(DRAFT) A STRATEGY FOR THE EVALUATION OF PARANORMAL PHENOMENA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090015-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: June 28, 1976
• Content Type: REPORT

A Sproved For Release 0/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0200090015-7
A Strategy For The Evaluation of
Paranormal Phenomena
There seems to be a small but constant momentum within
the Agency for investigation of paranormal phenomena including
such things as Extra Sensory Perception, Astral Projection
and Radionics. Since this momentum appears to have been
continuous in the past, it seems reasonable to assume that
it will continue in the future. Since claims of paranormal
phenomena immediately generate opposing camps of believers and
non-believers, any instigation of research into these areas
immediately engenders debates, meetings,. discussions, and
memoranda. All of these activities consume man-power resources
and any investigation will usually involve the commitment of
fiscal resources. For this reason, this paper is'presented
to propose some guidelines for a strategy to allow for the
appraisal of the appropriateness of resource dedication to
whatever paranormal phenomena may be proposed in the future.
One of the driving forces for any proposed program in
paranormal phenomena is always the carrot held out by pro-
ponents that the possession of such powers would have great
utility to the intelligence community. If we. assume that
such powers are indeed real and can be harnessed for use by
the Agency or the Intelligence Community, clearly there can
be no argument with purported utility. Therefore, debate on
~" P
Approved For Release 20(91 1tG : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090015-7
 A roved For Release 0"08/10 : IA-RDP96-00787RQQ0200090015-7
such issue is inappropriate. the true focus f r the debate
should be on the validity of the claims made by proponents
of the paranormal phenomena.
Another item which should be disposed quickly without
major debate is that of the ability of the Agency to use
something that it does not understand. Once again the argu-
ments are really very simple. Obviously we can use something
that we do not understand. Cave men used fire to cook food
and warm caves for many years before the thermodynamics and
chemical kinetics of combustion were suspected, known, or
understood. Even today man uses gravity for many purposes,
although there is still significant debate in the scientific
community as to what causes gravitational attraction. However,
when a phenomenon is not understood, it must be a reliable
phenomenon to be trusted. The credibility of gravity is
very, very high even though the theoretical underpinnings for
gravitational attraction are not solid. The reason for this
status is that human history has a great preponderence of
observations in favor of objects falling toward the Earth and
not away from the Earth. Paranormal phenomena which are not
understood (or which cannot be explained) must achieve a
similar level of reliability to attain the same level of
credibility as a phenomenon such as gravity.
.Given that there will be a proposal for the Agency to
investigate some form of paranormal research in the future,
the following is presented as a suggested strategy for deciding
TTM
Approved For Release 2000/080 : CIA# -00787R000200090015-7
 R rpved,Fpr Release 00/08/10: CIA-RP96-00787R 0,0090015-7
on t Justification for pursuing such research. xs sug-
gestion is put forward with'the hope. that it will stimulate
discussion and dialogue among management and technical personnel
to arrive at a strategy that can be implemented at a future
time.
First, one must consider the evidence presented by a
proponent of paranormal research. The body of evidence itself
N
should be a consideration for the justification of research
into the area. The volume of evidence, the number of observers
of similar evidence, and the commonality of observation should
all be qualitatively evaluated by impartial observers to
arrive at same construct of opinion regarding the paranormal
phenomenon.
Some critical aspects of the body of*evidence should
include the presence of witnesses to the claimed observations
which are being presented as evidence. Probably the most
compelling type of evidence would be first hand evidence pre-
sented by the proponent of such research. Additionally, one
should consider the level of training and experience of the
observer. This is not meant to imply"in any way that someone
not trained as a scientist is incapable of making an observa-
tion which is of major importance. However, the observation
of phenomena by trained and experienced observers should be
considered much more heavily. than by the naive observer.
Another critical aspect of the data presented as evidence
for a paranormal phenomenon must be the reproducibility
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :P96-00787R000200090015-7
3
 Approved For Release 20;PUWIIO CIA-RDP96-007 78000200090015-7
of,that data. Reproducibility must be considered in light of
the individuals who can reproduce it, the conditions under
which any or all individuals can reproduce it and the nature
of controls which can be imposed upon a situation where re-
production of the phenomenon is demanded. Evidence which
requires that-the audience take on faith the data or mani-
festations of the data, should be dismissed out-of-hand as
evidence for paranormal phenomena.
