Magnetite and Its Distribution

        One of the interesting and much-studied aspects in geological
history is the fact that the earth's magnetic field has not remained
identical over longer time scales.  Magnetic reversals have occurred, such
that the north magnetic pole has exchanged polarity with the south pole;
and the timing of those events has proven to be useful for determining the
age of in-situ sedimentary deposits.  As they fall out of the water column,
the iron-containing particles in the sediment align themselves with the
prevailing, concurrent magnetic field.  Magnetic reversals thus result in
layered reversals in the residual magnetic orientation of sedimentary
magnetite (a magnetized iron-containing mineral).  The timing of many of
those reversals during recent geological history has been carefully
determined, so that investigations of the magnetic orientation of sediments
of uncertain age can be useful for determining their true age.
        Because magnetite is usually a very minor constituent of sediment,
extremely sensitive techniques are necessary to detect it and determine its
polarity.  Dr. J. Kirschvink of the California Institute of Technology, is
a geophysicist who has applied those sensitive methods to geological
deposits, using careful  precautions to avoid extraneous contamination.
Using those same techniques, he has also searched for magnetite in the
tissues of a broad spectrum of animal tissues.  This is an interesting
issue  because were magnetite to be present within an appropriately
constructed and enervated sensory organ, the animal might potentially
utilize such an organ to determine geographical directions relative to the
magnetic poles, perhaps facilitating the navigation underlying
long-distance animal migrations.
        The mere presence of magnetite in tissues is not, of course,
definitive evidence for the perception of the earth's magnetic field.
Hemoglobin, each molecule of which contains an iron atom, is the primary
respiratory pigment in many higher animals, and the breakdown and
re-synthesis of hemoglobin are therefore dependent on the presence of iron
in the tissues, of which magnetite would be a significant constituent.
Essential for perception would be a sensory organ in which the magnetite is
organized together with  nervous tissue, so as to provide a useful
orienting stimulus.
        Dr. Kirschvink has demonstrated the presence of magnetite in the
tissues of several different kinds of animals, including the claim that the
human brain contains detectable magnetite.  In none of those studies has
anything resembling a sensory organ within which the magnetite is organized
been discovered.  For example, the description of the magnetite in human
brain tissue gives the impression that  magnetite is a universal
contaminant throughout the brain, with no hint of a structure to transduce
magnetic moments due to body orientation into a perceptible stimulus, to be
transmitted elsewhere.  Hence, the magnetite discovered in human brains
may be purely adventitious.  It might, for example, represent a breakdown
product of hemoglobin that cannot be conveniently excreted.  As an even
simpler possibility,  the mere presence of iron (or magnetite) in an
animal's tissues might only indicate the presence of blood (and its
hemoglobin)
--



this was posted by Eric Krieg  - at one point in high school, I remember a teacher saying that some
people can sense north.  I did an experiment and found that I can't.  I have heard some animals can. - but it is probably that they just use the stars.  I have heard that experiments have shown that birds can't migrate properly with little magnets on their heads - this could imply that animals can sense fields.
 http://www.phact.org/e/dowsing.htm
  • Jim Enright answers more questions
  • Jim Enright discusses evolution of paranormal belief
  • news groups discussion of Dowsing
  • A Christian response to Dowsing
  • Avalanche Dowsing by Rolf Manne
  •  Dowsing - Science or Humbug?
  •  BEYOND SCIENCE?: Water, Water Everywhere... - Scientific American
  •   Skeptical Inquirer / Jan 1999 /  The Failure of the Munich Dowsing Experiments   -to get your own subsciption, call (800) 634-1610 or go to CSICOP / Skeptical Inquirer / Subscribing
  • dowsing- looking at dowsing tests compared to random results
  •  James Randi Educational Foundation - The Matter of Dowsing
  • IRR Investigative Research and Reporting - doing first hand testing of dowsing
  • Dowsing - Science or Humbug?
  • Dowsing for magnetic fields - a response to Chadwich and Jensen

  • Eric's main skeptics page
    Click to subscribe to the weekly dowsing news email list

     
     

    The Mischief-Making of Ideomotor Action

    Ray Hyman

    [Scientific Review of Alt Med 3(2):34-43, 1999. © 1999 Prometheus Books,
    Inc.]
     
