Einstein and Psi
April 19, 2011
It's always interesting to know what the super-stars of the science world think about parapsychology.
I'm reading Esprit: Men and Women of Parapsychology, Volume 1, a collection of reminiscences by some leading psi researchers, first published in 1987 and recently brought out in a new edition. These are investigators such as Jule Eisenbud, Montague Ullman, Gertrude Schmeidler, Jan Ehrenwald and Hans Bender. I'm barely halfway through, and may give it a detailed look in a later post. In the meantime, I picked out this nugget about Einstein.
As is well known, Einstein wrote a brief preface to Mental Radio, Upton Sinclair's 1930 book about ESP experiments. Typically these involve Sinclair sitting in his study and drawing something on a piece of paper, and his wife Craig in another room trying to reproduce it. More often than not she achieved a close match, as the book's illustrations show. It's an informal study, obviously, but a classic of its type.
Einstein's contribution consists of just one paragraph:
I have read the book of Upton Sinclair with great interest and am convinced that the same deserves the most earnest consideration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. The results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable. On the other hand, it is out of the question in the case of so conscientious an observer and writer as Upton Sinclair that he is carrying on a conscious deception of the reading world; his good faith and dependability are not to be doubted. So if somehow the facts he has set forth here rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high psychological interest. In no case should the psychologically interested circles pass over this book heedlessly.
Was the great man giving ESP his blessing? Not exactly. The muddled appeal to "unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person" - what is that exactly, if not telepathy? Or did he really mean sensory cues? - suggests someone struggling to accommodate facts that contradict all experience and reason.
But the mere fact of someone of his standing not sucking his teeth and crying "fraud" is enough for it to be treated as a positive. At least he was curious and open-minded - an example for others to follow.
A few years later Einstein corresponded with Jan Ehrenwald, a psychiatrist who was writing about psi experiences emerging in therapeutic interactions, and wanted his endorsement. Naturally he flagged up the work of JB Rhine at Duke on ESP in card-guessing and psychokinesis in dice-throwing. What did Einstein think?
Einstein said he could find no explanation whatsoever for Rhine's results, but made his scepticism clear. He was alienated by the lack of any attenuation with distance, that it didn't seem to make any difference how far separated the subject was from the agent or the experimenter. In his belief this indicated the presence of a "systematic error".
He went on:
I wrote the introductory notes for Upton Sinclair's book owing to [our] personal friendship in such a way that it did not express my lack of conviction without compelling me to sacrifice my honesty in doing so. I must openly confess to you my scepticism due not so much to a close acquaintance with the relevant empirical observations and experiences but to my lifelong activity in the field of physics. I must also confess that I have not had any experiences in my own life that would point to interpersonal relationships that were not occasioned by sensory cues. When I add that the public tends to attribute more weight to my utterances than would be justified in view of my ignorance in so many things, I feel all the more duty bound to exercise utmost caution in reserve in these areas.
Having now read Ehrenwald's book Einstein wrote a second letter as follows:
I can judge as a layman only, and cannot state that I arrived at an affirmative or negative conclusion. In any case, it appears to me that from the physicist's point of view, we have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete...On the one hand I have no objection to the reliability of the method. Yet I find suspicious that clairvoyance [tests] yield the same probability as telepathy, and that the subject distance from the target cards i.e. from the agent, should have no influence upon results. This is improbable to the highest degree and consequently the result is suspicious.
He adds that he attaches more weight to tests with gifted subjects such as Craig Sinclair than to large-scale statistical experiments in which the discovery of a minute systematic error may upset everything.
He concludes:
In any case, your book was very stimulating to me and has somewhat "softened up" my attitude which from the onset was distinctly negative towards the whole problem. One should not go through this world with blinders...
It was a put-down, however tactfully expressed. Ehrenwald was "stunned" by it, as he later described in a belated reply written after Einstein's death and sent to "the Elysian Fields, please forward". However he noted that the scientist was open to the more obviously impressive "macro" experiments, and ventured to suggest that Rhine's experiments were simply indications of the same thing on the "micro" level. By now, too, Einstein's deep discomfort with "spooky action at a distance" had become evident in his rejection of quantum mechanics.
All of this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Many people would agree that the actual experience of ESP is far more persuasive than statistical indications of it. As a physicist Einstein had particular reasons for doubting claims about psi, but he conceded he didn't know much about it and wasn't prepared to go further than stating a general opinion in private.
Martin Gardner makes a similar point in an article about the correspondence (republished in Science Good Bad and Bogus), praising Einstein's "great tact and politeness" and "characteristic humility" - qualities which were comically absent from Gardner's own responses to parapsychology. Of course the snarky sceptic has simple explanations for what so mightily puzzled the great scientist. Recording errors by experimenters in Rhine's psi experiments would have neatly accounted for the distance paradox, as it wouldn't have made any difference where the subject was situated, two feet away or on another planet. And "spelling out" Einstein's suggestions about the Sinclairs, perhaps they were "unconsciously suggesting" to each other what they should draw.
Neither of which would remotely explain the experiments as they were actually described. Gardner would not have cared about that, but one feels that Einstein might have seen the point, if he'd engaged with them more closely.
Nice post! As we might expect, a good, honest, and real scientist like Einstein at least engages with the material without snark or hand-waving, whereas the fake-o skeptics have no such compunctions. As you point out.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | April 19, 2011 at 11:06 PM
It takes a confident, honest person to be open-minded in the face of ridicule and to at least consider the evidence no matter where it may lead.
Posted by: Paul | April 20, 2011 at 11:58 AM
The trouble with Einstein as i see it is that his statements can be taken in many ways, rather like scripture. Sometimes it seems he is saying something supporting belief in God or psi, the next he is downright against it. Take for example, his, "God does not play dice". Does this mean that chance doesn't exist or does it mean that God doesn't exist?
Posted by: David | April 20, 2011 at 05:07 PM
Einstein frequently denounced the notion of a personal God (Jewish, Christian, etc). So the former, I guess. Physicsts often use the word God to stand for reality - whatever that is - and certainly not in a religious sense. Stephen Hawking's remark about knowing the mind of God is in the same vein. It excited a lot of people at the time, but there was nothing really in it.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | April 20, 2011 at 05:51 PM
'Scratch a physicist and I'll show you a neoplatonist' is an expression I've come across more than once; and I certainly think it has some application with Einstein. My understanding is that Einstein had a religious sense of sorts, but as Robert says it didn't amount to any kind of belief in a personal God. The extent to which the universe is underpinned by mathematical laws did, however, impress him as a miracle of a certain kind; and I get the impression that, if pushed, he would have acknowledged a belief in some kind of rational, if wholly impersonal, God. That may have been one of the reasons why he found quantum mechanics so offensive (e.g. God not playing dice and so on).
I get the impression from this post that it was his prejudice against quantum mechanical non-locality as much as anything that set him against psi phenomena i.e. if the experiments of the time had shown a falling off of the effect with distance he might have been much more sympathetic.
As it is I still find these exchanges interesting. As others have commented, they are impressively open minded. And while he was clearly mindful of the need to take care given his worldwide reputation, there isn't any sense of running for cover from a controversial issue for fear of what his peers might think or say. He just called it as he saw it, and in a way that reflects his lack of personal experience and interest in the subject.
Posted by: Simon Oakes | April 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Pleased to see a mention for one of my favourite authors. I can't say I've read Mental Radio - Sinclair wrote more books than most of us have spoken words - but I'd be interested to see Walter Prince's analysis of it (referenced on Wiki). Does anyone know where it might lurk?
Posted by: BenSix | April 21, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Hm. I'm not sure why accepting psi or survival would need to imply a personal God in any case really.
Posted by: Paul | April 22, 2011 at 05:48 PM
I think you're right Simon. I get the impression he wasn't particularly interested in the subject too.
