Ethics of investigation

Paranormal and pseudoscientific claims are perceived as inadequate evidentiary support. On this, I disagree with David Koepsell ("The Ethics of Investigation," January/ February 2006), who flamed his statements improperly.

One needn't examine whether extrasensory perception exists, for example, because all manner of things may exist as hypotheses. The proper question is whether evidence of ESP exists in external reality. If claimants could offer such evidence, I'm sure that science wouldn't need badgering to examine it. But absent such evidence, I see no ethical obligation to investigate endless and repetitive claims.

Paranormal and pseudoscientific claims never can be "ruled out" because no claim devoid of evidence can be properly tested or falsified. But recognizing this adds nothing to knowledge.

Koepsell wants science to "consider extraordinary explanations" for alleged phenomena when other causes are ruled out. If by "extraordinary," he means nonphysical or unnatural, he's beyond the realm of science, the essential principle of which is that material phenomena have material causes. In that sense, no natural phenomena, however unusual, would be extraordinary.

As for the risk that exposure may subject charlatans to retribution, I'd say that such is the just reaping of their duplicity. Science should operate dispassionately, for truth and falsity are innocent of ardor. Save compassion for the victims of deception.

William S. Bunn

Algonac, Michigan

I found David Koepsell's article on scientific ethics interesting, but would like to expand on his section on equipoise, the attitude of objectivity and avoidance of prejudice.

One of the triumphs of science in our time is the recognition that pure equipoise is not humanly possible, and even were one researcher to achieve it, another researcher could still challenge the research outcome on the basis of a possible lack of it. Researchers have developed elaborate research methodologies--notably double blinding, control, randomization, repeatability, openness, statistics, complete reporting--specifically to factor out researcher bias.

And as the "Alpha Kids," Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, remind us, scientists are generally culturally honest and don't possess expertise in investigating deception. Advisory conjurers augment the toolbox with various forms of security.

Each of these methodologies must be adapted to each field of research in unique ways, as the experimental methods available to physics, for instance, may be quite different from those available to archaeology. But in all cases, equipoise is no longer seen as an achievable goal, and elimination of influence by the investigator is substituted.

Matthew H. Fields

Ann Arbor, Michigan

COPYRIGHT 2006 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning