychologists. Randi calls them “the Laurel and Hardy of psi” and proceeds to argue that their experiments were a tissue of ineptitude, gullibility, and dishonesty.

The first thing I noticed was that Randi never gives any indication that Targ and Puthoff have any scientific credentials or accomplishments. The casual reader could be forgiven for assuming that they are not “real” scientists at all. For the record, Targ is a physicist credited with inventing the FM laser, the high-power gas-tranport laser, and the tunable plasma oscillator. Puthoff, also a physicist, invented the tunable infra-red laser and is widely known for his theoretical work on quantum vacuum states and the zero point field. (See The Field, by Lynne McTaggart, for an overview of Puthoff’s work in quantum phyics.) If these two are “Laurel and Hardy,” at least they come with good résumés. Randi, by contrast, has no scientific training.

不僅如此,「Flim-Flam」整本書冗長而乏味,卻始終無法給我們提供任何可驗證其準確性的資訊。 出於好奇,我決定詳細考查蘭迪的一些說法。

我選擇重點關註第八章,蘭迪對兩位著名超心理學家Russell Targ 和Harold Puthoff的實驗進行剖析。 蘭迪稱他們為「精神研究領域的Laurel與Hardy」 (Laurel與Hardy是兩位著名的喜劇搭檔,類似於國內雙口相聲搭配),並繼續宣稱,他們的實驗是充滿無能,輕信與不誠實的垃圾。

我註意到的第一件事是,蘭迪從未提及Targ與Puthoff在科學領域的資格或成就。 粗心的讀者如果讀了蘭迪的著作,以為Targ他們根本不是「真正「的科學家,完全不是你們的錯。 從公開發表的記錄看,Targ是物理學家,發明了FM激光器和可調諧等離子體振蕩器,其中FM激光器是一種大功率氣體傳輸激光器。 Puthoff同樣是一名物理學家,發明了可調紅外激光器,並因其在量子真空態和零點場方面的理論工作而廣為人知。 (請參閱Lynne McTaggart撰寫的「The Field」,它概述了Puthoff在量子物理學方面的工作)。如果這兩位研究者是「 Laurel 與 Hardy」,至少他們都具備良好的科學履历。 相比之下,蘭迪沒有受過任何科學訓練。

Randi starts off by telling us how Targ and Puthoff took a professed psychic, Ingo Swann, to Stanford University, where, they said, Swann used his psychic abilities to affect the operation of a magnetometer. According to Randi, “the report was all wet.” He knows this because he contacted Dr. Arthur Hebard, “the builder of the device, who was present and has excellent recollections of what took place.” Hebard, Randi says disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted as saying, “It’s a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that’s what I call a lie.”

This is pretty compelling stuff. But is Randi’s version of events accurate? Let’s take a look.

First, he seems to make a rather basic error when he says that both Targ and Puthoff were present for this experiment. As best I can determine, Puthoff conducted the experiment, which took place in June, 1972, without Targ’s assistance. Targ had met Puthoff prior to this time, but their work together apparently did not begin until a few months later.

That’s a small point. Far more important is the matter of Dr. Hebard’s testimony. There’s another side to the story, which I found in Chapter 17 ofPsychic Breakthroughs Today by D. Scott Rogo. Rogo, who died in 1990 at the age of forty, was a prolific journalist and researcher of psychic phenomena. He wrote numerous popular books, some of which have been used as college texts. He also published research papers in peer-reviewed parapsychology journals. Although Rogo was sometimes criticized for tackling overly esoteric subjects, he had a reputation for honesty and was respected for his willingness to do hands-on investigation and field work, rather than relying on armchair appraisals. A Scott Rogo tribute and bibliography can be found here.

蘭迪這樣描述道,Targ和Puthoff將靈媒Ingo Swann帶到斯坦福大學,他們認為Swann利用精神力影嚮了磁力計的操作。 根據蘭迪的宣稱,「實驗報告註了水。」 他之所以知道這一點,是因為他聯繫了Arthur Hebard博士,Hebard是「設備制造商,他在場並對發生過的事情有良好的記憶」。 Hebard對蘭迪說,他對Targ-Puthoff的研究結果有異議。 蘭迪引用Hebard的話:「這是一個謊言。您可以按照自己的意願理解這句話,但它就是我所認為的謊言。」

這個指控非常引人註目。 但是,蘭迪所說的是否準確? 讓我們來查一查。

首先,蘭迪說該實驗由Targ和Puthoff共同進行,就犯了一個基本錯誤。 據我所知,只有Puthoff是實驗者,該實驗於1972年6月進行,Targ並沒有參與。 Targ在此前遇到過Puthoff,但顯然直到幾個月後他們的合作才正式開始。

當然,這只是一個細節問題,Hebard博士的證詞更為重要。 故事的另一種說法,是我在D. Scott Rogo撰寫的《當今精神研究的突破性進展》(「Psychic Breakthroughs Today」)第17章中找到的。 羅戈(Rogo)於1990年去世,享年40歲。他是一位多產的新聞工作者和靈媒現象研究人員,寫了許多受歡迎的書,其中一些已被用作大學教材,Rogo還在同行評審的超心理學期刊上發表過研究論文。 盡管有時Rogo因涉入過分深奧的主題而受到批評,但他以誠實著稱,常進行實地調查並深入現場,不作鍵盤俠式的評論,也因此備受尊重。 讀者可以在這裡找到Scott Rogo的紀念文和著作目錄。

Rogo writes, “There obviously exist several discrepancies between Dr Puthoff’s views on what happened during this experiment, and what Randi claims Dr Hebard told him. So to clarify the matter, I decided to get in touch with Dr Hebard myself. I finally tracked him down at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. He was very willing to discuss the Swann magnetometer demonstration with me, and professed to be very interested in parapsychology.” Hebard’s interest in the paranormal contradicts Randi’s statement that Hebard, “not being a reader of far-out literature,” was unaware of Targ and Puthoff’s claims.

Rogo acknowledges that Hebard’s account differs in some respects from Puthoff’s. “Dr Hebard denied in no uncertain terms, however, Randi’s claim that Swann was never asked to ‘stop the field charge’ being recorded from the magnetometer. He easily recalled that he had suggested that it would be a fascinating effect if Swann could produce it . . . which, of course, he actually did soon after the suggestion was made. Randi also directly quotes Dr Hebard as calling some of Targ and Puthoff’s claims ‘lies’. Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge and he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me.” (Ellipsis in original.)

As for the discrepancies between Hebard’s and Puthoff’s accounts, Rogo reports that in a subsequent meeting with Puthoff, he was shown “the actual graphed print-outs given by the magnetometer during the Swann demonstrations. The records supported Dr Puthoff’s contention more than they did Dr Hebard’s.”

So far, then, the best we can say is that Randi’s criticism of Puthoff (and Targ, who apparently wasn’t even involved in the magnetometer experiment) is far from the last word on the subject.

Rogo寫道:「顯然,Puthoff博士對實驗結果的看法,與蘭迪聲稱Hebard博士告訴他的觀點,二者存在一些差異。因此,為了澄清這一點,我決定聯繫Hebard博士。我最終在新澤西州Murray hill的貝爾電話實驗室找到Hebard,他非常願意與我討論關於Swann影嚮磁力計的實驗,並且自稱對超心理學非常感興趣。」

很明顯,Hebard對超自然現象的興趣,與蘭迪描述的「Hebard不是邊緣資料的閱讀者,且不了解Targ與Puthoff的主張」並不相符。

Rogo承認,Hebard的觀點在某些方面與Puthoff有所不同,他接著寫道, 「 但是,蘭迪聲稱,從未有人要求Swann嘗試停止磁力計記錄的場電荷。Hebard博士毫不含糊地否認了這一點。他輕松回憶起,他曾建議,如果Swann能夠做到這點,那將是一個非常有意義的結果。當然,實際上正是他們提出此建議後,Swann按要求這樣做了。蘭迪還直接引用Hebard博士的話,稱Targ和Puthoff的宣稱是’謊言’。從那時起,Hebard博士就對蘭迪的這一說法感到非常惱火,他向我解釋,蘭迪曾試圖說服他做出這項指控,但他拒絕了。Hebard博士後來為我簽署了一份與此有關的聲明。」 (正文內容有所刪節)

至於Hebard和Puthoff之間看法的差異,Rogo報告說,在隨後他與Puthoff的會晤中,Puthoff向他展示了「Swann實驗中磁力計給出的圖形打印結果。相關記錄裡面,支持Puthoff的證據,要比Hebard來得多。」

那麼,到目前為止,我們至少可以說,蘭迪對Puthoff的批評(以及Targ,雖然他並沒有參與磁力計實驗)遠不是實際發生的情況。

Randi proceeds to launch a comprehensive critique of Targ and Puthoff’s article “Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding,” which appeared in the October 18, 1974, issue of the respected journal Nature, and whichcan be read here (or here). The article details experiments involving, among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller.

Randi’s take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as “bunglers.” He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller’s isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller’s averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller’s performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.

蘭迪繼續對Targ和Puthoff的文章《在感官屏蔽條件下的資訊傳導》 (”Information Transmission under Conditions of Sensory Shielding”)進行廣泛的評論,該文於1974年10月18日發表在受人尊敬的《自然》雜志上,可以在此處(或此處)閱讀。 這篇文章詳細介紹了自稱通靈者Uri Geller的系列實驗。

蘭迪對這一系列實驗嗤之以鼻,他把Targ和Puthoff說成是「垃圾研究者」。 蘭迪這樣描述,Targ與Puthoff的實驗是在鼓勵作弊的混亂氣氛中進行的。 Geller隔離室牆壁上有一個洞,使Geller能夠在進行超感官知覺(ESP)實驗時偷看科學研究者的操作。Targ和Puthoff故意忽略失敗的實驗結果,如果把它們考慮進去,Geller的命中率將降低到隨機水平,所以他們歪曲了測試結果。 蘭迪還說,Geller的表演得分不當,所得分數比應得的更高。

(譯者註, Nature文章發表後遭受大量攻擊,最後被撤稿。原文給出的鏈接失效,我在下面附上Nature文章的簡介與新的鏈接。多年後還有另一篇文章遭受類似待遇,與稀釋水的資訊傳導有關,同樣是蘭迪參與抹黑此事。當事科學家因此身敗名裂,失去所有的學術光環與經費,晚景十分悽涼。詳情請參看我的另一篇文章。)

Nature文章鏈接:

The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, “I’ve never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]”? He explains that he was given inside information by “an individual” who claimed to represent dozens of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.

Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the Broomhilda group. He says that “Broomhilda verified for me much of the information that I had been holding on to for years,” but where did he get this earlier information in the first place? “That data,” he says, “now moved from the status of hearsay to documented fact.” But documented is hardly a term applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds, “Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda’s charges. Taken together,” he concludes, “the information from all sources amounted to quite an indictment.”

Maybe so, but it’s an indictment that would never hold up in court. The reader is expected to take Randi’s word that his unidentified sources are trustworthy – and that the sources themselves are well-informed about experimental procedures they may or may not have witnessed.

Thus when Randi alleges that “hundreds of [failed] experiments that were done by SRI … were never reported,” we must take the statement on faith, as it is unsupported by any documentation. Similarly, when Randi says definitively, “All the other tests [i.e., the successful ones] lacked proper controls and were useless,” we search in vain for any footnote to back up this assertion.

一個問題自然浮出水面:蘭迪是怎麼知道這一切的?因為正如他所承認的那樣,「我從未涉足SRI(進行實驗的斯坦福研究所)的神聖實驗場所。」 他解釋說,是有「個人」向他提供了內部資訊,這個神祕爆料者聲稱代表著數十名SRI科學家。 該科學家小組祕密工作,甚至採用代號(Broomhilda),將資訊偷偷傳遞給蘭迪。

不幸的是,蘭迪從未透露此神祕人物是誰,也沒有提及Broomhilda小組的其他成員。 他說:「Broomhilda驗證了我多年來一直掌握的許多資訊,這些數據現在已經從傳聞變成有正式紀錄的事實」。

首先,他所謂的早期資訊從何而來?其次,「有紀錄」這個詞不是這麼用的,它既不適用於從未透露來源的初始資訊,也不適用於匿名來源的Broomhilda資訊。 他補充說:「其他事實是在與個人的交談和通信過程中獲得的。在這些人中,許多人並不了解Broomhilda,而是自己採取行動調查。他們完全獨立的意見支持了Broomhilda的指控。」他總結道,「 總而言之,所有消息來源構成了足夠的起訴證據。」

真是如此嗎?或許吧!但這樣的起訴書永遠不會在法庭上出現。 讀者只是在聽蘭迪的一面之詞:他的匿名消息來源值得信賴。至於消息來源本身到底是否充分了解整個實驗程序,誰也不知道。

因此,當蘭迪聲稱,SRI 實驗中存在「從未報道過的數百次[失敗]實驗…」時,我們只能去相信蘭迪的個人信用,因為不存在任何文檔證據支持該聲明。 同樣,當蘭迪明確表示「其他所有測試(成功的)都缺乏適當的條件控制,所以完全無用」的時候,我們也找不到任何可驗證的證據支持這一主張。

posting I found on a message board sums up the situation nicely: “Claims of poor scientific method leveled at the experimenters have been shown to be mainly unsubstantiated personal opinion and second-hand ‘Chinese Whispers.'” (Chinese Whispers is the British equivalent of the American game, Telephone.) It might be worth adding that critics of paranormal phenomena, like Randi, are forever decrying any reliance on “anecdotal evidence,” which is precisely what the bulk of Randi’s argument consists of.

Randi does produce two individuals willing to go on the record – Charles Rebert and Leon Otis, both of whom were SRI psychologists. Rebert and Otis apparently disagreed with the Targ-Puthoff conclusions; indeed, Randi tells us that “a horrified Rebert also heard that Targ and Puthoff were going to proclaim these erroneous findings before Stanford University’s psychology department, and he forbade such a blunder. The talk was canceled.” But this only tells us that there was a dispute among the scientists at SRI. Rebert and Otis ran some unsuccessful tests with Geller and decided that he was a fraud. Targ and Puthoff ran what they regarded as successful tests and decided that, in some areas at least, Geller had legitimate psychic powers. Nothing in Randi’s text establishes which conclusion was correct.

Randi goes on to report that after he had criticized Geller in an earlier book, Targ and Puthoff “issued a ‘fact sheet’ in rebuttal to twenty-four” of his points. According to Randi, “This attempt was a failure, and in response to one claim that the SRI tests were done under tight controls, a scientist who was there declared flatly, ‘This is b.s. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol.’ I will not burden you,” Randi concludes, “with the other twenty-three points; they are as easily demolished.”

Well, hold on. A quotation from yet another anonymous source (“a scientist who was there”) hardly constitutes a demolition job, especially when the scientist’s argument consists of an unsupported assertion (“none of the experiments met accepted scientific protocol”). Personally, I would have welcomed the “burden” of the other twenty-three points and of Randi’s detailed and carefully documented rebuttals.

我在留言板上找到一個帖子,它很好地概括了這種情況:「對實驗者科學方法欠佳的指控,主要採用了沒有根據的個人意見和二手「中國式閑話」。」(在英國,中國式閑話與美國電話游戲等同,都指不可靠的消息)。值得一提的是,像蘭迪這樣的超自然現象批評家,永遠都在譴責研究者對「軼事證據」的依賴,但顯然,在蘭迪這個指控中,拿得出的也僅僅是不著邊際的「軼事」而已。

蘭迪確實找到了兩個願意作證的人-Charles Rebert和Leon Otis,他們都是SRI心理學家。 Rebert和Otis顯然不同意Targ-Puthoff的結論。 確實,蘭迪告訴我們:「當Rebert聽說Targ和Puthoff將在斯坦福大學心理學系之前宣布這些錯誤的發現,他驚獃了,Robert努力讓斯坦福避免這樣的錯誤。所以談話後來被取消。」 但這僅僅是告訴我們SRI的科學家之間存在爭議。 Rebert和Otis與功能人Geller進行過一些失敗的測試,並認為他在欺詐。 Targ和Puthoff進行了他們認為成功的測試,並認定至少在某些領域,Geller確實具備精神力量(特異功能)。 蘭迪的文章中沒有任何內容可以確定哪個結論是正確的。

蘭迪繼續說,他在早期出版的書中批評了Geller之後,Targ和Puthoff發表了一份「事實列表」,以駁斥蘭迪論述中的24個論點。 蘭迪說:「這是一次失敗的嘗試,有人回應說SRI測試是在嚴格控制下完成的,但一位當時在場的科學家斷然宣稱:’這是胡說,就我和我的同事而言,實驗並未達到公認的科學標準。」’蘭迪總結道,「我不會詳細描述其他23點;但它們都很容易被駁倒。」

好吧,先等等。 又來一個匿名消息來源(當時在場的科學家),這樣的宣稱甚麼也駁不倒,特別是該科學家發表了對實驗的負面觀點(「沒有一個實驗符合公認的科學原則」)時,卻選擇不肯露面。 就我個人而言,我對其他23點很感興趣,也想知道,蘭迪是怎樣對它們進行有詳細記錄的認真辯駁。

Some idea of the counter-arguments to Randi’s claims can be obtained by taking another look at D. Scott Rogo, who earlier showed the initiative to track down Dr. Hebard. Unlike Randi, who, as we have seen, had “never even set foot” inside the research facility, Rogo visited SRI on June 12, 1981. He found that Randi had misrepresented the hole in the wall of the isolation room through which Geller was supposedly able to spy on the researchers. The hole, a conduit for cables, is depicted in Flim-Flam as being three and a half inches wide and therefore offering a good view of the experimental area where the researchers were working. Rogo found, however, that the hole “is three-and-a-quarter inches [wide] and extends through a twelve-and-a-half inch wall. This scopes your vision and severely limits what you can see through it. The hole is not left open either, since it is covered by a plate through which cables are routinely run. Dr Puthoff and his colleague were, however, concerned that their subject might be ingenious enough to insert an optical probe through this hole, so they monitored the opening throughout their telepathy experiments.”

Randi also indicates that the hole is stationed 34 inches above the floor. Not so, says Rogo. “It isn’t three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it – even under optimal conditions – is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.)* I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole – therefore totally blocking it – during the time of the Geller experiments.”

It would appear that the hole in the isolation booth’s wall poses considerably less of a problem than the holes in Randi’s arguments.

我們再來看一下D.Scott Rogo的說法,其結果與蘭迪的主張有所不同,Rogo早些時候從Hebard博士這條線給出了很好的資訊。 我們知道,蘭迪「從未涉足」SRI 的研究設施,但Rogo不同,他於1981年6月12日訪問了斯坦福研究院。他發現蘭迪誤解了隔離室牆壁上的孔,根據蘭迪的說法,Geller可以通過孔道監視研究人員。 「Flim-Flam」這樣描繪:窺視孔供電纜通過,寬度為三英寸半,因此可以很好地觀察研究人員的實驗區域。 但是Rogo發現,「該孔道寬3.25英寸,穿過一堵12.5英寸的牆,因為視野受限,很難通過它看到東西。 孔道也不是完全敞開的,它被一塊固定有電纜的金屬板覆蓋著,而且Puthoff博士和他的同事擔心他們的研究對象太過聰明,可能精巧地將光學探頭插入該孔,因此他們在進行心靈感應實驗時,全程監視著孔道。」

蘭迪還指出孔道位於地板上方34英寸處,但Rogo說不是: 「它不在地板上方三英尺處,而只是位於地板上方一點點。即使在最佳條件下,你也只能看到一小部分地板表層和對面的牆壁。(視野半徑大約只有20°,並且Geller實驗的目標物完全懸掛在不同的牆上。)我在拜訪SRI時還發現,在整個Geller實驗中,設備機架都位於孔道的前面,進一步阻礙了孔道視野。在結束此行時,我與兩位親身參與實驗的研究者交談,他們倆都同意,在Geller實驗期間,電線穿過孔道,因此完全堵塞了視線。」

顯然,與蘭迪書中描述不同,隔離室牆壁上的孔道,根本不大可能構成問題。

By now, I felt that Randi’s credibility was in doubt. He had committed careless errors of fact, had quite possibly misrepresented and misquoted Hebard, and had made unsupported assertions based on rumors. I wondered what Targ and Puthoff have to say about all this. The only responses from either of them that I could find online were part of a long essay by Winston Wu, “Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena“; the relevant part is Argument 18. Puthoff is quoted as saying the following:

“In Flim- Flam, [Randi] gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. (He did not.)* …

“The truth of the matter is that none of Randi’s claimed suspected inadequate controls actually had anything to do with the experiments, which of course Randi was not there to know of. This has been independently reported by Scott Rogo somewhere in the literature, who came out specifically to check each of Randi’s guesses about inadequate controls and found them inapplicable under the conditions in which the tests were conducted. In fact, all of Randi’s suggestions were amateurish compared to the sophisticated steps we took, suspecting as we did everything from magician’s tricks to an Israeli intelligence scam….

