I feel like I have successfully negotiated a Hollywood rite of passage. I was being interviewed on camera for a TV pilot, when I took off my microphone, tossed it aside, and stormed off. How awesome is that??
Not so awesome at all, actually, but it did happen. I much prefer a low-drama lifestyle, and it takes a certain kind of talent to get me that annoyed. Nothing to be proud of; I should have been more careful in learning what the show was about in the first place.
The backstory is that I was called on the phone by producers at a company I had never heard of, but that means nothing, as I haven’t heard of the vast majority of TV production companies. [Update: name of the company removed because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. They didn’t complain, just being cautious.] They wanted to come to campus to interview me for a pilot they were producing. I’ve done the drill before, for respectable outlets like the History Channel, Science Channel, and National Geographic. It’s a couple of hours of work, no heavy lifting, and hopefully you get to explain some cool science that will be seen by a much larger audience than I could possibly reach by giving a thousand public lectures. And it’s fun — I get to be on TV, which growing up wasn’t the kind of thing I ever thought I’d get to do.
They explained that they wanted me to talk about quantum teleportation. I countered by mentioning that there were surely better experts that they could talk to. But they really just needed some background information about quantum mechanics and relativity, and were comforted by the fact I had appeared on camera before. And the producer emphasized that they knew perfectly well that teleportation wasn’t realistic right now, but thought it was interesting to speculate about what might ultimately be consistent with the laws of physics. So I agreed. There was a slight hint of sketchiness about the operation — they seemed to be unable to come to an agreement with Caltech in regards to consent forms, which National Geographic or the History Channel never had trouble with. But my antennae weren’t sensitive enough to set off any alarm bells.
So the taping was this afternoon, and it consisted of me chatting informally with the show’s two hosts, while taking a leisurely walk around Caltech’s quite lovely campus. But as soon as we started talking, things went rapidly downhill. The first question was what I thought about claims that people had actually built successful teleportation devices. When I expressed skepticism, one of the hosts challenged me by asking whether I would just be repeating the “party line” of the scientific establishment. I admitted that I probably would, as I think the party line is mostly right. And that we have very good reasons for thinking so.
They next asked whether it wasn’t possible that people had built teleporters by taking advantage of extra dimensions. I explained why this wasn’t possible — extra dimensions are things that physicists take very seriously, but if they are macroscopically accessible they would have shown up in experiments long ago. From there, the downhill spiral just continued. They asked whether I was familiar with the “black projects” conducted by the CIA and the military? What about eyewitness testimony of people who had been to Mars and back? Was it possible that ghosts and/or extraterrestrials used quantum mechanics to travel through walls?
It sounds even worse in retrospect than it did at the time, because they would intersperse the craziness with relatively straightforward questions about physics. But I think that even the straightforward questions were just an accident — they were trying to be goofy, but didn’t understand the difference between what is possible and what is just crazy. (“Do you think it’s possible to travel into the future at a faster rate than normal?”) The producer would occasionally interrupt with some sort of suggestion that they actually say something about quantum teleportation. “I don’t really know anything about that,” replied the host to which I was speaking.
Eventually one of the hosts mentioned psychic remote viewing, and smirked when I tried to explain that it’s easier to disbelieve a few eyewitness reports than to imagine a complete breakdown of the laws of physics. With that, after having resisted the temptation for a good fifteen minutes, I cut it off and walked away. The producers tried to get me to come back, but there was no way. I don’t know whether they will go ahead and use any of the footage from my interview; I don’t think I said anything I would later regret, but I did sign a consent form. Hopefully they will try to salvage a shred of their own respectability, and not use me on the show.
The problem for me wasn’t primarily the credulous attitude toward craziness — although there was that. The real problem was dishonesty. In their last-ditch effort to get me to come back, the producers tried to explain that they really were interested in quantum teleportation, and the hosts had simply wandered off-script. The show wouldn’t be biased in favor of the paranormal, they assured me. The problem is, nowhere in talking to me about the show was the word “paranormal” ever mentioned. I was given the impression that it was a straightforward science show, and that was simply untrue.
There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had, concerning the extent to which respectable scientists should publicly engage with pseudoscientific craziness. Under the right circumstances I could conceivably be willing to participate in a show that discussed paranormal phenomena, as long as I could be convinced that it was done in a sensible way and my views would be fairly represented. This was nothing like that — all of my pre-interview communication with the producers was strictly about quantum mechanics and teleportation, with no mention of pseudoscience at all. Once the cameras started rolling, it was all ghosts and remote viewing. Completely unprofessional; hopefully next time I’ll be more careful.
Also, for future reference: no brown M&M’s in the green room!
I see this as adequate punishment for your “Reluctance to Let Go” post.
“There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had, concerning the extent to which respectable scientists should publicly engage with pseudoscientific craziness.”