Posted by: Paul | April 22, 2011 at 05:49 PM
It should be pretty obvious that Einstein was merely doing a favour for a friend, and at the same time being both polite and non-committal. But a few words from such an illustrious (super-star) scientist would certainly be a boost for anyone.
I don’t think anything in the quote “suggests someone struggling to accommodate facts that contradict all experience and reason.” More likely, he was struggling to accommodate what he recognised as unsubstantiated speculation, whilst also trying not to hurt a friend.
The fact that he remarked about the problem of no “attenuation at a distance” indicates that he was thinking in terms of known physical laws (the inverse square law, specifically); and as he indicated, his own scepticism was not going to allow him to give any credence to airy-fairy ideas of anything paranormal going on.
As Einstein himself said, he did not believe in a personal god, but his words are often quoted out of context to give the impression that he did, somehow, harbour some sympathies for the supernatural hypothesis. But he didn’t.
Yes, “It's always interesting to know what the super-stars of the science world think about parapsychology.” But in this instance, it should be clear that Einstein didn’t believe it at all. That should be the real message here.
Posted by: Harley | April 25, 2011 at 11:51 PM
I wouldn't expect any reasonable person to give credence to 'airy-fairy' idea which are not supported by evidence or are supported by evidence which they haven't had an opportunity to assess.
Posted by: Paul | April 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Harley, I have to say Einstein was being quite a bit more nuanced here than your interpretation allows; notwithstanding as I mentioned earlier that I don't think psi was a subject he was very much interested in.
His statement that physics cannot a priori rule out the possibility of telepathy is a case in point. A number of sceptical scientists wouldn't voice that sentiment today. And given the care he took over what he said - even to friends - because of his reputation, it isn't credible to me that he would have said that just to salve his friend's feelings.
A sceptic regarding psi for sure. But not someone who approached the subject with an entirely closed mind..
Posted by: Simon Oakes | April 26, 2011 at 03:46 PM
Harley -
I don't think it implies that Einstein believed in psi but nor does it suggest that he'd dismiss it as "airy fairy". For one thing, if he'd written that plug for Sinclair with total insincerity he'd have been a distinctly dodgy scientist.
Posted by: BenSix | April 26, 2011 at 03:58 PM
The point I am getting at is that the fact that Einstein wrote a foreword to a book about psi would give many a misleading idea that he did endorse it. “Einstein wrote a foreword! There you go.”
His foreword was neutral, but not everyone is going to read it that way. If Joe Bloggs wrote a book about the fairies at the bottom of his garden, the same foreword could have been written, but just substituting “Joe Bloggs” for Upton Sinclair. And even though it would be true to say that physics cannot a priori rule out the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, that is a far cry from saying that it is a realistic possibility.
Einstein’s reputation here is irrelevant with regard to whether he would write a non-committal foreword for a friend, and I do not think a neutral comment can be described as either sincere or insincere. It could be just as easily described as a get-out, in the same way that a woman who buys a hideous new outfit asks her husband what he thinks of it, and he searches for a way to avoid telling the truth, but at the same time trying to avoid telling any lies. “It’s quite distinctive,” he says, hoping that she doesn’t intend wearing it when they go out together.
I suppose Steven Hawking could write a foreword for a book about car mechanics to help a friend. It might go like this: “It is clear that some car mechanics appear to be able to repair broken-down cars with ease, whilst some others do not seem to achieve such good results. But the workings of internal combustion engines and electronic ignition are things that I am unable to explain.” But it wouldn’t really mean very much.
Posted by: Harley | April 27, 2011 at 11:43 PM
Well once again the English language eludes Harley, but I am not surprised cause after all this is a Harley rebuttal and this is the norm.
Would you please rate the following statements positive, negative or neutral.
" same deserves the most earnest consideration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. "
" he results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable."
" his good faith and dependability are not to be doubted."
" So if somehow the facts he has set forth here rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high psychological interest. In no case should the psychologically interested circles pass over this book heedlessly."
Why these are all positive statements and we even found TWO recommendations for professions to take this research seriously.
So considering the positive nature of the comments and the recommendations twice repeated I think it is safe to conclude that Einstein had a positive view of this research into parapsychology and he felt positive enough about it to recommend it to others.
If I am mistaken in my reading of this, why I am I mistaken in my reading of this?
Good luck on rebutting my argument Harley. There is plenty of evidence for my view and zero evidence for your view.
Posted by: Kris | May 01, 2011 at 12:55 AM
Kris – you have only confirmed what I have already said, namely that Einstein was merely being polite. Now find a quote of Einstein where he states positively that he believed any aspect of the paranormal was real.
You can’t do it, any more than you can give a list of remote viewers and the people they saved in the recent Japan tragedy. No remote viewers, no lives saved by them; and a real scientist who wasn’t fooled by anyone’s naive belief in phenomena for which there is not, anywhere, any conclusive evidence.
I’m a bit like Einstein myself, actually – just too polite to put you down; but patient enough to let you make a fool of yourself. Sceptics like me need more paranormal advocates like you.
Posted by: Harley | May 01, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Harley
Anyone can read our discussions over the years and see that anytime that I disagree with you and choose to write a rebuttal I have a 100% refute against you. That will never change.
You are already moving away from this issue making red herring arguments and they will not save you. Your argument on the issue of remote viewing is with your fellows skeptics not me. But enough of this distraction.
If Einstein did not feel there was any merit to the book but wanted to be polite he could have said I found your book to be a fascinating read. That is it. No recommendation, nothing. Not a put down but not a recommendation and certainly no recommendation others read it.
Now doesn't the " he was just being polite" argument have a hard time explaining this below:
" deserves the most earnest consideration...of the psychologists by profession. "
In English this means Einstein felt that professional psychologist should read the book and consider it's arguments.
Now if you think he was just being polite but felt it had no merit why would he recommend other professionals read it? Well the simplest explanation would be that he felt it had some merit to it which is what Robert argues.
Harley you are the easiest skeptic I have ever had to deal with. Your arguments are paper thin and have as much depth as a side walk puddle. I simply recommend fence sitters read our discussions over the years and they can come to their own conclusion who has the stronger arguments.
Posted by: Kris | May 02, 2011 at 03:03 AM
Kris – there is only one way to shut me up: produce someone who can actually perform the psychic abilities they claim to have.
You can’t do that. You consistently fail to do that. You talk, but you can’t prove what you claim. You’re the one who is always blathering on about remote viewing, and it is relevant, which is why I mentioned it. No red herrings involved.
Go on – shut me up by producing the remote viewers who saved any lives in Japan lately (or anywhere, ever). All I need is confirmable evidence that such a magnificent act of humanity was achieved; I won’t even quibble if those psychics were handsomely paid for their services.
You, in fact, are the one who is making red herring arguments. I asked you to tell me which remote viewers were in Japan and how many lives they have saved with their psychic abilities, and you have pointedly ignored that (can’t say I blame you, of course). So I ask you again: inform me of the details of your remote viewers and their acts of common humanity in Japan. In a situation like this, the non-committal words of Einstein writing a foreword for a friend is no big deal.
Before you accuse me of having a problem with English, I recommend you read Robert’s post again. He quotes Einstein as saying:
“I wrote the introductory notes for Upton Sinclair's book OWING TO [OUR] PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP in such a way that it did not express MY LACK OF CONVICTION without compelling me to SACRIFICE MY HONESTY in doing so. I MUST OPENLY CONFESS TO YOU MY SCEPTICISM due not so much to a close acquaintance with the relevant empirical observations and experiences but to my lifelong activity in the field of physics. I must also confess that I have not had any experiences in my own life that would point to interpersonal relationships that were not occasioned by SENSORY CUES. When I add that THE PUBLIC TENDS TO ATTRIBUTE MORE WEIGHT TO MY UTTERANCES than would be justified in view of my ignorance in so many things, I feel all the more duty bound to exercise utmost caution in reserve in these areas.” [Emphasis added]
My final point: even if Einstein genuinely and honestly believed that further research into the paranormal should be done, that mantra itself is repeated endlessly, with some desperation, by the believers: “This deserves further research,” and “There should be more research,” & etc., ad infinitum and goes on and on. But despite the “further research” that goes on endlessly, and which can never be replicated by real scientists, neither you nor anyone else can produce a single individual who can actually demonstrate or prove their psychic claims.
