Star Gate's fate

Today I happened to come across an interesting piece of information online. It involves Project Star Gate, the government-funded investigation of remote viewing that was shut down in 1995.

Here's the skinny from the relevant website, Stargate Interactive:

Stories of the 1995 ending of the Star Gate program vary, but many have Ray Hyman saying remote viewing didn’t work and Jessica Utts saying it did. Speculation abounds over whether or not the entire program was really shut down as well as whether or not results over those twenty years were operationally valuable and/or statistically significant. Those discussions have often involved someone saying “Ray Hyman said…” and “but Jessica Utts said….” or visa versa, as if the two didn’t agree. Check out the document and see if that’s true.

The download attached to this blog is a 22-slide presentation produced in 1995. Once you look through it, you’ll be able to answer whether or not Hyman said the results were not statistically significant and, if he didn’t say that, what he actually did say.

Intrigued, I downloaded the file (a PDF) and looked through it. Indeed - if the slideshow is in fact accurately reproduced - it turns out that Hyman's views were not as totally dismissive as I'd been led to believe.

First, the slideshow gives a summary titled "Dr. Utts’ conclusions":

Asserted that “Psychic functioning” is well-established
Observed that statistical results obtained were far beyond chance expectations
Refuted argument that methodological flaws or fraud could account for results
Claimed some SRI, SAIC results were replicated in other labs

This is followed by "Dr. Hyman’s conclusions":

 

Recent SAIC results are methodologically superior to previously flawed SRI work
New results are statistically significant
Results hampered by secrecy, experimental database has had no community peer-reviewed, no public school they
Better than chance results do not, by themselves, establish that a paranormal phenomenon is the cause
Use of same “judge” during all SAIC experiments is possible serious flaw
“Remote viewing,” as opposed to Ganzfeld, has not been replicated in other labs
Boundary conditions, i.e., when and where remote viewing can reliably occur, have not been defined
Possibility of methodological flaws in results has not been eliminated

Note that while Hyman's conclusions are presented straightforwardly, the summary of Utts' conclusions is couched in terms like "asserted," "observed," and "claimed."

 

We come to the next slide, titled "AIR’s judgments on commissioned R&D reviews." AIR was the "American Institutes of Research blue-ribbon panel" that looked into this controversy  for the Senate Appropriations Committee. The slide reads:

 

Reviewers agree more than they disagree:
     - Statistically significant results
     - Vast improvement in experimental protocols
Reviewers disagree on key points:
     - Establishment of paranormal causality
     - Replication of “remote viewing” in other labs

 

This is followed by a slide titled "AIR independently concludes":

The data do not establish that a paranormal phenomenon is involved, nature of source not identified
The data have not been replicated independently
The boundary constraints critical to obtaining statistically significant experimental results are not practical in real world of intelligence collection

 

Three points can be made about this. First, even arch-skeptic Ray Hyman conceded that the protocols had been improved and the new results were statistically significant. This is a huge admission.

Second, Hyman's claim that the "results do not, by themselves, establish that a paranormal phenomenon is the cause," which was picked up by the majority of the AIR panel and regurgitated as "The data do not establish that a paranormal phenomenon is involved," is, when you think about it, rather silly. It seems to reflect a desperate desire to steer clear of any endorsement of the "parnaormal," simply by refusing to identify remote viewing as a paranormal phenomenon. Note that Hyman could not find any specific flaw in the research and was reduced to suggesting that use of the same judge was a "possible" flaw and that, more generally, the "possibility of methodological flaws in results has not been eliminated."

 

Hyman has been pushing this latter line for decades: Since it is theoretically possible that some unknown flaw could be responsible for the results, we are justified in ignoring the results. Is there any category of scientific endeavor that would be exempt from this dictum? The possibility of unknown methodological flaws has not been - and logically cannot be - eliminated in any empirical investigation. There is always the possibility of an unknown error somewhere, whether you are studying psi or fossils or quantum particles; this is precisely what makes it "unknown." Yet in all areas besides psi, we are willing to accept the results of empirical studies, at least provisionally. Can anything other than materialist bias explain the special exception?

 

Third, it appears the reasons for defunding the Star Gate project had more to do with operational utility than with the evidence as such. The majority on the AIR panel, though clearly uncomfortable with and even hostile to this kind of research (see how they characterized Utts' statements) nevertheless could not argue that there was no evidence. They could only argue that the evidence provided by remote viewers was unlikely to prove useful in day-to-day intelligence operations. Since the project was being funded to obtain usable results, and not for the sake of "pure research," this conclusion was enough to shut down the program.

 

Somewhat absurdly, the slideshow reports:

 

AIR concluded future R&D should not take place within Intelligence Community since 20 years of IC investigation failed to establish a paranormal phenomenon

This, after admitting that better-than-chance results were obtained! Again, this is not evidence of a paranormal phenomenon only because Hyman said that it was not. To any normal, unbiased observer, this is obviously evidence of something paranormal. What else could it be?

 

Now, it may be just as well that the program was shut down. As the report indicates, the secrecy surrounding this research worked to its disadvantage. And maybe we don't want spies and generals using psi anyway.

 

But at least we should get the facts straight. Hyman did not claim the Star Gate results were statistically insignificant or easily explainable. He and Utts were found to "agree more than they disagree." This is of some importance, and it needs to be more widely known.

Comments

[no one]

Nice post, Michael; a very fascinating area of study.

There is a link at the same site: http://www.stargate-interactive.com/news/puthoff-targ-may-and-swann-summarize-the-research/
That nicely demonstrates the quality of the information obtained via remote viewing for those unfamiliar with the project.

The download at the above link should make it clear that some very good results were obtained by paranormal means. Unless, of course, the researchers were lying (oh Ray).

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that Puthoff, Targ, et al would be lying to the DoD/DIA about matters of national security.

Hyman complains that the secrecy of the project hindered his ability to assess it. I'm sure that's true. I am willing to bet that his clearance was not high enough to really come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of the program operationally. Stating that the program was never used operationally smells, to me, like a typical intelligence op.s cover. Hyman wouldn't know this and wouldn't care if it helped him dismiss the paranormal.

As for the de-funding of Stagate, my thoughts are as follows:
1. A cover (i.e. the program has been operationalized under some other name and is highly classified)
2. The Dod de-fund all kinds of programs and weapons systems all the time. De-funding doesn't mean the program or system didn't work. It could mean that some new sexier (hopefully better in some way) thing or method has been moved to the forefront.
3. At the time Stargate was ostensibly de-funded *all* HUMINT was de-emphasized (HUMINT being intelligence gathered by humans in human ways, often, but not always about other humans and their mindsets and activities - think spies, double agents). Lots of new wiz bang electronic gizmos were coming on line, including satellite tech and it was thought these were more reliable than humans with all of their foibles and inconsistencies. Some in the DIA have come to publicly express regret over the loss of HUMINT capabilities. It was the new paradigm that has persisted to this day. So I am not surprised that something potentially embarrassing and completely contrary to technology,like Stargate, would be on the chopping block in the first round of cuts.
4. There is much rumor, in the military, that remote viewing is being used in operations today (who knows?).

Finally, when bureaucracies want to do something, the decision is made behind closed doors ahead of time. The official inquiry, with the panels of experts is just a dog and pony show with the experts carefully chosen to provide the necessary opinion to back the already made decision.

[Ulysses]

There is a reference in Victor Zammit's site and several other sites on the Web about President Carter confirming CIA remote viewing project. Does anyone know if that was the same Star Gate project? If so, was the project operational at that point?

[Michael Prescott]

It was the same project, but I think the incident was more of a test than an indication that the program was truly operational. See the heading "Official Statements/Perspectives" at this link:

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

[Paul]

Interesting comments. It makes sense to me that the military would not fund it if it wasn't consistently producing results they could use. I can't imagine they spend so long funding it purely to investigate whether psi existed or not.

[Matt Rouge]

Great post!

It is a big deal that Hyman recognized the evidence and its meaning as much as he did.

One of the favorite things for skeptics of all stripes to do is shriek, "There is NO EVIDENCE!" This, of course, is a lie. In the case of the paranormal, it is, to put it mildly, an egregious lie. Of course, the actual meaning is, "There is no evidence to which we give credence," but its purpose is to indoctrinate people who are new to the topic and give them the impression that there is nothing to take seriously in the first place.

Hyman's words can be used against such a dishonest approach. If data recognized as statistically significant by a major skeptic doesn't count as "evidence," then I'm not sure what is.

[David R]

Also, Hyman doesn't indicate what the possible errors could be, as if they don't exist because the test results are so stringent.

[Boo boo]

I agree with you, Matt. I think the whole "There is no evidence" phrase is another way of saying "I don't want there to be any evidence".

[Lynn]

I was looking up old posts when I noticed this one from last year. I see that you gave a link from Hal Puthoff's (one of the physicist's who organised it) interview in Bio-mind in which he told the outcome of experiments showing results were well above chance. Heres his lecture outlining the experiments mentioned, and the results if people haven' seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAfH1utUSM

Quite long- over and hour, but worth watching.

By all accounts the US has sent out denials it was successful to a) give the illusion to Russia and others powers that they hadn't made inroads that way and received covert information, and b) the general public don't realise that this is achievable and perhaps misuse it e.g.- to spy on businesses. Or come to understand such powers are known to be a part of normal processing.

I have read that Ingo Swann was told privately that they would denounce PSI publicly to prevent its use. Cheers Lyn.