Sad that the debate is only perfectly reasonable if its about fluffy diva-ness and not about respectable debate concerning global cooling/warming/changiness craziness
Now that would be a significant intellectual right of passage moment, or something.
Meh.
Would it be possible to write up some sort of “interviewee protection form” that you could get them to sign, stating that your image and voice are limited to in-context use only, and maybe even going so far as to explicitly state that your likeness cannot be used to endorse paranormal, pseudoscientific, superstitious, etc. claims? Maybe even go so far as to subtly leave room for clear legal recourse on the off chance that they do it anyway?
It’d be nice if following “Expelled” and “What the Bleep”, if the scientists could have bankrupted the project when it turned out the had been so deceived.
Sean
Good for you, I cant wait for the tabloid account of the event! Now, of course I like talking to delusional people from time to time, but none with a political axe to grind. My recent strategy is to suggest something stranger, and just keep uping the ante until absurdity is reached in the limit.
But seriously, I do understand your frustration because science is liberating- and its frustrating that nascent curiosity is satisfied by superficial propaganda. These people want kool-aid and we’ve got champagne!
I admit media types can be sneaky and you may have been right to walk but Wow, that was a data-free article regarding remote viewing! – “easier to disbelieve a few eyewitness reports”. What?
And a few other commenters also aren’t paying attention, to put it mildly.
Professor Jessica Utts, University of California, Irvine has said “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established”. Here in the UK, universities are turning out PhDs in this area.
A nice open and well-mannered debate with these scientists is a good idea, though, discussing this kind of data. Look forward to it.
James–remote viewing is “probable”?? You have been watching too much T.V. I suppose you
think that Uri Geller is genuine…
Alan–If, in the U.K. universities are turning out Phds in this area, then the education standards there must be abysmal. Also, anyone saying that psychic functioning has been well established is a crackpot. Read the Skeptical Enquirer sometime to be enlightened.
Gordon
Koestler Parapsychology Unit, Edinburgh University. Parapsychology Research Group, Liverpool Hope University. Goldsmiths College, London University. Dept. of Psychology, Coventry University. Liverpool Hope University. Northampton University etc. Of course you are saying they are all crackpots. Mmm…
I guess you didn’t read Professor Utts study so I’ll give you the link (when the good lady was at UC Davis):
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
Need to brush up on your reading – and psychologically interesting – no proper discussion from your end. Why is this?
That’s funny… they asked me to be on the show too, but it seemed so flakey I anticipated problems and never got back in touch with them. Looks like my instincts were right!
“Next on Geraldo:
Prominent establishment scientist Sean cuts off interview when I, Geraldo Rivera, get too close to the truth! What is the government trying to hide?
Next, I open a safe that contains nothing but garbage. Stay tuned!”
Dating myself there, but I still think Geraldo set the bar for silliness (and referring to himself in the 3rd person).
Alan, universities support all sorts of flaky stuff, particularly psychology departments. I really have no interest in reading about psychic distance viewing and the whole passel of stupid superstitions and non-causal tripe. I leave that to James Randy and others to debunk. Now, somehow linking these things to “quantum” is the usual mystification. “Researchers” are so easily fooled by frauds that it is painful to watch. I do not have to disprove every ridiculous claim that is made. Another instance is research being done by Rupert Sheldrake, or by Josephson. There is enough serious research to be done without stooping to the equivalent of tarot cards, astrology, or homeopathy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
Gordon, I think that you should concentrate on some of the best scientific papers written by these researchers from these universities and go from there. I will leave you to do your own investigations on this.
Frankly, your reply is all over the place, “flaky” , “stupid” , “tripe” , “tarot” , etc. And actually Randy is Randi – I am sure he will be amused!
You really are discrediting not only these scientists, but the students as well, both groups of whom have considerable intelligence and judgement. Remember that they are working in a field many have difficulty with, yet the data is revealing something remarkable. I consider that particularly bold.
But we do agree on tarot, astrology and homeopathy (recently seemingly discredited here in the UK).
However, you needn’t be rude BTW. Stroll on, pal.
Interesting…speaking of Randi:
For the largest paranormal research institution, the the James Randi Educational Foundation, out of all of the applicants who applied for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, nobody has even passed the preliminary tests.[33]
Getting close to claiming the million yet, Alan? For a quick overview, I scanned the wikipedia article on remote viewing—rather scathing, and no warnings that the article is under dispute.
Also, the fact that Scientologist and vacuum-energy maven, Puthoff, coined the term doesn’t ring some alarm bells for you? Perhaps Prince Charles can take some time off of talking to plants, and promoting homeopathy to do some remote viewing.
Professor Jessica Utts, University of California, Irvine has said “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established”.