Go on, Kris. Prove that the paranormal is real.
Produce a psychic that can pass every test that science routinely throws at any new hypothesis that scientists come up with.
Or just find a genuine (confirmable) quote from Einstein in which he declared unambiguously that he believed that psi is real. No quote mining allowed. (Hint: you can’t; he didn’t.)
Posted by: Harley | May 05, 2011 at 10:29 PM
First. I do not want to shut you up. I love it when you defend skeptical arguments and I believe you are one of the easiest skeptics I have ever come across. Believe me I love it when you post on this forum. You are the typical skeptic my side will encounter and you are always easily refuted .
Unlike you I do not use red herring arguments. I will challenge you to show were on this post I mentioned one thing about remote viewing before you mentioned it. Robert's post was about Einstein's views on Sinclair's research . Robert argued that Einstein had a positive view of it. I am simply defending Robert's conclusion.
We have discussed the issue of remote viewing many times and people can find our discussion about it on here . I will simply point out your argument is with your own side who states by normal scientific means it has been proven. Your argument is not with me it is with them. I suspect you keep bringing this up because even you know you were embarrassed on this issue.
I always love pointing out when you make basic errors in logic so I will do that again. Your argument against remote viewing is now that because it was not used in Japan, therefore it does not exist. That is an absurd argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premise you have provided. Two other explanations ( thought not all possible explanations ) are that it was used and not announced or that it was not used because there are superior methods available. Note this is not a defense of remote viewing ( I have already referenced you to defenses on numerous occasions) but just a demonstration of your inability to engage in the most basic of critical thinking. If you cannot engage in the most elementary level of logical thought how can rational people remotely take you seriously?
In references to prove the paranormal is real you have on numerous occasions been referenced to such studies as the Rhine and the Ganzfield which you have yet to follow up on. I see little reason to continue to try to educate you when you have shown you cannot be educated. I suspect the reason for this is your inability to engage in rational thought.
You do have a problem with English you have shown that on numerous occasions nows. However your problem this time is your inability to engage in logical thought.
I am going to relist what Einstein said.
" same deserves the most earnest consideration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. "
" he results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable."
" his good faith and dependability are not to be doubted."
" So if somehow the facts he has set forth here rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high psychological interest. In no case should the psychologically interested circles pass over this book heedlessly."
Your problem here is that you are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. You assume that if Einstein was skeptical that he cannot support Sinclair's research or if Einstein supports Sinclair's research he cannot be skeptical. However you can be skeptical of something and still support it. Einstein was skeptical of his friends research based on reasons of physics, but he still felt it was good enough research to recommend to psychologist so that shows he supported Sinclair's research which was the entire point of Robert's post.
Now you committed two more logical fallacies, this time assuming all real scientist do not get results in parapsychology research because all real scientist know it is rubbish. But you are engaged in question begging with that argument ( what makes someone a real scientist?) and you assume no real scientist gets results in parapsychology in order to prove no real scientist gets results in parapsychology. That is called circular reasoning and it is a logical fallacy.
Lastly I have to point out where you made ANOTHER basic error in logic.
If a psychic cannot pass EVERY test throw at them by science it does not follow that psychic abilities do not exist, it simply follows they cannot pass every test. Imagine if someone demanded that in order to accept the existence of baseball every major league batter had to hit a home run every time on demand. Your challenge is no different then that challenge.
So lets recap this latest episode form Harley.
Red Herring Arguments and five logical errors all in one post. That is pretty impressive even by Harley standards. Doubly impressive that he did it in 517 words .