“In case one thinks that it was just a case of our opinions vs. his opinions,” Puthoff continues, “we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: [Randi] said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller’s metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this. He said that a film of the Geller experiment made at SRI by famed photographer Zev Pressman was not made by him, but by us and we just put his name on it. We showed up with an affidavit by Pressman saying that indeed he did make the film.”

到目前為止,我覺得蘭迪的信譽令人懷疑。 他犯了粗心大意的事實錯誤,又可能曲解或錯誤引用了Hebard的原話,並在謠言的基礎上提出無根據的主張。 我想知道Targ和Puthoff怎麼說? 在網上所能找到的唯一回應,來自於溫斯頓·吳(Winston Wu)的一篇長文,該文章名為《揭穿反對超自然現象與靈媒現象的常見懷疑論點》( “Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena“), 相關內容位於第18節。Puthoff的原話引用如下:

「在Flim- Flam中,如果我的記憶正確,[蘭迪]給出了28個爭議點。我有機會在Parapsychology Association會議上與蘭迪面對面質詢,且提供了證據,在錄音條件下,他承認自己在所有爭議點上都是錯誤的。他甚至表示將在CSICOP小組即將出版的平裝書中發表更正聲明(但實際上他沒有這麼做)…

問題的真相是,蘭迪對我們操控不當的所有指責,實際上與實驗沒有任何關系,當然,因為蘭迪不在實驗現場,所以並不知道細節。這些內容Scott Rogo曾在某個文章中獨立調查並報道過。 正是因為蘭迪的責難,Rogo專門檢查了蘭迪關於實驗控制不當的每個猜測,並發現它們在測試條件下不適用。實際上,與我們採取的複雜步驟相比,蘭迪的所有建議都是業餘的,他懷疑我們只是重複魔術師的伎倆,或者中了以色列的情報騙局。

如果有人認為這只是我們與他的口水之爭,那麼我們從他的錯誤指控列表中,選擇那些可以獨立驗證的部分來分析。例如:[蘭迪]說,我們在Nature文章中宣稱,實驗驗證了Geller的金屬彎曲能力,但如果您仔細看那篇文章,會發現我們說的是,實驗無法為此提供足夠的證據。蘭迪又說,SRI關於Geller的影片不是著名攝影師Zev Pressman所拍,而是我們自己操刀完成,並貼上Zev的名字。但我們拿出Zev的親筆證言,確認是他拍了這部錄像。」

There is no way for me to verify Puthoff’s statement that he tape-recorded Randi’s concession of defeat “on all the points.” This has to stand as an unsupported assertion, just like Randi’s own arguments. But it is possible to take a closer look at Puthoff’s last two claims.

First, Puthoff insists that his and Targ’s Nature article does not endorse Geller’s alleged metal-bending. This is accurate, as you can see for yourself by reading the article. Puthoff and Targ write, “It has been widely reported that Geller has demonstrated the ability to bend metal by paranormal means. Although metal bending by Geller has been observed in our laboratory, we have not been able to combine such observations with adequately controlled experiments to obtain data sufficient to support the paranormal hypothesis.”

On the other hand, I have not found any statement by Randi in Flim-Flam to the effect that Targ and Puthoff “had verified Geller’s metal-bending.” He attacks the Targ-Puthoff experiments on other grounds. Of course, he may have made this statement elsewhere, but as far as I can tell, Puthoff is rebutting a point Randi never made.

我沒有辦法證實Puthoff的說法,即他在錄音條件下,「全盤記錄」了蘭迪承認所有論點錯誤的過程。 因為沒有證據,就像蘭迪的宣稱一樣,這點只能被看作無根據的斷言。 但是,我們可能可以仔細看看Puthoff的最後兩個主張。

首先,Puthoff堅持認為,他和Targ的Nature文章沒有認可Geller所謂的金屬彎曲能力。 這是準確的,我閱讀Nature原文,Puthoff和Targ寫道:「據廣泛報道,Geller展示過自己的超自然手段,即他具備彎曲金屬的能力。盡管在我們的實驗室中觀察到,Geller確實彎曲了金屬,但我們無法將這些觀察結果與適當控制的實驗相結合,以獲得足以支持超自然假設的數據。」

另一方面,我也沒有在Flim-Flam中找到蘭迪的任何聲明,即Targ和Puthoff已「驗證了Geller的金屬彎曲能力」,蘭迪是以其他理由攻擊Targ-Puthoff實驗的。 當然,他可能在其他地方發表過這一聲明(但我沒看到)。因此,據我所了解的情況而言,在這一點上,Puthoff是在駁斥蘭迪從未提出的觀點。

How about Puthoff’s second claim, regarding the SRI film? Randi certainly does make this an issue in Flim-Flam. Targ and Puthoff, he writes, “appended to [the film] – without his knowledge or permission – the name of Zev Pressman, the SRI photographer who had shot the film…. Pressman, said Targ and Puthoff, was present during [a particular series of] experiments. Not so, according to Pressman…. Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI that he had been told the successful [tests] were done after he (Pressman)* had gone home for the day. So it appears the film was a reenactment … Pressman did not even know that Targ and Puthoff were issuing a statement, he did not sign it, and he did not give them permission to use his name. He knew nothing about most of what appeared under his name, and he disagreed with the part that he did know about.” (Italics in original.)

Here we have Randi saying that this photographer, Pressman, was duped and used by the experimenters, while Puthoff says that Pressman signed an affidavit swearing that “indeed he did make the film.” Is there any way to resolve this?

A further Web search turned up Chapter 14 of The Geller Effect. Part One of this book is written by Uri Geller. Part Two, which includes Chapter 14, was written by Guy Lyon Playfair. Living up to his name, Playfair offers an even-handed presentation of the various controversies surrounding the flamboyant and eccentric Geller.

Playfair writes, “[Randi] turned, in a later book, Flim-Flam, to the professional photographer who had made the film, a Stanford employee named Zev Pressman, with an extraordinary series of unfounded allegations….

“Pressman flatly denied all of Randi’s allegations in two public statements, neither of which was even mentioned in the 1982 reissue of the book. ‘I made the film,’ said Pressman, ‘and my name appeared with my full knowledge and permission . . . Nothing was restaged or specially created . . . I have never met nor spoken to nor corresponded with Randi. The ‘revelations’ he attributes to me are pure fiction.'”

It is true that no mention is made of these “two public statements” in Flim-Flam’s 1982 edition – the edition I own.

關於SRI拍攝的影片,也就是Puthoff的第二個主張又如何呢? 蘭迪在「Flim-Flam」中確實在此問題上大書特書。 他寫道,「Targ和Puthoff未經SRI攝影師Zev Pressman的知情或許可,就把Zev的名字附在其[影片]上。…Targ和Puthoff說,在進行這一系列實驗時,Zev就在現場。但據Zev Pressman所言,這不是事實……最該死的是,Zev曾對SRI的其他人說,拍攝那天,他被告知成功的[測試]都是在他(Zev)回家以後完成的。 所以影像可能被動過手腳……Zev Pressman甚至都不知道Targ和Puthoff發表了聲明,他沒有簽名,也沒有允許他們使用自己的名字。 大部分以他的名字出現的東西,與他所知並不相符,所以也不認可。」 (斜體字是引用書中原文)

在這裡,蘭迪說,攝影師Pressman被實驗者欺騙和利用,而Puthoff說Pressman簽署了聲明,確認「實際上是他拍攝了這部電影」。 兩者明顯沖突,有甚麼辦法可以解決這個疑問?

進一步的網路搜尋讓我找到《蓋勒效應》(「The Geller effect」)這本書的第14章。 本書的第一部分由Uri Geller撰寫,第二部分(包括第14章)由Guy Lyon Playfair撰寫。 Playfair沒有辜負自己的名字(playfair這個名字有公平做事的意思),華麗而古怪的Geller現象存在各種各樣的爭議,Playfair對此進行了公正的陳述。

Playfair寫道:「 [蘭迪]在後來寫的的書Flim-Flam中,把話題轉到拍攝這部影片的專業攝影師,也就是斯坦福研究院一位名叫Zev Pressman的僱員上,提出了一系列無根據的指控……。

「Pressman在兩次公開聲明中斷然否認了蘭迪的所有指控,在1982年這本書的重新發行中蘭迪甚至都沒有提及此事。’我拍了這部電影,’Pressman說,’我的名字是在我充分了解和許可的情況下出現的。 ……沒有甚麼影片是經過重新拍攝或特別創造出來的……我從未見過蘭迪,沒有與他交談過,或與他有過任何往來。他所謂與我有關的’爆料內容’純屬虛構。」

的確,在「Flim-Flam」的1982年版本(我擁有的版本)中沒有提及Pressman的「兩個公開聲明」。

For corroborating testimony, I turned once again to the indefatigable Scott Rogo, who investigated this claim just as he had looked into Dr. Hebard’s testimony and the infamous hole in the wall.

Rogo writes, “I spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi’s book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When I read him the section of Randi’s book dealing with his alleged ‘expose’ of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labeled Randi’s allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!)*” Rogo also reports that Puthoff showed him Pressman’s signed affidavit.