     
     

    Introduction

    In 1992, I was hired by the state of Oregon as an expert witness in a trial
    of four chiropractors who had been accused of using a "Toftness-like device"
    in their practices. The "Toftness Radiation Detector" was an appliance
    designed by a chiropractor for diagnosing ailments. It consisted of a metal
    cylinder shaped somewhat like a thick soup can. At one end was a lens; at
    the other was a smooth plastic "rubbing plate." A handle was attached
    perpendicular to the middle of the cylinder. In practice, the operator would
    grasp the handle with one hand and place the lens against the patient's
    spine. While moving the device along the spine, the chiropractor would rub
    the fingers of his other hand back and forth on the plastic rubbing plate.
    As long as the lens was over a healthy part of the spine, the operator's
    fingers would continue to slide freely across the plate. At least that was
    the theory.

    According to Toftness, when the lens came to a diseased part of the back,
    the operator's fingers would encounter increased friction and start to
    "stick" on the rubbing plate. The lens, he believed, was sensitive to a very
    subtle form of radiation that was emitted by portions of the spine that were
    in need of chiropractic manipulation. Toftness conducted seminars to train
    chiropractors in the proper use of his apparatus. He would then lease these
    devices to them for use in their own offices.
     

    In January 1982, the United States District Court in Wisconsin issued "a
    permanent nationwide injunction against the manufacturing, promoting,
    selling, leasing, distributing, shipping, delivering, or using in any way
    any Toftness Radiation Detector or any article or device that is
    substantially the same as, or employs the same basic principles as, the
    Toftness Radiation Detector." [emphasis added] The United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld this decision in 1984.
     

    Although the chiropractors who were charged by the State of Oregon claimed
    to have abandoned the outlawed Toftness device, prosecutors maintained that
    they were guilty of using a Toftness-like device. Their particular
    derivative had been designed by one of the defendants, also as an aid for
    spinal diagnosis. It consisted of a block of wood with an embedded concave
    plastic surface. This time, however, the "rubbing plate" was placed on an
    adjacent horizontal surface, rather than being part of the instrument that
    was in direct contact with the spine. The chiropractor would use his left
    hand to palpate the patient's spine while he moved the fingers of his right
    hand back and forth across the plastic rubbing plate. In this slight
    variation on Toftness' theme, the defendants claimed that whenever their
    left hand contacted a problematic spot on a patient's spine, friction would
    increase, causing the fingers of their right hand to "stick" on the rubbing
    plate.
     

    Despite these similarities, the Oregon chiropractors strongly denied that
    theirs was a Toftness-like device. Although the chiropractor who designed
    the Oregon rubbing plate had been trained by Toftness and had previously
    used the Toftness Radiation Detector himself, he claimed that he no longer
    believed that Toftness' instrument detected radiation of any sort. In fact,
    he now believed that the sticking of the fingers on the plate with both the
    Toftness and the Oregon instruments was not triggered by any physical signal
    at all. Instead, he argued that the sticking was a trained subliminal
    response of the chiropractor, evoked unconsciously by his or her accumulated
    experience in locating spinal problems. He claimed that, although the visual
    and tactile signs of pathology obtained from spinal palpation were often too
    weak to be consciously perceived by a chiropractor, years of acquired
    expertise in spinal diagnosis were stored in his or her unconscious.
    Supposedly, this expertise could be brought to the surface with the aid of
    the rubbing plate.
     
     
     

    A Video Demonstration

    One of my tasks as a consultant and expert witness for the State of Oregon
    was to produce a video tape to illustrate the psychological principles that
    made the rubbing plate seem to work. For this purpose, I used two groups of
    student volunteers. I met with the first group and showed them the Oregon
    rubbing plate which the Assistant District Attorney had loaned to me. I also
    showed them a pendulum made from a ring suspended from a cord and a pair of
    dowsing (or "divining") rods consisting of two metal bars bent at right
    angles.[1] With one rod in each hand, I first demonstrated how dowsing works
    by holding the rods in front of me, aimed straight ahead and with their
    horizontal arms parallel to each other and to the floor. I then slowly
    walked about the room until the rods suddenly crossed one another. I walked
    away from that spot and showed how the rods uncrossed and became parallel
    again. I suggested that the place where the rods had crossed must be near a
    source of flowing water, perhaps a water pipe under the floor. I then
    requested that each of the students try the rods. To their amazement, the
    rods crossed when they walked over the spot I had indicated.

    I then did a similar demonstration using the pendulum, before turning to the
    rubbing plate. I explained that the rubbing plate had been created by an
    Oregon doctor to amplify the sensitivity of our perceptions. To show how, I
    spread some playing cards face up on a table. I told the students that the
    red playing cards reflected mainly light from the long end of the visual
    spectrum. The black playing cards, on the other hand, reflected very little
    light, but what they did reflect contained an equal amount of radiation from
    all parts of the spectrum. Normally, I continued, the human senses cannot
    detect the difference between these two types of emission. However, by using
    the rubbing plate, we might be able to enhance our sensitivity to these
    differences, I suggested. I demonstrated this by passing my left hand back
    and forth, about a foot above the face-up playing cards. Meanwhile, my
    right-hand fingers were sliding back and forth across the surface of the
    rubbing plate. My fingers glided smoothly over the plastic surface whenever
    my hand was passing over a black card, but they would always begin to
    "stick" whenever my left hand encountered a red card.
     

    I had each student try the experiment in turn. To their surprise, their
    fingers would also "stick" whenever their other hand was hovering over a red
    card. One of the students was from Africa. She became terrified when her
    fingers seemed to stick as her hand passed over a red card. She was
    convinced that this was the work of the Devil. I had to spend some time
    trying to reassure her that the sticking sensation was nothing but a normal,
    unconscious psychological reaction of her own, not demonic powers at work.
     

    I did similar demonstrations for the second group of students. However, this
    time I let them see my dowsing rods crossing at a different arbitrarily
    chosen location in the room. Sure enough, for these students, too, the rods
    crossed just at the spot where mine had. Also, this time I told them that my
    fingers would stick only when my left hand was over a black card. As you
    might guess, for the second group, their fingers stuck only when their left
    hand was over a black card.
     

    I made this video to illustrate a simple, but important, point. Under a
    variety of circumstances, our muscles will behave unconsciously in
    accordance with an implanted expectation.[2,3] What makes this simple fact
    so important is that we are not aware that we ourselves are the source of
    the resulting action. This lack of any sense of volition is common in many
    everyday actions as well as reports of those responding to hypnotic
    suggestions.[4] The latter report that their actions feel as though they are
    being propelled by powers external to themselves. My demonstrations with the
    divining rods had implanted the suggestion in each of the onlookers that the
    rods would cross at a certain location. When these students took the rods in
    their own hands and walked over the place where they believed the water pipe
    to be, they unconsciously made tiny muscle movements that caused the
    unstable rods the cross. They emphatically denied that they had done
    anything intentionally to make the rods move. Indeed, many insisted that
    they could feel the rods moving of their own accord, driven by some outside
    force.
     

    The sticking response on the rubbing plate is even more compelling in this
    regard. When the students see one hand over the card that is expected to
    make their fingers stick on the rubbing pad, they unconsciously press
    somewhat harder on the surface and/or change the angle of their fingers
    slightly. This is sufficient to increase the friction between their fingers
    and the rubbing surface. The subjective experience for most students is
    eerie and they insist that they are doing nothing on purpose to make the
    sticking occur.
     
     
     

    Ideomotor Action

    This "influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement,
    independently of volition" was given the label ideomotor action by the
    psychologist/physiologist William B. Carpenter in 1852.[5] Later, the
    concept was more widely publicized by the Harvard physician turned
    psychologist, William James.[6] Carpenter wanted to show that a variety of
    currently popular phenomena had conventional scientific explanations rather
    than the widely believed supernatural ones. The phenomena he tackled
    included dowsing ("water witching"), the magic pendulum, certain aspects of
    mesmerism, spiritualists' "table turning," and Reichenbach's "Odylic force."
    Carpenter did not question the reality of the phenomena, nor the honesty of
    the people who were involved. He only disputed the explanation, arguing
    that, "All the phenomena of the 'biologized' state, when attentively
    examined, will be found to consist in the occupation of the mind by the
    ideas which have been suggested to it, and in the influence which these
    ideas exert upon the actions of the body." Thus Carpenter invoked ideomotor
    action as a nonparanormal explanation for various phenomena that were being
    credited to new physical forces, spiritual intervention, or other
    supernatural causes. He published many books and articles during the latter
    half of the nineteenth century expounding his ideas about ideomotor
    action.[7,8]

    William James[9] elaborated upon Carpenter's ideas, asserting that ideomotor
    activity was the basic process underlying all volitional behavior: "Wherever
    a movement unhesitatingly and immediately follows upon the idea of it, we
    have ideomotor action. We are then aware of nothing between the conception
    and the execution. All sorts of neuromuscular responses come between, of
    course, but we know absolutely nothing of them. We think the act, and it is
    done; and that is all that introspection tells us of the matter." James
    viewed ideomotor action not as a curiosity but as "simply the normal process
    stripped of disguise." James concluded that, "We may then lay it down for
    certain that every [mental] representation of a movement awakens in some
    degree the actual movement which is its object; and awakens it in a maximum
    degree whenever it is not kept from so doing by an antagonistic
    representation present simultaneously to the mind." Modern brain researchers
    have produced data and theory that help explain how quasi-independent
    modules in the brain can initiate motor movements without necessarily
    engaging the "executive module" that is responsible for our sense of
    self-awareness and volition (see B. Beyerstein, this volume).
     

    Probably the first major scientist to become concerned about the mischief
    being created by ideomotor action, although he did not know the concept by
    this name, was the French chemist Michel Chevreul. Chevreul, who lived for
    one hundred three years, became interested in the experiments of some of his
    fellow chemists around the beginning of the nineteenth century. These
    colleagues were using what was known as "the exploring pendulum" to analyze
    chemical compounds.
     

    The first recorded use of the exploring pendulum occurred around 371 C.E. A
    priest would bow over a plate, the edge of which was marked with the letters
    of the alphabet. This "diviner" or "oracle" would hold a ring, suspended
    from a thin thread, over the center of the plate. A question would be put to
    the priest. The movements of the ring would then be observed. When the ring
    was set in motion, it would swing toward one of the letters. This letter
    would be recorded; then the same process would be used to select another
    letter. This would continue until one or more words, which answered the
    question, would be generated. In this, we see the origins of the modern
    Ouija board, used to this day by occultists for divining purposes.[10]
     

    In the early nineteenth century, certain chemists were advocating this
    method for analyzing the composition of substances. In 1808, a Professor
    Gerboin of Strasbourg wrote an entire book on use of the pendulum for
    chemical analysis.[11] As a budding scientist, Chevreul was intrigued, but
    he remained skeptical. He was surprised, however, to find that the pendulum
    worked as advertised when he tried it over a dish of mercury. He carried out
    more tests, however. To see if a physical force was responsible for the
    movement of the pendulum, he placed a glass plate between the iron ring and
    the mercury. To his surprise, the oscillations diminished and then stopped.
    When he removed the glass plate, the pendulum movements resumed. He next
    suspected that the pendulum moved because it was difficult to hold his arm
    steady. When he rested his arm on a support, the movements diminished but
    did not stop altogether.
     

    Finally, Chevreul did what none of his predecessors had thought of doing. He
    conducted the equivalent of what we would call a double-blind trial. He
    blindfolded himself and then he had an assistant interpose or remove the
    glass plate between the pendulum and the mercury without his knowledge.
    Under these conditions, nothing happened. Chevreul concluded, "So long as I
    believed the movement possible, it took place; but after discovering the
    cause I could not reproduce it." His experiments with the pendulum show how
    easy it is "to mistake illusions for realities, whenever we are confronted
    by phenomena in which the human sense-organs are involved under conditions
    imperfectly analyzed." Chevreul used this principle of expectant attention
    to account for the phenomena of dowsing, movements of the exploring
    pendulum, and the then current fad among spiritualists, table-turning.
     

    Chevreul was one of France's most prestigious scientists by the time he
    conducted these investigations. At about the same time, one of England's
    most famous scientists, Michael Faraday, published his investigation of
    table-turning, in 1853.[12] By the 1850s table-turning (also called
    table-tilting or table-rapping) had become the rage among spiritualists,
    both in North America and in Europe. In a typical session, a small group of
    persons, usually called "sitters," would sit around a table with their hands
    resting upon its top. After an extended period of expectant waiting, a rap
    would be heard or the table would tilt upon one leg. Sometimes the table
    would sway and begin moving about the room, dragging the sitters along.
    Occasionally, sitters would claim that the table actually levitated off the
    floor. Table-turning was what first attracted many prominent scientists to
    the investigation of psychic phenomena. During the summer of 1853, several
    English scientists decided to investigate this phenomenon. Contemporary
    theories attributed table-turning to such things as electricity, magnetism,
    "attraction," the rotation of the earth, and Karl von Reichenbach's "Odylic
    force." Electricity, which the public at that time considered to be an
    occult and mystical force, was the most popular of these explanations.
     

    A committee of four medical men held seances in June 1853 to
    investigate.[13] They discovered that the table did not move when the
    sitters' attention was diverted; nor did it move when they had not formed a
    common expectation about how the table should move. The table would not move
    if half the sitters expected it to move to the right and the other half
    expected it to move to the left. "But," the panel commented, "when
    expectation was allowed free play, and especially if the direction of the
    probable movement was indicated beforehand, the table began to rotate after
    a few minutes, although none of the sitters was conscious of exercising any
    effort at all. The conclusion was formed that the motion was due to muscular
    action, mostly exercised unconsciously."
     

    The most publicized and carefully controlled study of table-turning was
    reported by Michael Faraday in 1853. Faraday obtained the cooperation of
    participants who he knew to be "very honorable" and who were also
    "successful table-movers." He found that the table would move in the
    expected direction, even when just one subject was seated at the table.
    Faraday first looked into the possibility that the movements were due to
    known forces such as electricity or magnetism. He showed that sandpaper,
    millboard, glue, glass, moist clay, tinfoil, cardboard, vulcanized rubber,
    and wood did not interfere with the table's movements. From these initial
    tests, he concluded that, "No form of experiment or mode of observation that
    I could devise gave me the slightest indication of any peculiar force. No
    attraction, or repulsion . . . nor anything which could be referred to other
    than mere mechanical pressure exerted inadvertently by the turner."
     

    By then, Faraday suspected that his sitters were unconsciously pushing the
    table in the desired direction. However, his sitters firmly maintained that
    they were not the source of the table movements. And, as already mentioned,
    Faraday was satisfied that his sitters were "very honorable." So he devised
    an ingenious arrangement to pin down the cause of the movement. He placed
    four or five pieces of slippery cardboard, one on top of the other, upon the
    table. The sheets were attached to one another by little pellets of a soft
    cement. The bottommost sheet was attached to a piece of sandpaper that
    rested against the table top. This stack of cardboard sheets was
    approximately the size of the table top with the topmost layer being
    slightly larger than the table top. The edge of each layer in this cardboard
    sandwich slightly overlapped the one below. To mark their original
    positions, Faraday drew a pencil line across these exposed concentric
    borders of the cardboard sheets, on their under surface. The stack of
    cardboard sheets was secured to the table top by large rubber bands which
    insured that when the table moved, the sheets would move with it. However,
    the bands allowed sufficient play to permit the individual sheets of
    cardboard to move somewhat independently of one another.
     

    The sitter then placed his hands upon the surface of the top cardboard layer
    and waited for the table to move in the direction previously agreed upon.
    Faraday reasoned that if the table moved to the left, and the source of the
    movement was the table and not the sitter, the table would move first and
    drag the successive layers of cardboard along with it, sequentially, from
    bottom to top, but with a slight lag. If this were the case, the displaced
    pencil marks would reveal a staggered line sloping outwards from the left to
    the right. On the other hand, if the sitter was unwittingly moving the
    table, then his hands would push the top cardboard to the left and the
    remaining cardboards and the table would be dragged along successively, from
    top to bottom. This would result in displacement of the pencil marks in a
    staggered line sloping from right to left. Faraday observed that, "It was
    easy to see by displacement of the parts of the line that the hand had moved
    further from the table, and that the latter had lagged behind -- that the
    hand, in fact, had pushed the upper card to the left and that the under
    cards and the table had followed and been dragged by it."
     
     
     

    'It's Not the Same Thing!'

    Faraday's report was sufficient to convince most scientists that
    table-turning and related phenomena did not stem from new physical forces or
    occult powers. Unfortunately, it inadvertently had the opposite effect upon
    a few prominent scientists such as Alfred Russel Wallace, the cofounder with
    Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace had his
    first encounter with "the phenomena of Spiritualism" in the summer of 1865.
    He was seated with other sitters around a table. The table behaved in ways
    that he was sure could not be entirely explained by Faraday's findings and
    Carpenter's theory of ideomotor action. Faraday's research only dealt with
    one of the many possible causes of table movements. Indeed, in the original
    seances using tables, the movements were caused not by ideomotor action but
    by various cheating methods employed by fraudulent mediums and their
    accomplices. In addition, many converts' testimonials were obtained under
    conditions that tend to exaggerate normal human biases and result in sincere
    but mistaken reports of things that never actually happened.

    Wallace experienced gyrations of the table that he was sure could not be
    handled by Faraday's findings. In his mind, this showed that skeptical
    scientists such as Faraday cannot be trusted to discover and fairly report
    upon truly revolutionary phenomena.[14,15] This tendency to dismiss a
    skeptical investigation because it cannot account for every instance of an
    alleged class of paranormal phenomena is what I call loopholism -- the
    tendency to seek out each and every loophole in a skeptical account as a way
    to protect one's belief in a cherished supernatural or pseudoscientific
    claim. Wallace was familiar with Faraday's report. However, he seized upon
    the differences between the table's behavior in Faraday's experiment and
    what he had witnessed to assert that what Faraday had explained and what
    Wallace had experienced were not the same thing.
     

    Perhaps the most striking, and saddest, example of loopholism is the story
    of the eminent American chemist, Robert Hare. Hare was professor emeritus of
    chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania when he became involved with
    table-turning in 1853, at age 72. According to Isaac Asimov,[16] Hare was
    "one of the few strictly American products who in those days could be
    considered within hailing distance of the great European chemists." When
    Faraday's report was published, the Philadelphia Inquirer asked Hare for his
    comments. In his letter to the paper, on July 27, 1853, Hare firmly rejected
    the possibility that some exotic force could produce movement of wooden
    tables. He wrote, "I recommend to your attention, and that of others
    interested in this hallucination, Faraday's observations and experiments,
    recently published in some of our respectable newspapers. I entirely concur
    in the conclusions of that distinguished expounder of Nature's riddles."
     

    A Mr. Amasa Holcombe and a Dr. Comstock replied to Hare's letter and invited
    him to attend a table-turning session. Comstock appealed to Hare's sense of
    fairness by asking him to observe and test the phenomena for himself rather
    than rely upon Faraday's report. Accepting the invitation, Hare attended a
    "circle" at a private house. He describes his experience as follows:
     

    Seated at a table with half a dozen persons, a hymn was sung with religious
    zeal and solemnity. Soon afterwards tappings were distinctly heard as if
    made beneath and against the table, which, from the perfect stillness of
    every one of the party, could not be attributed to any one among them.
    Apparently, the sounds were such as could only be made with some hard
    instrument, or with the ends of fingers aided by nails.
     

