The Truth About Uri Geller

by James Randi

  Thank you, Donald Singleton, for a very good account. And I must agree with you: I don’t think that Yasha helped Geller in any way. He’s a deceivee, not a deceiver. Uri never has to worry about Yasha upsetting any applecart. But then there’s Shipi—

  ABOUT THE “SRI REPORT”

  It is more from carelessness about truth, than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.

  —Samuel Johnson

  In Menlo Park, California, is located one of the most prestigious “think-tank” complexes in the world. More than 2,500 top ranking scientists operate from this center, which, although primarily a military-oriented setup, has in recent years devoted more of its time to private industry. The reported revenue earned by the Stanford Research Institute is about $70 million a year, and though it is located in close proximity to Stanford University, student protests directed against its military nature forced the University to publicly disassociate itself from the SRI operation.In December 1972, the first whispering of strange goings-on inside the institute began to percolate up to the press. It was said that the organization was investigating the psychic claims of one Uri Geller. Indeed they were. Two laser specialists, Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ, whose contributions to science are considerable (Puthoff holds a patent on a tunable laser that he invented and Targ has invented a microwave frequency plasma oscillator), had been involved in the investigation after Andrija Puharich, the man who “discovered” Geller, introduced them to the young Israeli. Both Puthoff and Targ had already been poking about in the wonderland of parapsychology before this, and Puthoff was already thoroughly convinced of the value of one of the newest pseudoscientific religions, Scientology. They were thus quite well prepared to believe that a man could do any number of impossible things at the moment Geller entered the picture.

  The famous “SRI Report,” more correctly titled “Information Transmission Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding”—which dealt with the six weeks of Geller tests and some tests run with other lesser known “psychics” during a six-week period—began circulating around the various scientific periodicals like an academic Gone With the Wind. Publication of the paper would have meant recognition of Puthoff’s and Targ’s efforts on behalf of parapsychology, and the two were understandably anxious to see it in print.

  Possibly the most influential of all scientific journals is the British publication Nature, whose editors received a copy of the “SRI Report” but sent it back for revision and possible reconsideration. In October 1974, the report finally saw print in Nature,1 along with a guarded page-and-a-half editorial introduction insisted upon by the referees of the magazine, who had disagreed for some time over the possible use of the report in the journal. Their editorial made it quite clear that the “SRI Report” was published as an example of the kind of research currently being done in the field of parapsychology and in no way endorsed the report or the research methods used to perform the tests outlined therein.

  In this introduction by the referees, it is pointed out that “there was agreement that the paper was weak in design and presentation, to the extent that details given as to the precise way in which the experiment was carried out were disconcertingly vague.” There are good reasons why the details were vague. Had Puthoff and Targ described the bedlam that existed at the so-called “scientific” tests, no layman—let alone a scientist—would have accepted the conclusions. Even Edgar Mitchell, an avowed believer in Geller, said that the two researchers “gave in to every whim” of Geller and that he was allowed to jump up and run about at will, refusing or postponing attempts at any test, returning to other incompleted ones and, in general, thoroughly misdirecting their attention.

  The introduction also expresses other dissatisfactions, which result in giving little status at all to the report. Yet Puthoff, ecstatic that Nature published his and Targ’s paper, has reprinted the article as it appeared there in an attractive blue folder. But—and it is important to note this—he has done what is so often done in a field that has come under great pressure from the larger body of scientific authority. Puthoff reprinted the Nature article without the page-and-a-half introduction!

  For those of my readers who may have seen the “SRI Report” but not the original Nature (October 18, 1974) version, I include here the introductory editorial that Harold Puthoff does not consider important enough to print. I think you will find it more important than he does.

  The Nature article was entitled “Investigating the Paranormal.”

  We publish this week a paper by Drs. R. Targ and H. Puthoff which is bound to create something of a stir in the scientific community. The claim is made that information can be transferred by some channel whose characteristics appear to fall “outside the range of known perceptual modalities.” Or, more bluntly, some people can read thoughts or see things remotely.

  Such a claim is, of course, bound to be greeted with a preconditioned reaction amongst many scientists. To some it simply confirms what they have always known or believed. To others it is beyond the laws of science and therefore necessarily unacceptable. But to a few—though perhaps to more than is realized—the questions are still unanswered, and any evidence of high quality is worth a critical examination.

  The issue, then, is whether the evidence is of sufficient quality to be taken seriously. In trying to answer this, we have been fortunate in having the help of three independent referees who have done their utmost to see the paper as a potentially important scientific communication and not as a challenge to or confirmations of prejudices. We thank them for the considerable effort they have put in to helping us, and we also thank Dr. Christopher Evans of the National Physical Laboratory whose continued advice on the subject is reflected in the content of this leading article.