The body of evidence presented to support a proposal
for this type of research should be as free as possible from
argument by analogy. If, indeed, there is to be presented
a theoretical underpinning for these types of phenomena, then
that theoretical underpinning should be able to stand on its
own. It is not appropriate to argue, for instance, that a
paranormal form of energy travels faster than the speed of
light and cannot be measured just because one can make the
statement that a thought may travel faster than the speed of
light and no one has been able to measure the speed of a
thought. Argument by analogy is really only appropriate in
a positive sense but not in a negative sense.
It seems appropriate that the burden of proof for having
the Agency involve itself in research into paranormal phenomena
should be on the proponents of such research. Without getting
into legalistic definitions this burden of proof should not
be proof "beyond the shadow of a doubt" and indeed it may not
even require 'a preponderance of evidence. However, the burden
1
-Approved For. Release 2000/0$/0 : Jo~96-007878000200090015-7
 O
Approved For Relea2I10 : CIA-RDP96-0078700200090015-7
must fall on the proponents to convince management and technical
personnel in the Agency that, indeed, such research is appro-
priate and there is some plausible justification for entering
into the expenditure of public monies toward this end.
It is the personal opinion of the author that the more
exotic the claims made for any paranormal discipline that the
more definitive should be the proofs and evidences presented
to support the proposition for research into that area.
fAdditionally, it is mandatory to require that a technical
inability_ to explain all phenomena associated with the bod
y
,~. evidence shall.not be..-taken as proof positive that there is
-fvalidity to the phenomena. It does not seem reasonable to
allow that the positive presence o ranormal phenomena be
"4- provided by the a]~sence of a firmly founded technical e:~ana-
eivn for every aetail. -
Assuming that we have reached a situation where some
level of investigation into paranormal phenomena is considered
appropriate it is intended to now set forth some guidelines
for validation of the claims, concepts, theoretical under-
pinnings for such phenomena. One criteria which should be
applied is the concept of deniability.. One of the foundations
of the scientific method is that if one asserts a false
hypothesis, then a false result will emerge from an experiment
to test the hypothesis. This criterion of deniability should
be applicable to experimental designs which attempt to explain
the paranormal.
Arove F
eb
ORE
P96-00787 R000200090015-7
 Approved For Release 2 00/08/10 CIA-RDP96-007 000200090015-7
Another criterion for validation ofa paranormal 4
phenomenon should be the property of replication for that
phenomenon. It is reasonable to assert that if such a phenomenon
is real, then more than one independent observer/practioner
can obtain the same results under the same conditions. This
criterion has served the scientific community very well for
several centuries; and, indeed, does not appear to be so
unreasonable as to have it dismissed from consideration of
paranormal research.
A third criteria for such validation investigations
should be the verifiability of the experimental data. By
verifiability it is meant that the proponents and opponents
of the phenomenon in question should be able to agree on the
criteria which will substantiate or deny the existence of. the
phenomenon.. Such a criterion will tend to remove validation
experimentation from a situation whereby a negative or positive
result can be refuted by the various parties to the debate.
Finally, any validation experimentation must be set up
in such a way.as to avoid the situation in which the opponents
to a paranormal phenomenon are required to prove that it does
not exist. The difficulty in proving a negative assertion,
is so severe that such experimentation and argument can go on
forever. Since it was stated that the burden of proof should
be on the proponent to initiate paranormal research, this
concept must. be carried forward to any validation experiments
to assure that any experiments are designed to prove the
6
. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 1 o W P96-00787R000200090015-7
 ,RAFT
Approved For Refoese 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00 1R000200090015-7
existence of a phenomenon by positive observable details.
As a short example to illustrate the thinking that went
into much of the above recommendations, the author doubts
seriously that many scientists would argue with the fact that
there may exist a sense in the human body which has?not yet
been discovered. They may, however, stop short of agreement
if they were then asked to believe that this extra sense is
one that cannot be measured, and therefore, it is for that
reason that it has escaped detection (and will of course always
escape detection). Skepticism about things like Extra Sensory
Perception or abnormal sensitivities of individuals to various
.stimuli do not arise from a preconceived notion that it is
impossible for such phenomena to exist; rather, it is skepticism
which arises from an explanation which demands that an in-
vestigator believe in the existence of such data because there
is no other explanation immediately available.
It is hoped that this short statement concerning para-
normal research will stimulate sufficient discussion and
dialogue to permit a reasonable and programmed response to a
future assertion for Agency involvement in paranormal research.
The author makes no claim that the suggestions in this paper
for guidelines or approaches to this problem are all inclusive.
If, however, they serve to generate such all inclusive and
appropriate guidelines then this paper will de deemed success-
ful in the mind of the author.
Approved For Release 2000708/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090015-7