March 14 by The Running Son
Science vs. Spooks
Skepticism, scientific research and the Nostradamus effect
by Ken Ireland
Though the usual requirements to insure that the results are impartial and not stacked were in place, there are three areas where, in my view, the participation of the company skewed the “scientific investigation.”
The researchers were charged to look for the positive psychological results and determine if they were lasting. As a ‘graduate’ of the course I was one of several people who pre-tested the instrument that the researchers designed. Then, through the in-house psychologist, there were ‘adjustments’ in what was measured with an eye to the marketing.
The testing began. At some point, perhaps three months into the process, the researchers began to worry that the sample would not be large enough to support “significant results,” and staff members began telephoning participants, using a carefully designed script to encourage them to complete the questionnaires. Though I was not asked to make any calls, I overheard them, and to be totally honest, I did not detect any kind of coercion other than to complete and return the questionnaire. But there were also a series of support’ calls to graduates at specific intervals, so the plea to return the evaluation was not extraordinary. Now if I got a support call, reinforcing my positive experience, and then, a few weeks later, another making sure I completed a questionnaire for the study, well, you get the picture.
Though this kind of action might be ethical — falling within the conditions of impartiality — it seems to me that if I did not feel strongly enough to send my report back to the researchers, my lack of enthusiasm indicated something.
And the final, and most flagrant area of manipulation was in publication of the results. It bordered on out-right deception. Although the researchers themselves were to write up the final results submitted to professional journals, perhaps even a presentation at some conference (I left the company before it was complete), there were interim reports: “After six months, participants report more confident and loving conversations with their spouses and children.” This assessment of initial data was written by the in-house psychologist to “report” the results of the study to graduates. But when the president of the company read the report, he claimed that this was just too much scientific “jargon.” In my view it was not the overwhelming positive result he thought he’d paid for. I actually stood around his desk with a group of staff as he reworked every sentence, striking any word or phrase that seemed too guarded, asking us as witnesses, “I think that this (his punched-up phrase) says the same thing, doesn’t it?” When I asked the in-house psychologist himself about the revisions, he was non-committal, “I suppose that could be said about X,” and turned the conversation to the cost of his new home in the foothills.
There is nothing criminal or even terribly important in this manipulation of scientific inquiry–drug companies do it all the time and we pay for it when you factor in the cost of their malpractice insurance. And what has this to do with our friend Nostradamus, a 17th century French seer and astrologer whose puzzling riddles have a cult-like following? In 1654 he wrote: “In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb. … The third big war will begin when the big city is burning.” Well, obviously he predicted the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.
Did that phrase about the two giants collapsing really ‘foretell’ the attack on the World Trade Center towers? I bet we could find a rich paranormal enthusiast to fund a study that proves–beyond a shadow of a doubt–that a certain percentage of the American public, after hearing those sentences read to them in a carefully scripted phone survey, believe that Nostradamus really predicted 9/11.
This is one way to defend against the terror of the unpredictable. I choose to remain skeptical.
Share this with others:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to email (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)