How could Randi’s conversation with Pressman be so different from Rogo’s? The truth is, Randi does not appear to have had a conversation with Pressman at all. Take another look at the quote from Flim-Flam. The key words are: “Most damning of all, Pressman said to others at SRI …”

為了進一步證明此事,我再次求助於不知疲倦的斯科特·羅戈(Scott Rogo),他在調查Hebard博士的證詞和牆壁上臭名昭著的孔洞時曾親臨過現場。

Rogo寫道:「 1981年1月5日,我直接與Pressman先生交談,當我告訴他蘭迪的書時,他很感興趣。他否認自己曾與魔術師對過話。當我給他讀蘭迪書中涉及他的那部分內容時, 他對有關Targ-Puthoff影片所謂的「曝料」說辭感到非常惱火。他堅定地支持這部影片的真實性,告訴我他是如何當場拍攝的,並說蘭迪的指控純屬捏造(他的描述性語言還帶點色彩!譯者註:指罵粗話)。」

Rogo還報道說,Puthoff曾向他展示過Pressman的簽字聲明。

為甚麼蘭迪與Pressman之間的對話,和Rogo的版本如此不同? 事實是,蘭迪似乎根本沒有與Pressman對過話。 再看一下「Flim-Flam」的用詞,註意關鍵部分:「最該死的是,Zev曾對SRI的其他人說……」

Evidently, then, Randi’s source is not Pressman himself, but unnamed “others at SRI” who passed on this information to Randi. Another round of Chinese Whispers, it seems.

At this point Randi ends his discussion of the Geller experiments and proceeds to criticize Targ and Puthoff’s later work, as well as the work of another researcher, Charles Tart. Dealing with these criticisms would require another essay of equal length to this one, so I will stop here. The reader who wants to go further is invited to read Randi’s Flim-Flam and then click on any of the links inserted throughout this essay and listed below. Or just search the Web for the keywords Randi, Targ, Puthoff, etc., and see what comes up.

Before I began this modest online research project for a rainy afternoon, I had mixed feelings about Randi. I saw him as closed-minded and supercilious, but I also assumed he was sincere and, by his own lights, honest. Now, having explored his contribution to the Targ-Puthoff controversy in some detail, I am thoroughly unimpressed. Randi comes across as a bullying figure, eager to attack and ridicule, willing to distort and even invent evidence – in short, the sort of person who will do anything to prevail in a debate, whether by fair means or foul.

The title of his book thus takes on a new and unintended meaning. From what I can tell, James Randi really is the Flim-Flam man.

顯然,蘭迪的消息來源不是Pressman本人,而又是某位匿名的「 SRI的其他人」,他將這一資訊傳遞給了蘭迪。 似乎又是一輪中國式閑話。

至此,蘭迪結束了他對Geller實驗的討論,並繼續批評Targ和Puthoff以後的工作,以及另一位研究者Charles Tart的工作。 談論這些批評內容將需要另一篇與此文長度相等的文章,因此我將暫時寫到這裡,也邀請想進一步了解此事的讀者去閱讀蘭迪的「Flim-Flam」,然後單擊本文中插入以及文後列出的所有參考鏈接。 或者只是在網上搜尋關鍵字Randi,Targ,Puthoff等,然後看看都能找到甚麼內容。

在一個雨天的下午,我開始進行這個不起眼的在線研究項目時,我對蘭迪的印象有些複雜。 我認為他思想封閉,見識膚淺,但又同時認為他是真誠的,至少以他自己的視角而言,是誠實的。 現在,在詳細探討了他對Targ-Puthoff爭議的貢獻之後,我對他完全失去了正面觀感。 蘭迪是個欺負人的角色,渴望攻擊和嘲笑,不惜歪曲甚至發明證據。簡而言之,蘭迪就是那種,在辯論中不計一切代價想占上風的人,不管用的是公平還是齷齪的手段。

因此,他的書名具有新的意想不到的含義。 在我看來,詹姆斯·蘭迪(James Randi)確實是荒謬透頂(Flim-Flam)的人。

————————————————

*Material in parentheses is in the original text.

ADDENDUM: James Randi was kind enough to respond to my essay after a reader brought it to his attention. At first I didn’t add any comments of my own, but since I’ve now uncovered some additional, relevant information, and since a few e-mailers have asked why I didn’t respond, I’ve posted some remarks after Randi’s.

*括號內的材料為原文。

附錄:在讀者把這篇文章轉給詹姆斯·蘭迪(James Randi)後,他為此專門作出回應。 最初我沒有添加任何評論,但因為我現在發現了一些其他的相關資訊,並且有朋友通過email來信詢問「為甚麼沒有回覆蘭迪的說法」,所以我在蘭迪的評論後面附上我的答複。

In a message dated September 24, 2003, James Randi responds:

Briefly….

I set out here to rebut the accusation by Michael Prescott, at
michaelprescott.freeservers.com. I spent some two hours gathering the material, made brief notes, and then realized that I was wasting far too much time picking off fleas. Here are the notes I prepared:

Referring to the Prescott document: No, I did not specify the scientific credentials of Targ and Puthoff. They were laser scientists, which does not serve as any validation of their scientific – or other – ability to witness these matters.

When I contacted Dr. Arthur F. Hebard originally, he was unaware of most other work that was being done in parapsychology, until I informed him. He became “interested in parapsychology” as a result of the fiasco he saw presented by Targ and Puthoff.

Just today (September 24, 2003), he told me, “As far as my experience was concerned [with the Swann matter] there was no effect produced by him that could not be explained by ordinary means.” He recalls the event well, and he also recalls that he told Scott Rogo that when they simply held a hand over
the helium vent of the machine, the same effect was produced that Swann showed – and – that any use of the helium source by another facility in the building, produced the same effect! “There were unusual excursions of the data recorder,” he told me – again! – “but nothing that did not have ordinary explanations.” Note that Rogo did NOT report this! Hebard says that Rogo had “selective memory” of their discussion, and tried to get him to say things that Hebard just did not hold as opinions.

Hebard also repeated to me that he agrees with everything I wrote about the matter in Flim-Flam. And he denies that he ever made the “signed statement” that Rogo says he made.

Prescott says I “never set foot inside the SRI facility”? Look at Flim-Flam, pages 140-141 and see the drawings I made at SRI with Leon Otis. And I have a photograph of myself looking through the same “peep-hole” that Geller used. It was taken by Leon. I spent an entire afternoon there.

The “scientist who was there,” as quoted by Prescott, was Leon Otis.

At this point, I have no time to pursue this tirade by Prescott, further. The rest of it would collapse, as above, under my point-for-point rebuttal.

In closing, I quote Prescott: “There is no way for me to verify Puthoff’s statement that he tape-recorded Randi’s concession of defeat ‘on all the points.'” Oh yes there is, Prescott. Contact Puthoff and ask for a copy of that tape-recording. Hal Puthoff is still alive, and he’s a liar. No such conversation ever took place, I did not make such a statement, and Puthoff has no evidence to support his outright lie, because there is none.

James Randi

(譯者註:以下是蘭迪回應的中文翻譯,明眼者應該不難看出,這篇回應避重就輕,漏洞百出,卻又深得資訊扭曲的精妙,讀者如果沒有看過很多外交話語式的謊言,可能很容易被拐進溝裡,所以我會在蘭迪回應中加些評論,但這樣可能會使文體變得不連貫)

在2003年9月24日的一封郵件中,詹姆斯·蘭迪(James Randi)這樣回應:


簡短而言…

我從這裡著筆,是為了反駁邁克爾·普雷斯科特(Michael Prescott)在以下網頁上對我的指控,http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm。

我花了兩個小時來收集材料,做簡短的筆記,然後才意識到我在無聊指控上浪費了太多的時間。 以下是我的筆記內容:

(這是心虛者的經典說辭,一方面顯然Prescott的文章戳到了他的痛點,蘭迪知道文章的分量,使得他不得不出來回應,同時又要故意表現出某種看不起或不以為意的態度,以降低讀者的關註力度。當然,這種說辭顯然很容易被看破,有點像掩耳盜鈴,類似於精神勝利法)

有關Prescott文件裡提及的內容:不,我確實沒有強調Targ和Puthoff的科學背景。 他們都是激光科學家,這並不能證明他們具備研究此類問題的科學能力或其他能力。

(譯者註:知名科學家都不夠格,試問怎樣才能證明研究者的資格,需要魔術師背景麼?更何況,不管夠不夠格,客觀列出書中主體參與人的背景,是一般要求)

當我最初與Arthur F. Hebard博士聯繫時,他沒有註意到超心理學方面的其他大部分工作,直到我通知後他才知道。 由於塔格(Targ)和普索夫(Puthoff)的慘​​敗,他對「超心理學」產生了興趣。

(譯者註:Hebard既然參與建議Swann進行影嚮磁力計的實驗,也就是說他了解超心理學實驗流程,不大可能對這個領域沒有了解。作為知名科學家,Hebard也不大可能在沒有了解背景的情況下置身於爭議性的實驗研究。所以不管Hebard對超心靈研究的立場如何,既然他在測試現場,應該不會如蘭迪所說,對超心理學工作沒甚麼了解,需要蘭迪提醒才會關註此現象。蘭迪作此聲明,顯然違背常識,大概率是在撒謊。但是,他敢於繼續捏造此謊言,應該是得到了Hebard的首肯與背書,因為只要Hebard公開站出來否認,蘭迪將信譽掃地。也就是說,我們也需要懷疑Hebard此人,從整件事情看來,Hebard不是甚麼無辜者,應該屬於官方打壓團隊的一員,或者已被收買/說服/恐嚇。Hebard的表面資历極為光鮮,如果已經涉入這個領域,越是在學術上風生水起,越是需要對這樣的學者高度警惕。)

就在今天(2003年9月24日),Hebard告訴我:「就我的經驗(與Swann事件有關)而言,Swann對儀器產生的影嚮都可以用常理來解釋。」 他對這次實驗記憶深刻,還回想起他與Scott Rogo見面時,他們只是簡單地把手放在機器的氦氣排放口上,就可產生與Swann相同的效果,並且,如果在進行實驗的建築物中,有其他機構使用氦氣源,也會產生相同的效果! 他再次告訴我:「數據記錄儀確實記錄了反常現象,但沒有任何無法用科學解釋的東西。」 請註意,Rogo沒有報告此事! Hebard說,Rogo對他們之間的討論,只是做了「選擇性的記憶」,並試圖讓Hebard說出自己不認同的觀點。

