The Lotto Effect

the Skeptic, Vol 13 No 2

Book review by James Gerrand

Book review of The Lotto Effect - Towards a Technology of the Paranormal, by Damien Broderick, published by Hudson Hawthorn.

Damien Broderick is a writer of science fiction and a regular reviewer of such works for The Australian. His book makes claims that "Psi (paranormal ability) has been detected in experiments at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory and the Princeton School of Engineering". These claims do not stand up to scientific evaluation.

The Cavendish reference turns out to be based on a popular press report (Jan 92) that "while no subject attained consistent success, the Cavendish experiments 'have shown the phenomenon' (psychokinetic influence over otherwise random-event circuits) occurring time and time again". One would have expected at least a scientific paper as the basis.

The Princeton reference goes to the other extreme - a mountain of statistical data claimed to produce a 'mouse', a psi influence. Such a mass of data now seems essential to support any psi claim. Broderick states that "the principal claims ... made in a hundred years of psychical research are that psi phenomena are sporadic, low in efficiency and resistant to normal teaching and reinforcement techniques". However, the Princeton mouse, a psi influence of probability of 1 in 5000, has been reduced to a 'flea', a probability of 1 in 19, by Professor John Wendell (The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1991) pointing out the need for a more accurate statistical approach. Such a flea could well have jumped by chance upon the mountain rather than be produced by it.

Now to the claimed Lotto Effect. Again at the start Broderick claims "it is, as we shall see, the believers in psi whose expectations (some of them at any rate) have been borne out". Broderick, to support this claim, details how in a particular examination of nine Midweek draws he got a result that was against the odds by 100 to 1. Using the same examination for 11 Saturday draws he got a result against the odds by 700 to 1. Broderick does then admit that this 'psi' result was not sustained for the other 99% of the scores. A scientist, not a science fiction writer, would have baldly concluded that the Lotto results were according to statistical chance.

Broderick, undaunted, then describes in a much later chapter how he contrived a further manipulation of the data and finds a result against the odds of 1 in 122 for midweek and 1 in 763 for Saturday. Broderick agrees with the criticism that "my cut-off criteria...were...not pre-specified..." (Dr Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - PEAR). The PEAR conclusion was that there was no significant evidence from Broderick's Lotto work but that this was possibly due to too few data, notwithstanding the mountain was many hundreds of millions of Lotto guesses high! Broderick, still not dismayed, proposes in his final chapter an eleven step approach to testing for 'psi', which includes using many operators to amass the even bigger mountain of data that now seems necessary. "The logistics of turning the Lotto Effect back on itself are well beyond an individual's means. ... I hope ... the Tattersall company ... launch a major precognition study ..."

I would think any company would have more money than sense if it were to put resources into a project where there is no surety that, after building an even bigger mountain, any proven psi mouse will be born.

Broderick, as is common among non-scientists, is misguided or off-hand, when not being abusive, of the scientific approach. Thus he tries to build up a theory to explain the possibility of psi in our macro world using quantum mechanics which deals with the micro extremes. He also argues that since science has at times to accept the apparently illogical, such as light being both a particle and a wave, then the illogicality of psi should be acceptable. But this apparent illogicality of light was only accepted when there was irrefutable evidence for behaviour both as particle and wave. There is no such evidence for the paranormal.

Broderick is off-hand when he tends to decry the work of CSICOP in scientifically examining the claims of the paranormal. CSICOP is "scientifically rationalist" (can we be scientific and not rationalist?) "devoted, dedicated and bull-headed". Professor Ray Hyman, a principal CSICOP activist, gets a comment "Needless to say he did not conceive his tenure (Chair of Psychical Research at Stanford University) in terms likely to glorify his subject matter". No doubt Ray Hyman saw his job as being a scientist, researching, seeking the evidence, not as a science fictionist, glorifying his subject.

Broderick gives grudging praise to Hyman's efforts to examine the evidence for the psi claims for the Ganzfeld approach but does not agree with Hyman's conclusion that the success rate is "probably very close to what should be expected by chance...".

Broderick finds it strange that the US Army, having since 1984 examined the claims for psi and finding "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena..." should add a proviso "we do recommend that research in certain areas be monitored...". This is no different from CSICOP continuing to investigate paranormal claims even though there is no evidence from past experience for the paranormal.

He becomes abusive when criticising CSICOP's former chief investigator, James Randi, who has earned his renown not only for his exposures of Uri Geller and psychic surgeons for using magical tricks, but also for more straight-forward science such as testing water divining claims. Broderick rubbishes Randi's four "Rules for Psychics":

1. No psychic can produce phenomena on command or on a regular basis;
2. Cheating is a compulsion with the psychic;
3. Unless the detractor is able to explain all the psychic phenomena as having been done by ordinary means, he has failed to prove his case;
4. Psychics cannot be expected to produce results when persons of negative attitude are present.

These are Randi's conclusions based on the many hundred investigations he has carried out since CSICOP was formed in 1975. Yet Broderick regards Number 2 as a slur. Now I recall a similar conclusion by another American investigator, Robert Sheaffer, that many psychics originally believe they have the power but when they become professional they find they have to produce psychic phenomena on call and this is when they start cheating.

Broderick says it "isn't sensible to assert with Randi that 'there is simply no reason why these illogical conditions should be accepted'. If we were to apply similar rules to ...the science of astronomy we would be laughed out of court." It isn't sensible to Broderick because 200 years ago some sensible people such as Thomas Jefferson refused to believe that meteorites fell from the sky. It is only because of scientific research since then that it has been established that this is so.

There are other important lacunae in this book. James Randi has pointed out the importance of having a magician in any team investigating a paranormal claim because only a magician knows how easily we can be fooled. There is the fact that something like $250,000 can be won by anybody scientifically proving a paranormal event. This amount is available when all the sums put up by Skeptics organisations worldwide are totalled. Then there are the references to Rhine's claims at Duke University, without mentioning the serious doubts raised about Rhine's work by Paul Kurtz and CEM Hansel among others. Broderick finds reality in the performance of the 19th century medium, DD Home, without mentioning that his claims are now regarded as very dubious.

I would recommend this book as a good science fiction read and also as a handy exercise for science students in sifting science from non-science.