Where “the standards applied to any other are of study” means that poorly controlled exploratory results show promise, which disappears when follow-up studies are properly designed and well-run; and fraud by both subjects and experimenters is more common than well-controlled positive results, and that poorly designed studies continue after experimental weaknesses have been pointed out due to the profit motive.
“Here in the UK, universities are turning out PhDs in this area.”
Kepler College – offering degrees in astrology. The number of schools offering degrees in homeopathy and chiropractic is larger, but not better grounded in scientific verification.
Let me know when remote viewers find Osama binh Laden.
Gentlemen, to be precise and to finish up – James Randi does not I believe have formal university qualifications and is thus not qualified to comment on the publications produced by the above-mentioned university academics. He is thus out of the research loop. Only laughably is JREF a “research” group.
Dr. Puthoff is a fine scientist and gave up scientiology in the 1970’s. Your critique is out of date. Also I read some of his quantum electronics book as a physics student and it was very highly recommended. I met him once and he is also a very fine experimental physicist. I believe he stands by his remote viewing research at SRI and have seen a recent video to that effect.
As I said above we agree on astrology and homeopathy. All I can say is do your own research or privately contact the universities involved.
I suspect you haven’t studied physics but you could try Professor Bernard Carr’s article, “Is there space for psi in modern physics?” So the subject is being addressed at the theoretical level.
Well, yes, actually I have studied physics and have graduate degrees in theoretical physics== remote viewing still falls in the crackpot category. I am afraid that anyone who ever took Scientology seriously cannot be rehabilitated. Puthoff is a Put-on.
Then we are similarly qualified and agree to disagree. But you need to curb these personal attacks on individuals – try speaking to them instead. I believe Dr. Puthoff was also a naval intelligence officer. And I am always surprised how much violence is generated in all this – dasvidaniya.
Nothing personal, Alan. I get a bit worked up on some topics, particularly on the net. I could actually look at the paper you posted 🙂 I have profound respect for Josephson’s early work for which he got the Nobel Prize.
I know this is OT, but Scientology has to be one of the most flaky and bizarre cargo cult “religions”
out there. South Park’s satire of it has nothing on the real thing. If people can believe in it, they can believe in anything.
Just to be clear though, I think Josephson’s transformation to someone who, for example, thinks that
“molecular memory” of water can be transmitted to other water over the internet, is clearly delusional thinking that would respond to major tranquilisers.
I suspect you haven’t studied physics but you could try Professor Bernard Carr’s article, “Is there space for psi in modern physics?” So the subject is being addressed at the theoretical level.
Once again, I won’t be bothered to explore possible mechanisms for magical psi powers until reliable evidence is presented for their existence. You have failed to do so.
I believe he stands by his remote viewing research at SRI and have seen a recent video to that effect.
That’s just sad. I read his book (Mind-Reach, written with Targ) on the topic, and it contains obvious experimental weaknesses, even if you accept everything they write at face value.
Consider that in T&P, remote viewing is not described as a rare, difficult lab phenomenon, but as a widespread, every day occurence. This does not jibe with the world I live in.
RE #65 Alan: when you write “to finish up” that should indicate that it is your final post on a subject.
If this discussion has shown anything, it is the widespread attraction that pseudo science has for all, the closet believers, the sceptics as well as the ardent advocates. It is easy to laugh at pseudo science and deride it but it is a hydra headed monster that just won’t go away. What is the attraction that pseudo science has? Why is it such a persistent phenomena that defies evidence based thinking? I think we need to understand the underlying psychology of this phenomenon before we can reply to it effectively. I have spent so much of my time trying to answer such people, first with rational argument and then in frustration, with derision and scorn. But all I have succeeded in doing is make myself look cantankerous, inflexible and stubborn. So, while we must answer their arguments I have come to the conclusion that the real battleground is to understand the underlying drives that motivate their belief systems.
Dating myself there, but I still think Geraldo set the bar for silliness (and referring to himself in the 3rd person).
Wasn’t he a real Mike-Wallace-style investigative reporter at the beginning but then transformed into a what-dress-is-this-celebrity-wearing type?
For the largest paranormal research institution, the the James Randi Educational Foundation, out of all of the applicants who applied for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, nobody has even passed the preliminary tests.
Randi once mentioned a psychic (talks to ghosts) who had applied for the challenge, then vanished without a trace. When Randi got a hold of her sometime later, her excuse was that she didn’t know how to contact him. 🙂
have you read the novel `ghost’ by (physicist) alan lightman? it’s a thoughtful, human and interesting take on science and the paranormal.
This sounds just like what (in)famously happened to Prof David Albert! Luckily, you cut it off mid-interview. But I bet if you called them and made a stink and tried to withdraw your consent form, they would let you. Unfortunately, Albert’s misleadingly-edited footage is still out there.