The annual
conference of the Society for Scientific
Exploration (SSE) is a rather unique experience, where speakers
from both the scientific mainstream and the outermost fringes
of scientific research have equal opportunity to present their
case before a receptive audience. The organization itself, founded
in 1978, consists of some 400+ members, and publishes the Journal of Scientific
Exploration, a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the investigation
of scientific anomalies. As an appropriate climax to the semester,
the three top students in analytical chemistry were invited to
attend the 15th Annual Meeting of the SSE, held at the University
of Virginia in Charlottesville, VA in late May, 1996. The intent
was to expose them to credible looking and sounding scientists
presenting both conventional and fringe research, and test their
ability to use critical thinking skills to discern the rational
from the irrational. Topics included UFOs and alien abductions,
precognition, psychokinesis, alternative healing practices, homeopathy,
reincarnation, and more. The students were asked to record their
impressions and write a paper after the conference. The following
is a composite of their reactions to the conference and some of
the speakers.
Prior to the conference, all three students
described themselves as "skeptical" in nature. One asserted
that only "nutcases" believe in UFOs and psychic phenomena,
while another felt the conference topics to be an affront to their
conservative upbringing. Some of the speakers reinforced those
opinions, while others made them realize that very intelligent
people believe quite reasonably in unusual things. The students
reserved their harshest criticisms for several talks on Friday
afternoon. A speaker from the Meridian Institute described a capacitor-like
device developed by Edgar Cayce in the 1920s, that was intended
to improve blood circulation. One student noted that the control
group was inadequate and that the experiments were performed on
an irregular schedule, bringing up the possibility of data selection.
Another found the evidence unconvincing. They were even more critical
of a speaker from the Arlington Institute, who related the discovery
of a "three-dimensional, dynamic geometric pattern"
that was described as the "pattern of love" and that
"held the key to energy and other scientific revolutions."
Apparently the fact that this pattern was endorsed (in a near-death
experience) by the Dalai Lama and Sai
Baba, an Indian mystic (for the truth about Sai Baba, click
here) held no particular relevance for the students. One student
was struck with the non-science of the issues, the lack of plausible
evidence (‘facts’ based purely on conjecture), and an
obvious interference of personal beliefs with the ideas presented.
Another was simply amazed that the talk was even given. Harsh
criticism was also meted out to a talk advocating structural features
on Mars (the
Mars Face and pyramids) as evidence for extraterrestrial life.
Several students recalled a talk given by Chip Denman (Manager,
Statistics Laboratory, University of Maryland) earlier in the
year at Mount Saint Mary’s College, in which it was emphasized
that you often see what you expect to see.
While these topics were easy for the students
to dismiss, they found it more difficult to critique controversial
topics that were more professionally presented. Their opinions
varied on these more difficult topics. Wayne Jonas, NIH
Alternative Medicine Program, was complimented by one student
on his careful and controlled study of homeopathic dilutions,
while another was suspicious since major journals would not publish
his manuscript. Roger Nelson, Princeton
Engineering Anomalies Laboratory, was complimented for his
ability to present the facts and avoid judgmental opinion in his
talk postulating a positive effect of group consciousness at Princeton
University alumni and commencement events on the weather, but
another student wondered that if PK could really influence the
weather, why was it raining during the conference lunch break.
Finally, the students were unanimous in complimenting several
speakers, particularly Stephen Braude, Department of Philosophy,
University of Maryland, Baltimore Campus, for his debunking of
a would-be psychic superstar.
Obviously, the students had been "prepared"
for this event by a number of classroom discussions and demonstrations,
but I was pleased that they seemed to understand my motivation.
One of the students put it quite eloquently: "his purpose
for inviting the chemistry students to the conference was twofold:
he wanted us to learn to recognize holes in a faulty analysis,
but also wanted us to develop an open mind toward slightly radical
ideas that we might encounter during our scientific careers, and
respect those ideas if they appear to hold some scientific validity.
At the end of the conference, I found myself considering the possibility
that I might be wrong about some beliefs I strongly held."
I couldn’t have put it much better myself.
Figure 1. The SSE Conference on
Controversial Research.
(A) Enjoying a break between talks and dinner in the Rotunda of
the University of Virginia.
(B) Dr. Nelson (left) and Professor Braude (right) were complimented
by the students for the critical nature of their presentations.
Contributors:
[Thanks are due to Professor
Ian Stevenson of the University of Virgina, who approved complimentary
registration for the students to attend the conference.]
Page prepared by: Mike Epstein
Last Modified: 30 April 1999
Return to the Main Index
Page