(譯者註:這段話很有意思,既然Rogo已經去世多年,他們可以任意編造故事情節,因為死無對證而毫無風險。我們先假設蘭迪沒有撒謊,他確實聽到Hebard如此說,而且我覺得這個可能性頗大,特別對Hebard的履历有些了解後,個人對他也沒有太多信任。作為記者,Rogo在世時,以誠實的職業道德著名,死後卻被人肆意扭曲,實在不是一個紳士行為。我們且撇開他們對過世者Rogo的指責,Hebard對實驗的論點同樣有些問題。氦氣源影嚮磁力計讀數,並不能證明Swann實驗的無效性。作為科學家,你先得驗證Swann接觸了氦氣源,才能得出這樣的論斷。這種詭辯在特異功能領域尤為常見,比如魔術師說,我可以用某某手法拷貝某種特異功能,它在邏輯上並不能證明特異功能是假的。)

Hebard還向我重申,他同意我在《Flim-Flam》一書中寫的一切相關內容。 他否認自己曾經做出過Rogo所說的「簽字聲明」。

(譯者註:再次,因為Rogo去世,此事無法對質。到底是蘭迪,Hebard還是Rogo撒謊,只能靠我們自己判斷了)

Prescott說我「從未涉足SRI設施」? 請看「Flim-Flam」,第140-141頁,並查看我與Leon Otis在SRI制作的圖紙。 我有一張在SRI拍攝的照片,就站在「窺視孔」前進行觀察,那也是Geller使用的相同孔道,照片是Leon拍攝的。 我在SRI度過了整個下午。

Prescott引用的「在那裡的科學家」就是指萊昂·奧蒂斯(Leon Otis)。

(譯者註:這是蘭迪反駁中最有分量的點,卻也經不起推敲。Prescott在後面有詳細的分析,首先,蘭迪的書再版過幾次,「從未涉足SRI」乃是他在舊版書中的說辭,不管他去沒去過,他都在打自己的嘴巴。其次,蘭迪去SRI的時間值得進一步確認,根據資料分析,蘭迪可能在寫書前並沒有實地考察SRI現場,而後才被人邀請去那裡。至於是誰邀請他去,為甚麼邀請他去,都值得讀者玩味。需要註意的是,蘭迪在網上提供的SRI相片,沒有給出拍攝時間,而後幹脆移出網站,關於此點,請看之後Prescott的文字。

至於Leon Otis是誰,可信度如何,網上很難找到相關資訊,他也沒有公開站出來發表聲明,所以這條線索很難研究下去。)

寫到這裡,我想沒必要進一步關註Prescott的說辭。如上,在我的逐點反駁下,其餘指控都會一一崩潰。

(譯者註:又是精神勝利法,避重就輕,回避問題。Prescott文章中最重要的部分,是與攝影師Zev Pressman相關的內容,蘭迪書中對這一點著墨甚多,也是最為嚴苛的責難。然而,蘭迪在反駁中,沒有對此質疑說一個字,就直接鳴金收兵,宣告自己勝利了。)

最後,我引用Prescott的話:「我沒有辦法證實Puthoff的說法,即他在錄音條件下,’全盤記錄’了蘭迪承認所有論點錯誤的過程。」

噢,是的,Prescott,請與Puthoff聯繫,並索取該錄音帶的副本。 Hal Puthoff仍然活著,而且是騙子。 我們從未進行過這樣的對話,我沒有發表過這樣的聲明,Puthoff沒有證據支持他的直白謊言,因為根本沒有證據。

(譯者註:最後這點直接叫板Puthoff,他做出了公開回應。到底誰是騙子,恐怕還是得交給我們自己判斷。)

詹姆斯·蘭迪

The above are Randi’s comments, reproduced in full. For additional information on Randi and his work, please visit his Web site, www.randi.org, or buy his book at Amazon’s Flim-Flam sales page. (Later addition: Checking this link, I happened to notice that the May 6, 2004, Amazon reader review of Flim-Flam, posted by someone named Skip Harrison, is plagiarized verbatim from the opening sentences of my essay – and even has the same title! Next time, Skip, use your own words. Mine are copyrighted.)

Now for my points, posted on September 29, 2003. Some of these points may bolster my case, while others may bolster Randi’s.

First, on Dr. Herbard’s statement … If Rogo misquoted him, then I apologize. In Rogo’s defense, he did say that Hebard’s memory of the event differed from Puthoff’s in some respects (as I noted). In my own defense, I never made much of the Ingo Swann-magnetometer business anyway. It was not a formal experiment, it was very poorly documented, and everyone involved disagrees on what happened. All I said was that Randi’s statements are “far from the last word on the subject.” I think this cautious appraisal remains true.

以上是蘭迪的評論,我全文轉載。 有關蘭迪及其工作的更多資訊,請訪問其網站http://www.randi.org,或在Amazon的Flim-Flam銷售頁面上購買他的書。 另外,檢查此鏈接後,我偶然發現亞馬遜的讀者對Flim-Flam的評論,由斯基普·哈裡森(Skip Harrison)發表於2004年5月6日,他逐字抄襲了我文章開頭的句子,甚至用了相同的文章名字。 下次,請別這麼做,盡量使用您自己的文字,我的文章擁有版權。

現在看下我的回覆,它發表於2003年9月29日。其中一些論據可以支持我的原始觀點,而其他論據則支持蘭迪的觀點。

首先,以Hebard博士的話說…如果Rogo錯誤地引用了他的話,那麼我表示歉意。 在Rogo的辯駁中,他確實說過Hebard對事件的記憶在某些方面與Puthoff有所不同(正如我所指出的)。 在我自己的爭辯中,無論如何我沒有談太多Ingo Swann的磁力計實驗。 這不是一個正式的實驗,它的文獻記錄不良,而且每個參與人員都對發生的事情持不同意見。 我只說「蘭迪的批評遠不是實際發生的情況」,我認為這種謹慎的評估仍然正確。

(譯者註:Prescott在這裡有些認慫。因為蘭迪搬出了Hebard,且Hebard很可能站在蘭迪的立場上,而另一位當事人Rogo已經去世,如果真要就此展開辯論,Prescott確實沒有勝算。更何況,Hebard名頭太大,我估計即便是Prescott,也不敢輕易懷疑Hebard的信用度。這也讓我們警醒,一個像Hebard這樣的所謂權威科學家,如果作此扭曲之事,其影嚮將會多麼惡劣。)

On the matter of the disputed quote from Flim-Flam, indicating that Randi “never even set foot” inside the SRI facility … The quote is accurate. Here it is in full context: “Shortly thereafter, I received a communication from a member of a second special committee within SRI charged with looking into the Targ and Puthoff shenanigans (the first ‘Psychic Research Review Committee’ had found everything perfectly kosher, it seems), asking me for for details about my investigations of the situation there. They were asking me [both emphases in original], and I’ve never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [emphasis added].”

The quote is on p. 142, in the first full paragraph, which begins, “Weeks went by.” The key words, the ones in red italics above, are on the 15th line of the page (counting down from the top). This placement refers to the 1980 edition of Flim-Flam.

Apprised of this, Randi responded, “Wasn’t able to find that! But the scale diagrams I ran in F-F were the direct results of my visit there. I believe it should have read, ‘They were asking me, and at that time I’d not set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI.'”

關於對Flim-Flam書中說辭的引用:即蘭迪「從未涉足SRI設施內」……這個引用是準確的。 書中原話是:「此後不久,我收到了SRI第二個特別委員會成員的來信,他們負責調查Targ和Puthoff的惡作劇(似乎第一個「精神現象研究審查委員會」發現一切都完美無誤)。第二委員會成員詢問我有關實驗調查的詳細資訊,是他們主動問我(原文中重複此句,作為重點強調),而我從未涉足SRI的神聖土地(再次重點強調)。」

該文字引用來自 142頁的第一個完整段落,它以「幾周過去了」作為開頭, 關鍵詞(上面的紅色斜體字)在頁面的第15行(從頂部開始向下計數)。 此引用內容的頁面位置,請參考1980年版的「Flim-Flam」。

被指出這一點後,蘭迪回答說:「我無法找到它(指書中關於沒有去過SRI 的文字)!但是我在Flim-Flam中畫的比例圖,是我訪問那裡後的直接結果。我相信它應該寫成:「是他們主動問我,但那時我還沒有涉足SRI的神聖土地。」

(譯者註:這段是在玩文字游戲。Pressman的推斷是以蘭迪的書作為依據的,存在某個背後勢力,即蘭迪書中透露的第二委員會,在尋找抹黑Targ與Puthoff實驗的素材,他們找到了蘭迪,蘭迪當時在寫Flim-Flam,也可能是第二委員會鼓動他出來揭發。在寫書時,蘭迪沒有去過SRI。所以才會在書中寫上「never」一詞。至於SRI邀請他去參觀,以便更好攻擊相關實驗結果,可能是以後的事,所以在書的再版中,他們對此表達有些調整。

蘭迪的回覆,先否定自己的白紙黑字,推說「沒看到」原文,再避重就輕,改幾個詞,也就更改了事件關鍵點。別小看一兩個詞,意義會變得有所不同。按蘭迪更改後的說辭,事件發生順序是,第二委員會調查實驗,主動找到蘭迪,蘭迪表示那時還沒有去過SRI,所以他們安排了蘭迪前往拜訪,之後蘭迪才寫下Flim-Flam這本書。

無論哪個版本是真相,蘭迪都無法自圓其說,後面的一些分析也讓我更接受Pressman的原有判斷,即蘭迪在寫書時,沒有去過現場,可能只是得到SRI某人的喂料,就匆匆發表批判文字,所以才會有那麼多錯誤,比如孔道的描述與位置等等。同時,它也證實了,確實有一個背後勢力在刻意引導此事,蘭迪是他們找到的前臺打手罷了。)

The same reader who kindly confirmed this quote for me (my copy of Flim-Flam being unavailable at the time) also directed me to a page of Randi’s Web site showing photos of Randi at SRI. (The photos are about three-quarters of the way down the page.) No date is given for Randi’s visit.

The Web site photos and accompanying diagram raise a few questions of their own. First, there is the question of just how big the hole in the isolation-room wall was and how much of the outside room could be seen through it. In Flim-Flam‘s 1980 edition, in the diagram on page 139, the hole is shown as 4.5″ in diameter, providing a view of 4.5 feet of one wall and 6 feet of another wall – a substantial part of the room. However, in the diagram on Randi’s Web page, all three values are different. Here the hole is 3.5″ wide, affording a view of 39″ of one wall and 4 feet of the other. By comparison, Rogo’s measurement of the hole was 3.25″ in diameter, which agrees pretty closely with one of Randi’s diagrams but not the other.

I believe that in the 1982 edition of Flim-Flam, the figures were changed to those shown on the Web page (though I can’t be sure, because I don’t have the 1982 edition with me now). In any case, the discrepancy between the 1980 diagram and the more recent diagram at least raises the question of when, exactly, the actual hands-on measurements were made – before or after the book’s 1980 publication? If they were made before, then it seems inexplicable that the 1980 diagram could have been wrong in so many respects. If they were made after, then the arguments in Flim-Flam are based on second-hand information, at best – just as the text itself seems to imply.

曾經為我確認此引用內容的同一位讀者(當時我沒有Flim-Flam的副本),也將我引向蘭迪網站的頁面,其中顯示了蘭迪在SRI訪問的照片,(照片大約在網頁底部四分之三的位置。)只是它沒有提供訪問的日期。

網站的照片和附圖自身,存在一些問題。 首先,我們得問,隔離室牆壁上的孔究竟有多大,通過隔離室可以看到多少外部空間? 在「Flim-Flam」1980年版本第139頁的圖表中,該孔的直徑顯示為4.5英寸,可以看到一堵牆的4英尺範圍和另一堵牆的6英尺範圍(房間的大部分)。 相反,在蘭迪網頁上給出的圖表中,所有三個數值都與此不同。此處孔寬變成3.5英寸,視野大概是一堵牆的39英寸範圍,及另一堵牆的視圖為4英尺範圍。相比之下,Rogo對該孔的測量直徑為3.25英寸 ,它接近於蘭迪其中一個圖表的數據,但與另一個圖表完全不同。

我相信在1982年版本的「Flim-Flam」中,這些數字已更改為網頁上顯示的數字(盡管我不確定,因為我現在沒有1982年版本的數據)。 無論如何,1980年圖表與較新圖表之間的差異,至少提出了一個問題,即究竟是何時進行了實際的手動測量? 在本書1980年出版之前還是之後?如果是之前測量,那麼1980年的圖表在很多方面都不對,這似乎有些莫名其妙。 如果是在此之後進行的,那麼「Flim-Flam」中的論點,充其量是以二手資訊為基礎,與此書本身所暗示的情況相一致。

The hole was unblocked when Randi observed it, but, according to Rogo, was entirely blocked with cables and a metal plate during the experiments. On the above-mentioned Web page and in Flim-Flam, Randi says that the hole had been stuffed with gauze, but fails to mention the cables and plate. Randi’s accompanying diagram (both on his Web page and in the book ) indicates that the wall is indeed about twelve inches thick, as stated by Rogo, a fact that would inevitably “scope … your vision and severely limit … what you can see through it,” in Rogo’s words. (In Randi’s close-up photo, the wall appears to be much thinner than twelve inches, as you can see by looking closely at the hole itself. This is presumably a trick of the light.)

On his Web page, Randi notes, “One would think that the targets might be placed face-up on a table, or fastened to the separating wall, but a magician would benefit from having them posted on the wall opposite the blocked-off window in the wall, if he could by some means get a peek through that wall. Would that have been possible, in the 1972 visit of Mr. Geller? ‘Broomhilda’ members seemed to think that a likely scenario.”

If they merely thought it “likely,” then they were just guessing and didn’t actually know. Note that Rogo wrote in Psychic Breakthroughs Today, “… the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely [emphasis added].”

當蘭迪到現場觀察時,該孔道未被堵塞,但是據Rogo所稱,在實驗過程中該孔被電纜和金屬板完全堵住了。 在上述網頁和「Flim-Flam」上,蘭迪說該孔已經塞滿紗布,但沒有提及電纜和金屬板。 蘭迪隨附的圖表(在網頁和書中)均顯示牆壁確實厚約十二英寸(如Rogo所述),用Rogo的話說,這一事實不可避免地會「影嚮……你的視野,並嚴重限制……你從孔道中看到的一切」。 (在Randi提供的特寫照片中,牆壁看上去比十二英寸要薄得多,而與你直接觀察孔道而看到的結果不同。這大概是照片拍攝技巧造成的光影錯覺。)

蘭迪在他的網頁上指出:「人們會認為測試目標可能是正面朝上放在桌子上,或者固定在隔牆上,但如果把測試目標粘貼在被擋窗戶的對面牆上,而魔術師能以某種方式窺視那堵牆,他將因此得到資訊。 在Geller先生1972年的實驗中,是否可能發生了這種情況?Broomhilda成員似乎認為就是如此。」

如果他們只是認為「可能」,那麼他們就是在猜測而實際上並不知道。 請註意,Rogo在《當今精神研究的突破性進展》中寫道:「 …Geller實驗的目標物完全懸掛在不同的牆壁上(重點強調)。」

It’s up to the reader to decide if Puthoff and Targ, or any other scientists, whether skilled in conjuring or not (and Russell Targ is an amateur conjurer), would put Geller in an isolation booth while leaving a large, unblocked (or barely blocked) hole in the wall, directly facing the targets he was supposed to guess.

Now for the alleged tape recording made by Puthoff … Taking Randi’s advice, I did manage to contact Hal Puthoff by e-mail. He replied promptly, but said that after having relocated several times over the past three decades, and having put many of his belongings in storage, he no longer knows where to find the tape.

Puthoff wrote: “Of course, having got caught, Randi would have to call me a liar, and count on the fact that I would be unlikely after all these years to put my hands on the tape. You can quote me in saying that I say that Randi is a liar when he calls me a liar. My profession is as a scientist dedicated to reality and truth, his is as a charlatan dedicated to misdirection and tomfoolery to gain the moment. Let the audience figure out who is more likely to be lying!”

Much as I respect Puthoff, I must reiterate what I said in my essay: Without hearing the tape, neither I nor anyone else can confirm that the encounter took place.

讀者應該可以自己決定,Puthoff和Targ或任何其他科學家,(無論擅長魔術與否,Russell Targ是一名業餘魔術師),有沒有可能把Geller放置在隔離間中,然後在牆上留下一個巨大無遮擋的(或幾乎沒有遮擋的 )孔洞,讓Geller看到本該由他猜測而知的實驗目標物。

現在,針對Puthoff錄制的磁帶錄音…在蘭迪的建議下,我確實設法通過電子郵件與Hal Puthoff取得聯繫。 他迅速給我回覆,說在過去的三十年裡搬了好幾次家,所以他的許多物品到處存放,以至於現在無法知道在哪裡可以找到那卷磁帶。

Puthoff接著寫道:「當然,這是重要的把柄,蘭迪不敢承認,所以不得不稱我為騙子,並指望這些年來我不太可能還存有錄音帶。你可以引用我的話,說蘭迪就是一個騙子,卻稱呼別人為騙子,我的職業是致力於研究實相和真理的科學家,他是騙子,致力於誤導和偽裝來獲取關註的機會,且讓觀眾自己判斷誰更可能說謊!」

我非常尊重Puthoff,但必須重申自己在文章中所說的話:在沒有親耳聽到錄音帶的情況下,無論是我,還是其他任何人,都無法確認這件事(蘭迪錄音承認錯誤)發生過了。

Although Randi doesn’t comment on the part of my essay dealing with cameraman Zev Pressman, a reader alerted me to another source of information on this controversy. This is the 1999 book Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, by Jonathan Margolis, the relevant chapter of which can be read here.

Margolis writes, “Another postulate still of the sceptics concerning the SRI tests in the 1970s is … that the SRI film cameraman, an ex Life Magazine war photographer, Zev Pressman, had not really taken any of the 40 hours of footage which was edited down into the Geller film, and that he had been forced to say he had shot it, while in fact a group of conspirators in league with Uri Geller had contrived it. If the story is true, then someone must have had a great deal of leverage over Mr. Pressman, for even in his mid eighties and frail, he still insisted when I visited him at his home at Palo Alto, a few miles from SRI, that it was his film and his alone, and has a clear recall of several other of Geller’s feats. Pressman was so keen to talk about his Uri Geller experiences that he even rounded up his neighbour, the then head of information at SRI, Ron Deutsch, now also well into retirement, for our morning coffee meeting.”

This makes three independent, published accounts (Playfair, Rogo, Margolis) all of which concur on Pressman’s continuing insistence that he did shoot the SRI film.

盡管蘭迪在有關攝影師Zev Pressman的部分沒有發表評論,但還是有讀者提醒我關註此爭議點的另一個資訊來源。 它來自於喬納森·馬戈利斯(Jonathan Margolis)於1999年出版的《尤裡·蓋勒:魔術師還是神祕主義者?》(「Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?」),其相關章節可以在此處閱讀。

Margolis寫道:「關於1970年代SRI的測試實驗,存在另一個來自懷疑論者的推斷……懷疑論者說,前生活雜志的戰地攝影師Zev Pressman也是SRI影片的攝影師,他並沒有真正拍攝40個小時的鏡頭, 或編輯Geller的電影,他被迫說是自己拍攝的,但事實上是一群與Geller同謀的陰謀家編造了影片……如果這個故事是真的,那肯定有人對Pressman先生施加了極大的壓力。80年代中期,Pressman先生已經衰弱老邁,我在他離SRI幾英裡的Palo Atto的家中拜訪他時,他仍然堅持說那是他拍的影片,而且是自己獨自一人完成的。Pressman對Geller當時的幾樁表現印象深刻,也非常熱衷於談論他對Uri Geller的見證經历,以至於他專門去找SRI當時的資訊主管Ron Deutsch,來一起加入我們的早間咖啡會議。Ron是Pressman的鄰居,現在也退休了。」

這樣我們有了三個獨立的資訊來源(Playfair,Rogo,Margolis),他們公開發表報道,全都說Pressman堅持認為自己確實拍攝了SRI的相關影片。

In my essay, Puthoff is quoted as writing, “… we chose for the list of incorrect points only those that could be independently verified. Examples: [Randi] said that in our Nature paper we verified Geller’s metal-bending. Go to the paper, and you see that we said we were not able to obtain evidence for this.” One e-mailer said that Puthoff had indeed made a statement verifying Geller’s metal-bending – but not in the Nature article. The statement, allegedly, was in the SRI film, and this is what Randi had challenged.