  A general indication of the referees’ comments may be helpful to readers in reaching their own assessment of the paper. Of the three, one believed we should not publish, one did not feel strongly either way and the third was guardedly in favour of publication. We first summarize the arguments against the paper.

  (1) There was agreement that the paper was weak in design and presentation, to the extent that details given as to the precise way in which the experiment was carried out were disconcertingly vague. The referees felt that insufficient account had been taken of the established methodology of experimental psychology and that in the form originally submitted the paper would be unlikely to be accepted for publication in a psychological journal on these grounds alone. Two referees also felt that the authors had not taken into account the lessons learnt in the past by parapsychologists researching this tricky and complicated area.

  (2) The three referees were particularly critical of the method of target selection used, pointing out that the choice of a target by “opening a dictionary at random” is a naive, vague and unnecessarily controversial approach to randomization. Parapsychologists have long rejected such methods of target selection and, as one referee put it, weaknesses of this kind reveal “a lack of skill in their experiments, which might have caused them to make some other mistake which is less evident from their writing.”

  (3) All the referees felt that the details given of various safeguards and precautions introduced against the possibility of conscious or unconscious fraud on the part of one or other of the subjects were “uncomfortably vague” (to use one phrase). This in itself might be sufficient to raise doubt that the experiments have demonstrated the existence of a new channel of communication which does not involve the use of the senses.

  (4) Two of the referees felt that it was a pity that the paper, instead of concentrating in detail and with meticulous care on one particular approach to extra-sensory phenomena, produced a mixture of different experiments, using different subjects in unconnected circumstances and with only a tenuous overall theme. At the best these were more “a series of pilot studies . . . than a report of a completed experiment.”

  On their own these highly critical comments could be grounds for re
jection of the paper, but it was felt that other points needed to be taken into account before a final decision could be made.

  (4) Despite its shortcomings, the paper is presented as a scientific document by two qualified scientists, writing from a major research establishment apparently with the unqualified backing of the research institute itself.

  (5) The authors have clearly attempted to investigate under laboratory conditions phenomena which, while highly implausible to many scientists, would nevertheless seem to be worthy of investigation even if, in the final analysis, negative findings are revealed. If scientists dispute and debate the reality of extra-sensory perception, then the subject is clearly a matter for scientific study and reportage.

  (6) Very considerable advance publicity—it is fair to say not generated by the authors or their institute—has preceded the presentation of this report. As a result many scientists and very large numbers of nonscientists believe, as the result of anecdote and hearsay, that the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) was engaged in a major research programme into parapsychological matters and had even been the scene of a remarkable breakthrough in this field. The publication of this paper, with its muted claims, suggestions of a limited research programme and modest data, is, we believe, likely to put the whole matter in more reasonable perspective.

  (7) The claims that have been made by, or on behalf of, one of the subjects, Mr. Uri Geller, have been hailed publicly as indicating total acceptance by the SRI of allegedly sensational powers and may also perhaps now be seen in true perspective. It must be a matter of interest to scientists to note that, contrary to very widespread rumour, the paper does not present any evidence whatsoever for Geller’s alleged abilities to bend metal rods by stroking them, influence magnets at a distance, make watches stop or start by some psychokinetic force and so on. The publication of the paper would be justified on the grounds of allowing scientists the opportunity to discriminate between the cautious, limited and still highly debatable experimental data, and extravagant rumour, fed in recent days by inaccurate attempts in some newspapers at precognition of the contents of the paper.

  (8) Two of the referees also felt that the paper should be published because it would allow parapsychologists and all other scientists interested in researching this arguable field, to gauge the quality of the Stanford research and assess how much it is contributing to parapsychology.

  (9) “Nature,” although seen by some as one of the world’s most respected journals, cannot afford to live on respectability. We believe that our readers expect us to be a home for the occasional “high-risk” type of paper. This is hardly to assert that we regularly fly in the face of referees’ recommendations (we always consider the possibility of publishing, as in this case, a summary of their objections). It is to say that the unusual must now and then be allowed a toe-hold in the literature, sometimes to flourish, more often to be forgotten within a year or two.

  The critical comments above were sent to the authors who have modified their manuscript in response to them. We have also corresponded informally with the authors on one or two issues such as whether the targets could have been forced by standard magical tricks, and are convinced that this is not the case. As a result of these exchanges and the above considerations we have decided to publish in the belief that, however flawed the experimental procedure and however difficult the process of distilling the essence of a complex series of events into a scientific manuscript, it was on balance preferable to publish and maybe stimulate and advance the controversy rather than keep it out of circulation for a further period.

  Publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of receiving a seal of approval from the establishment; rather it is the serving of notice on the community that there is something worthy of their attention and scrutiny. And this scrutiny is bound to take the form of a desire amongst some to repeat the experiments with even more caution. To this end the “New Scientist” does a service by publishing this week the results of Dr. Joe Hanlon’s own investigations into a wide range of phenomena surrounding Mr. Geller. If the subject is to be investigated further—and no scientist is likely to accept more than that the SRI experiments provide a “prima facie” case for more investigations—the experimental technique will have to take account of Dr. Hanlon’s strictures, those of our own referees and those, doubtless, of others who will be looking for alternative explanations.

  Perhaps the most important issue raised by the circumstances surrounding the publication of this paper is whether science has yet developed the competence to confront claims of the paranormal. Supposedly paranormal events frequently cannot be investigated in the calm, controlled and meticulous way that scientists are expected to work, and so there is always a danger that the investigator, swept up in the confusion that surrounds many experiments, abandons his initial intentions in order to go along with his subject’s desires. It may be that all experiments of this sort should be exactly prescribed beforehand by one group, done by another unassociated group and evaluated in terms of performance by the first group. Only by increasing austerity of approach by scientists will there be any major progress in this field.

  At this point, the full text of the “SRI Report” ought to follow. There is good reason that it does not. The report (sans introduction) would seem to be a generally available document. And when I wrote to ask permission of Nature magazine to use their introductory editorial, permission was granted immediately. I also wrote to Stanford Research Institute (addressing my inquiry to Harold Puthoff and telling him of my desire to include the “SRI Report” in my book). Though I had received no answers at all to some previous letters, I hoped this permissions request letter would be an exception. I have not received the courtesy of a reply to my request. SRI is, I must conclude, not happy that I wish to comment upon its work. Perhaps I can hardly blame them. It is difficult to face the fact that you’ve been had.

  Here, then, is a summary—in my own words—of the tests done with Geller at the Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, during the last part of 1972 and in August of 1973. I have tried to be direct and very impartial.

  The “SRI Report” Summarized

  The report covers a series of experiments conducted “under laboratory conditions,” the results of which suggested the existence of a sense or method by which certain individuals can obtain information without the use of the “normal” senses. One person so tested was Uri Geller, who performed tests to determine whether he could (a) reproduce pictures drawn by the experimenters, who were located at positions remote from Geller, who was in an “electrically shielded” room; (b) reproduce drawings stored in the memory of a computer; and (c) reproduce drawings enclosed in sealed envelopes and of which specifics were unknown to the experimenters.

  At all times, say the authors, measures were taken “to prevent sensory leakage and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional.”

  Over a period of seven days, thirteen drawings were used in tests. For each test, either Geller or the “senders” entered a shielded room, so that Geller was electrically and acoustically separated from the other half of the experiment. Then a “target” would be chosen, in order to avoid the possibility of cueing in advance of the beginning of the test. And to get around the chance that a target might be forced upon the experimenters, Geller was not told who would do the choosing or how it would be chosen. Three methods were used to choose the target: first, a random method of opening a dictionary and selecting the first word seen that could be pictorially represented (though not specified in the report, drawings were made and posted on the wall!)-, second, sealed-up pictures were prepared in advance and given to the experimenters during the running of the test, and the identity of these was unknown to the experimenters; third, an arbitrary selection “from a target pool”—on which the report gives very little information—was used.

  Working on each of the drawings for periods of from a few minutes to half an hour, Geller either tried or “passed”
(he had the option of passing on any test he was not sure of) and his drawing was taken from him before he was allowed to see what the target had been.

  The first ten tries were conducted using a double-walled steel room with a tightly sealed inner and outer door. It provided sound shielding and visual isolation as well. There was an audio link (about which nothing is said except that it operated only one way: from Geller inside, to the outside) used to monitor the experiment. The experimenters never discussed out loud the nature of the drawing after it was drawn and brought near the shielded room.No sensory leakage was found in their examination of the room, though nothing is said about what methods were used to determine this insulation.

  The tests numbered 11 to 13 were done in the SRI engineering building in order that they could use the display screen of the computer there. Here, Geller was inside a double-walled copper-mesh cage, known as a Faraday Cage. The original was designed by Michael Faraday to conduct experiments in a location free of radio waves and/or magnetic fields. Targets for these tests were chosen by outside personnel, and neither the experimenters nor Geller were aware of the targets that had been drawn from the pool and stored in the computer memory.

  The judges were asked to evaluate the results by “blind” comparison of results with the targets. They agreed on the results. Odds of this happening by chance are one in 30 million.