Bell-bottom jeans, disco, gas shortages, and ESP

Aleks points us to this document, “Preliminary Evaluation of SRI/SAIC Anomalous Mental Phenomenon Program.” It’s from 1995, but even then the topic was a bit out of fashion.

In 2023 I posted Changes since the 1970s (ESP edition), quoting the computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter, who at one point alluded to Alan Turing’s notorious belief in extra-sensory perception:

My [Hofstadter’s] own point of view—contrary to Turing’s—is that ESP does not exist. Turing was reluctant to accept the idea that ESP is real, but did so nonetheless, being compelled by his outstanding scientific integrity to accept the consequences of what he viewed as powerful statistical evidence in favor of ESP. I disagree, though I consider it an exceedingly complex and fascinating question.

Here’s what I wrote in response:

The Turing thing we’ve already discussed: the statistical evidence that he thought existed, didn’t. The 1940s was a simpler era and people trusted what seemed to be legitimate scientific reports. Can’t hold it against him that he wasn’t sufficiently skeptical. This should just make us think harder about what are the accepted ideas that we hold without reflection nowadays. If Turing can make such misjudgments regarding statistical evidence, surely we are doing so too, all the time. What I want to focus on is the last bit of the above quote, Hofstadter’s statement that the question of ESP is “exceedingly complex and fascinating.” That’s a funny thing to read, because I don’t think the question of ESP is complex, nor do I think it fascinating. . . . To the extent that there is “an exceedingly complex and fascinating question” here, it’s not about the existence or purported evidence for ESP, bur rather it’s the question of how it is that so many people believe in it, just as so many people believe in ghosts, astrology, unicorns, fairies, mermaids, etc. OK, there aren’t so many believers anymore in unicorns, fairies, and mermaids, what with the lack of any direct corporeal evidence of these creatures. ESP, ghosts, and astrology are easier to believe in because any evidence would be indirect. . . . Back in the 1970s, ESP seemed to be a live issue. . . . Things have changed since the 1970s. You can study ESP if you want, but it’s no longer in the conversation, and there’s no sense that we have to show respect for the idea.

See here for more discussion of the former popularity of ESP. My current take is that it was a residue of the idea of invisible force fields in physics. If there can be gravity, electromagnetism, and radiation, then why not psychic forces too? It turned out that no, there were no such detectable forces, but from the standpoint of early twentieth-century physics, it seemed eminently possible. It just took a few decades for the culture of serious science to get over the idea.