Posted by: Kris | May 06, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Kris – I do not “defend sceptical arguments”, I ask those who claim that the paranormal is real to provide compelling evidence to support their claims. And that is something they – and you in particular – singularly fail to do.
I did not claim that you mentioned remote viewing before I did, but it is common on this blog for discussions to go in various (although related) directions. Why is it such a big deal to you?
You are alluding (yet again, going on and on and on like a cracked Mp3, and with your usual desperation) to Richard Wiseman’s comment regarding remote viewing. I can assure you that Wiseman does not accept remote viewing as a real phenomenon.
As for my “basic errors in logic,” let us have a look. You say, “Your argument against remote viewing is now that because it was not used in Japan, therefore it does not exist.” I neither said that, nor implied it. You have misrepresented and distorted what I did say. That is dishonest, and it is also a straw man.
There is no evidence that remote viewers have done anything useful in Japan but then you start offering what you call “explanations” for that; in fact, you are just making excuses for the failure, yet again, of the paranormal hypothesis. The only thing I agree with you about is the fact that there are superior methods available for finding trapped survivors in a disaster; but they are all science based. (As it happens, pure guesswork is as good as remote viewing, and is pretty much the same thing)
If remote viewing is real, then it is just incredible that those psychics would a): simply allow hundreds of people they could have saved to just perish; and b): pass up the chance to show just what remote viewing can accomplish. What should anyone think of someone who has the power to save hundreds – or even thousands – of lives, and yet is content to stand back and see those people die needlessly? And why wouldn’t the same people want to showcase their abilities and therefore silence the sceptics?
Rhine and Ganzfeld are, at the very best – and I am being as charitable as I can be – controversial, but not something that anyone with knowledge of scientific methodology takes seriously as definitive evidence for psi.
You can write out your selective quotes from Einstein to your heart’s content, but that will not change the fact that he was merely being non-committal as he did a favour for a friend. I asked you to give a genuine Einstein quote that tells us unambiguously that he believed that the paranormal is real; so where is it? All you can do is to try to distort the meaning of his words to try to fit your own beliefs.
Your next paragraph is mostly gibberish, but I would agree that some people are certainly able to be sceptical of something and at the same time give it their full support. We call those people “delusional.”
Your following paragraph again distorts what I said and what my intentions were. Again, you commit the straw man fallacy that you ascribe to me.
As for psychics and testing, here is a simple fact: psychics do not pass properly controlled tests. Remove the possibility of trickery, and they are stumped. But scientific testing wouldn’t even matter if they really had these magic powers. Psychics routinely saving countless lives, or clearing minefields, or, yes, winning the lottery, would be just impossible to deny, with or without scientific testing.
Show me a real psychic instead of excuses. Maybe there really are people with genuine paranormal powers, but their real talent seems to be in keeping that ability well hidden. And the rest looks just like smoke and mirrors.
To paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi: May the farce be with you.
Posted by: Harley | May 08, 2011 at 12:12 AM
Harley
I thought about writing a longer response to this but more and more I am finding this to be a waste of time. No amount of effort on my part, or Paul's, Robert's, or the Major's will ever make you simply pick up the necessary research and writings and make you read them. The argument you have with remote viewing is with Wiseman, not us. You obviously have never researched this subject because a few months ago I had to tell you the name of the project that did research into remote viewing. That is basic knowledge about a claim you are so skeptical about. Your ignorance would be no different then someone who said he thought alien kidnappings were bunk and then did not know what a UFO was. How can you take such a person seriously?
Your next argument is with Einstein, not me. Thought skeptical he felt Sinclair's research was worth studying so he issued it a mild recommendation. That is obvious from the letter.
Basically I have lost interest in either discussing this issue with you our trying to correct your numerous blatantly flawed arguments. You are the worst time of dogmatist. You are radically opposed to a claims that you have never once studied. You are no different then the Christians who protest against homosexuality being unnatural, without reading any evidence on why it is natural.
You can have the last comment.
Posted by: Kris | May 08, 2011 at 06:42 PM