However, no such statement appears in the script of the SRI film, which is posted here. Indeed, the script says exactly the opposite. Nor do its contents come across – to me, at least – as the ravings of blundering pseudoscientists eager to convince themselves and dupe the public. Read for yourself (all emphases added):

“These are a series of unconfirmed physical effects that need further investigation. One of Geller’s main attributes that had been reported to us was that he was able to bend metal from a distance without touching it. In the laboratory we did not find him able to do so. In a more relaxed protocol, he was permitted to touch the metal, in which case, as you will see in the film, the metal is indeed bent. However, it becomes clear in watching this demonstration on film that simple photo interpretation is insufficient to determine whether the metal is bent by normal or paranormal means.

在我的文章中,曾引用Puthoff的原話,「 …我們從他的錯誤指控列表中,選擇那些可以獨立驗證的部分。例如:[蘭迪]說,我們在Nature文章中宣稱,實驗驗證了Geller的金屬彎曲能力,但如果您仔細看那篇文章,會發現我們是說,實驗無法為此提供足夠的證據。」 一位讀者發來電子郵件說,Puthoff確實發表過聲明,證明Geller的金屬彎曲能力,但不是在Nature文章上。 據說,該聲明在SRI影片中發表,而這個聲明正是蘭迪所公開挑戰的。

但是,SRI影片的腳本中並沒有出現這樣的聲明,讀者可以從這裡找到該影片。 而且,影片中的說法恰恰相反。 至少對於我來說,沒看到所謂愚蠢的偽科學家們,渴望說服自己並扭曲資訊以欺騙公眾。 請讀者自己閱讀判斷(重點部分):

「這是一系列未經證實的物理效應,需要進一步研究。據報道,Geller的絕活之一,是他能夠在不接觸金屬的情況下遠距離彎曲金屬。在實驗室條件下,我們發現他沒有這種能力。在一個相對寬松的方案中,他被允許觸摸金屬,這種情況下,正如您在電影中看到的那樣,金屬確實彎曲了。但是,通過觀看影片中的演示,有一點很清楚,僅僅根據拍得的照片判斷,不足以確定,金屬到底是通過正常身體力量,還是通過超自然力量彎曲的。」

“In the laboratory, these spoon-bending experiments were continuously filmed and video-taped. It is evident that some time during the photographic period this stainless steel spoon became bent. However, unlike the things we have heard about Geller, it was always necessary for him in the experimental situation to have physical contact with the spoon or for that matter any other object that he bends. It is not clear whether the spoon is being bent because he has extraordinarily strong fingers and good control of micro-manipulatory movements or whether, in fact, the spoon ‘turns to plastic’ in his hands, as he claims.

“Here are a number of the spoons that were bent by one means or another during the course of our experiments. There is no doubt that the spoons were bent. The only doubt remains as to the manner of their bending. Similarly, we have rings that were bent by Mr. Geller. The rings that were bent are shown here. The copper ring at the left and the brass ring at the right were manufactured at SRI and measured to require 150 pounds force to bend them. These rings were in Geller’s hand at the time they were bent…

“What we’ve demonstrated here are the experiments that we performed in the laboratory and should not be interpreted as proof of psychic functioning. Indeed, a film never proves anything. Rather, this film gives us the opportunity to share with the viewer observations of phenomena that in our estimation clearly deserve further study.”

「在實驗室中,這些湯匙彎曲實驗是被連續拍攝和錄像的。很明顯,在攝影的一段時間裡,這種不鏽鋼湯匙確實彎曲了。但是,與我們聽聽到的傳聞不同,在實驗條件下,Geller如果想要使湯匙或其他任何物體發生彎曲,他與物體間的物理接觸始終是必要的。只是尚不清楚,湯匙的彎曲,究竟是因為Geller的手指特別有力,可以很好地進行微操控,還是因為如他所說的,湯匙在他手中’變成了塑料’。

在我們的實驗過程中,有許多勺子以一種或另一種方式彎曲。毫無疑問,勺子的確發生了彎曲。唯一的疑問仍然是使勺子彎曲的方法。與此類似,我們讓Geller做戒指的彎曲實驗,左圖所示的銅環和右圖所示的黃銅環都是在SRI制造的,經過測量,它們需要施加150磅的力才能彎曲。 但當時,這些戒指都在Geller的手中發生彎曲…

我們在這裡,只是展示實驗室中進行的實驗,它不應該被解釋為特異功能的證明。確實,一部電影從來無法證明任何事情。相反,這部影片為我們提供了與觀眾分享相關現象的機會,我們認為,它顯然值得進一步研究。」

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Additional note, October 15, 2003: There is still apparently some controversy over the contents – and even the existence – of the SRI film made of Uri Geller’s experiments. For those who want to see the film for themselves, it can be viewed in its entirety at www.uri-geller.com/vids.htm. (Many thanks to the email correspondent who informed me of this fact.)

The site claims that the film can be viewed in either RealPlayer (.ram) or .mpg format. However, if you click on the .mpg links, they turn out to be RealPlayer files. So you’ll need RealPlayer (a free download at www.real.com).

The film has been broken up into four parts to make smaller files. Even so, if you have a 56K modem, it will take a long time to play each file because of the frequent pauses for buffering.

我無法說得比Puthoff更好。

補充說明,2003年10月15日:顯然,SRI制作的關於Uri Geller的實驗內容存在一些爭議,甚至這個影片到底存不存在,都有人爭執不休。 對於那些想親自看到此片的人,請移步uri-geller.com/vids.htm觀看完整的影片。 (非常感謝通過email告知我此事的網友)

該網站聲稱影片可以通過RealPlayer(.ram)或.mpg格式觀看。 但是,如果點擊.mpg鏈接,實際上是還RealPlayer文件。 因此,您將需要RealPlayer播放器(可從http://www.real.com免費下載)。

這部電影被分為四個部分,以制成更小的文件方便上傳。 即使這樣,如果您使用的是56K調制解調器,由於經常會發生暫停緩沖,播放每個文件仍會花費很長時間。(譯者註:別忘了那是十幾年前的網路)

The first clip, SRI1, is a rather dull “talking head” introduction with no experimental footage.

SRI2 includes two telepathy experiments (not the ones involving the isolation booth, unfortunately), a “target” experiment in which Geller identifies which metal can is holding a steel ball bearing, and another target test in which he has to identify a can filled with water.

SRI3 mentions (but does not show) additional target exercises similar to the ball bearing and water tests above. It then shows a double-blind die-in-a-box test, in which Geller correctly guesses which face of the die is showing. Because he chose to “pass,” this particular run was not included in the statistical results. The eight tests that were included in the formal results (in which allegedly Geller achieved a perfect score) are not shown. The clip continues with two PK tests – one in which an electrical scale is made to register significant weight gain and loss, and another in which the needle of a magnetometer is deflected. This segment concludes with an “unsatisfactory” test in which Geller makes a compass needle deflect. Though the test produced positive results, the researchers later decided that their controls had been inadequate, so it wasn’t counted.

SRI4 shows “unconfirmed” metal-bending effects. Geller bends spoons before the camera, but the researchers admit that they cannot know if he was using his finger strength to create the bend. After a brief recap of the best-controlled tests, the film ends.

剪輯的第一部分SRI1,是一段相當乏味的「言語」介紹,沒有實驗鏡頭。

SRI2包括兩個感應實驗(不幸的是,它不包括隔離間裡進行的實驗),其中一個目標感應實驗是,Geller需要確定哪個金屬罐內藏有金屬球,另一個實驗是,他必須找出裝有水的金屬罐。

SRI3提到(但未顯示)其他目標感應實驗,類似於上面的鋼珠和水測試。 然後,影片顯示一個雙盲盒內骰子測試,蓋勒需要猜測骰子的哪個面朝上。 因為他選擇「略過」,所以該實驗結果未列入統計中。 正式結果中包括的八項測試(據稱Geller獲得了滿分)沒有在影片中顯示。 影片繼續展示兩次「精神致動」測試,一種是通過電子秤記錄重量的明顯增加和減少,另一種是將磁力計的針頭偏轉。 本部分測試結果「不令人滿意」,在該測試中,Geller確實使指針發生偏斜。 盡管測試結果是正向的,但後來研究人員認為,他們的對照實驗不足,因此也不算在內。

SRI4顯示「未經證實」的金屬彎曲效應。 蓋勒在鏡頭前彎曲湯匙,但研究人員認為,他們不知道Geller是否在用手指的力量來彎曲。 在簡要回顧其中控制最佳的測試內容之後,影片結束了。

As mentioned above, the script of the SRI film can be found here.

I hope this at least settles the question of whether or not the so-called “Pressman film” was actually made …

Yet another additional note, December 1, 2003: Steve Knight, whose Web site www.zem.demon.co.uk/ contains a great deal of material about this and other Uri Geller controversies, has informed me that authors Marks & Kamman report that at least one target drawing was displayed opposite the isolation room. They write, “He [Puthoff] told us that he taped this drawing ‘right here,’ pointing to a spot directly across from the covered window.” (The Psychology of the Psychic, p. 135). This bolsters Randi’s argument that Geller could have peeked through the hole in the door. On the other hand, a target drawing of a devil, which Randi describes as being “in full view” of Geller when he left the isolation room (Randi,The Truth About Uri Geller, p. 46), was actually in a different room altogether. According to the paper published in Nature, this “target location [was] an office at a distance of 475 m [meters]” from the isolation room. See www.zem.demon.co.uk/ttaug.htm for more info.

如上所述,可以在此處找到SRI影片的腳本。

我希望這至少解決了「Pressman影片」是否真的存在的問題。

另一個補充說明,2003年12月1日:史蒂夫·奈特(Steve Knight)的網站含有大量與Uri Geller爭議有關的內容,他告訴我,馬克和卡曼(Marks&Kamman)報告說,至少有一個目標物放在隔離室的對面位置。 他們寫道:「他[普托夫(Puthoff)告訴我們,把圖掛在那兒,指的是與被遮蓋的窗戶直接相對的一個點。 (《靈媒現象中的心理學》,第135頁)。 這支持了蘭迪關於蓋勒可以通過孔道窺視的論點。 另一方面,關於一個魔鬼圖像的目標圖實驗,蘭迪曾說,Geller在離開隔離室時,它會進入「Geller的全視野」,但實際上,這幅圖掛在另一個房間裡。(蘭迪,《關於尤裡·蓋勒的真相》)。 根據Nature雜志發表的文章,「這個目標圖位置是離隔離室475 m [米]的辦公室」。 有關更多資訊,請參見zem.demon.co.uk/ttaug.h

I’ve also found a Web site created by Ingo Swann, in which he describes his own recollection of the disputed magnetometer event. His story is highly readable and amusing. You can find it here.

(May 15, 2004) James Randi has provided additional comments on his dispute with Hal Puthoff at this location :www.randi.org/jr/043004bad.html#4 . The same material, augmented by a few comments from Steve Knight, can be found at:www.zem.demon.co.uk/fact.htm . Some earlier remarks by Randi on the Puthoff controversy can be read at:www.randi.org/jr/042304seven.html#10 .

(November 21, 2005) Another update on the controversy that will not end. I received an email from Steve Knight, who maintains a Uri Geller-related Web site. He wrote:

Over the last few months I have been in contact with Jean Millay (formerly Mayo) who was present at the SRI tests of Geller. With regard to which wall the drawings were placed on I asked: “Do you remember if the drawings done with Uri in the next room were stuck up on the wall and if so which wall?”

Jean replied: “a couple of the first ones were on the west wall, until they decided to move us to another building.”

This would seem to confirm what Marks & Kamman wrote about their visit to SRI: “”He [Puthoff] told us that he taped this drawing ‘right here,’ pointing to a spot directly across from the covered window.” (see: www.zem.demon.co.uk/rogo.htm for futher confirmatory details regarding the distance between Geller & the target)

Note that 6 of the 13 trials reported in the Nature paper involved Geller in the EEG shielded room with the target in the room next door. It would seem plausible that the drawings were diplayed on the same wall each time; certainly there is no suggestion in the literature or from Ms. Millay that the targets were displayed on a different wall each time.

Also, as you may recall, I emailed you a link to a photograph
www.randi.org/images/082302-RoomAB.jpg ) which clearly showed that the cable hole was much nearer the 36 inches from the floor that Randi claimed and not “a little above floor level.”, as Rogo claimed.

In light of all of the above will you consider revising your page on Randi to reflect the facts?

我還找到了Ingo Swann創建的網站,他在上面描述了對有爭議的磁力計事件的回憶。 他的故事讀起來很有趣。 你可以在這裡找到它。

(2004年5月15日),詹姆斯·蘭迪(James Randi)在以下鏈接中提供了他與哈爾·普索夫(Hal Puthoff)之間糾紛的其他評論:randi.org/jr/043004bad.。 你可以從以下網址找到相同的材料,這裡加了Steve Knight的一些評論:zem.demon.co.uk/fact.ht。 蘭迪(Randi)先前針對普索夫(Puthoff)爭議的一些言論可以從以下網址找到:randi.org/jr/042304seve

(2005年11月21日)相關爭議似乎永遠不會結束。 我收到了史蒂夫·奈特(Steve Knight)的電子郵件,Knight負責維護一個與Uri Geller相關的網站。 他這樣寫道:

在過去的幾個月中,我一直與曾參與Geller SRI測試實驗的Jean Millay(以前叫Mayo)接觸。 關於圖紙放在哪個牆壁上,我問:「您還記得與Geller相關的圖紙是放在隔壁房間的牆上嗎?如果是這樣的話?它們放在哪個牆上?」

Jean回答說:「最初的幾張圖是放在西牆上,後來他們決定將我們搬到另一座建築物裡。」

這似乎可以證實Marks&Kamman在訪問SRI時寫的內容:「「他[普托夫(Puthoff)告訴我們,把圖掛在那兒,指的是與被遮蓋的窗戶直接相對的一個點。」(請參閱​​:www .http://zem.demon.co.uk / rogo.htm,以進一步獲得蓋勒(Geller)與目標物之間距離的詳細資訊)

請註意,Nature雜志報道的13項試驗中,有6項涉及Geller在EEG屏蔽室裡,而目標物在隔壁房間中。 似乎每次都在同一堵牆上掛圖紙是合理的; 當然,從文獻或者Millay女士的證詞來看,也沒有暗示目標物每次都掛在不同的牆上。

另外,您可能還記得,我通過電子郵件將照片的鏈接發送給您(randi.org/images/082302),它清楚地表明,電纜孔與地面的距離,與蘭迪宣傳的36英寸接近,但與Rogo所描述的「高於地面一點點」並不相符。

鑒於上述所有情況,您是否考慮修改蘭迪有關的文章,以反映事實?

The photos of Randi at SRI were mentioned and linked to in the first addendum to this essay. (The link was supplied by a different reader.) The hole is important only if it was unblocked. If the hole was sealed off, then it wouldn’t matter how high or low it was.

I’ve never heard of Jean Millay, but I’m happy to include her testimony. Again, it doesn’t matter if the drawings were displayed opposite the isolation booth unless the hole was unblocked. If the hole was blocked, then Geller would have been unable to see out of the booth at all.

Whether anybody remembers accurately what happened at SRI thirty-three years ago is doubtful at this point. Thirty-three years ago I was twelve years old and shooting stop-motion dinosaur footage as a hobby. If someone were to ask me now to reconstruct the details of how I created a particular shot, I would have to rely on speculation, as my memories have long since faded. I imagine the same is true of the various recollections of the SRI tests.

But it’s not of great import. In the light of the successful tests of ESP carried out by the Ganzfeld experimenters, the early SRI tests have become more of a historical footnote than a major piece of evidence for the existence of psi. The Ganzfeld tests proved that volunteers off the street can demonstrate ESP, so why wouldn’t we assume that Geller also exhibits this ability, at least sporadically? If ordinary folks can do it, why not someone who has made it the focus of his career?

It seems that only blind antagonism to Geller or to the idea of psi itself could explain the skeptics’ continued resistance to this obvious conclusion.

在本文的第一篇附錄中提到蘭迪在SRI的照片,並提供了照片的鏈接(該鏈接是由其他讀者告知的)。只有當孔道未被堵塞時,它的位置才更重要。 如果實驗中孔道已被密封,那麼它的高低無關緊要。

我從未聽說過讓·米拉(Jean Millay),但很高興發表她的證詞。 同樣,除非孔道未被阻塞,否則,圖紙是否放在隔離室對面的牆上,這點也不重要。 如果孔道已被堵住,那麼Geller根本就看不到隔離室外面的情況。

更何況,是否有人能準確地記住三十年前發生在SRI裡的事情,也是值得懷疑的。 三十三年前,我只有十二歲,業餘愛好是拍攝恐龍的定格動畫。 如果現在有人要我重新描述,當時怎樣制作特定鏡頭的細節,我將不得不依靠推測,因為我的記憶早已消退。 我想,對SRI測試的各種回憶也是如此。

但這也不是很重要。 Ganzfeld實驗的研究者們已經成功完成超感官知覺(ESP) 的測試,早期的SRI實驗早已變成历史的註腳,不再是證明特異功能存在的主要證據。 Ganzfeld測試證明,大街上的志願者都可以展示ESP的能力,那麼為甚麼我們不認為,Geller至少偶爾也會表現出這種能力呢? 如果普通人能夠做到這一點,為甚麼把特異功能當作職業焦點的Geller反而做不到?

似乎只有對Geller或特異功能本身採取盲目的對抗態度,才可以解釋懷疑者對這一明顯結論的持續抵制。

資料來源:

Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and other Delusions, by James Randi, for sale at Amazon.com and elsewhere

James Randi’s SRI photos and diagrams, at www.randi.org/jr/082302.html

Script of SRI film, at www.geocities.com/the931/uri16.html

“Information Transfer under Conditions of Sensory Shielding,” by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, in Nature, October 18, 1974, (Vol. 252, # 5476; pp. 602-7), at 66.221.71.68/content/re or atwww.heart7.net/mcf/hambone/g3.html

Psychic Breakthroughs Today, by D. Scott Rogo; Chapter 17 at 66.221.71.68/analysis.h

The Geller Effect, by Guy Lyon Playfair and Uri Geller; Chapter 14 at www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge14.htm; Chapter 15, which includes an account of the magnetometer incident, is at www.uri-geller.com/geller-effect/tge15.htm

“Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena,” by Winston Wu, at www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html

“CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview,” by George P. Hansen, at www.linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/hansen or in Adobe Acrobat format at www.psicounsel.com/scicop.pdf

“D. Scott Rogo and His Contributions to Parapsychology,” by George P. Hansen, at www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/RogoObit.htm

“Psychic Laboratory” message board at www.psicounsel.com/psilabts.html

The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, by Lynne McTaggart, for sale at Amazon.com and elsewhere

Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic?, by Jonathan Margolis (1999); Chapter 11, which includes material on Pressman, can be read at www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter11.htm

“Dr. Hal Puthoff: From SRI to ZPE,” interview by Mark Pilkington; an interesting discussion of Puthoff’s psi research and his work in quantum physics, at www.forteantimes.com/exclusive/puthoff.shtml

💰 打賞

Translate »