    I learned that simple queries were answered by means of these
    manifestations; one tap being considered as equivalent to a negative; two,
    to doubtful; and three, to an affirmative. With the greatest apparent
    sincerity, questions were put and answers taken and recorded, as if all
    concerned considered them as coming from a rational though invisible agent.
    Subsequently, two media sat down at a small table (drawer removed) which,
    upon careful examination, I found present to my inspection nothing but the
    surface of a bare board, on the under side as well as upon the upper. Yet
    the taps were heard as before, seemingly against the table. Even assuming
    the people by whom I was surrounded to be capable of deception, and the feat
    to be due to jugglery, it was still inexplicable. But manifestly I was in a
    company of worthy people, who were themselves under a deception if these
    sounds did not proceed from spiritual agency.
     

    On a subsequent occasion, at the same house, I heard similar tapping on a
    partition between two parlours. I opened the door between the parlours, and
    passed that adjoining the one in which I had been sitting. Nothing could be
    seen which could account for the sounds.
     

    Hare goes on to describe other phenomena that he could not explain on the
    basis of normal agency. Although he dismisses the possibility of trickery,
    Hare does not seem to realize that he would find it just as difficult to
    detect the modus operandi behind a magician's tricks as he would to find a
    normal explanation for mediums' feats. In one instance, a skeptical lawyer
    friend indicated that what they had just witnessed must be due either to
    legerdemain on the part of the medium or to the agency of some invisible
    intelligent being. Hare's response is revealing:
     

    But assigning the result to legerdemain was altogether opposed to my
    knowledge of his character. This gentleman, and the circle to which he
    belonged, spent about three hours, twice or thrice a week, in getting
    communications through the alphabet, by the process to which the lines above
    mentioned were due. This would not have taken place, had they not had
    implicit confidence, that the information thus obtained proceeded from
    spirits.
     

    In other words, Hare rejects the possibility of trickery not because it was
    impossible but because people of "good character" would not have wasted
    their time on this if it originated in trickery! This same overconfidence in
    the belief that members of one's own high social class could not engage in
    treachery protected the often inept spy, Kim Philby, from being exposed for
    decades while he stole British and American secrets for the USSR. It also
    shielded the Soviet "mole," Aldrich Ames, who left numerous clues as he
    systematically plundered the files of the CIA for years.
     

    Hare describes his subsequent research into spirit communication in his
    remarkable 1855 book which bore the equally remarkable title, Experimental
    Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations, Demonstrating the Existence of
    Spirits and their Communion with Mortals. Doctrine of the Spirit World
    Respecting Heaven, Hell, Morality, and God. Also, the Influence of Scripture
    on the Morals of Christians.[17] Before undertaking his research into
    spiritualism, Hare tells us he was a materialist and an atheist. He
    describes in detail the various experiments he conducted that, to him,
    proved the existence of the spirit world. He himself developed mediumistic
    powers. During these experiments Hare claimed he had communicated not only
    with the spirits of his departed relatives but also those of George
    Washington, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Benjamin Franklin, Lord Byron,
    and Isaac Newton.
     

    Hare created a device "which, if spirits were actually concerned in the
    phenomena, would enable them to manifest their physical and intellectual
    power independently of control by any medium." The Spiritscope, as he called
    it, consisted of a pasteboard disk slightly larger than a foot in diameter.
    Around its circumference he attached the letters of the alphabet in a
    haphazard order. An arrow that swivelled at the center of the disk was used
    to select letters one at a time by pointing toward them. For his initial
    test, he had a medium sit opposite him at a table. The disk was placed
    between Hare and the medium such that Hare could see the letters and the
    movements of the arrow but the medium could not. The medium sat with her
    hands on a surface above the table which, through a system of pulleys,
    cords, and weights, was attached to the arrow such that slight pressures of
    her hand would cause it to move in various directions and point to letters.
    Hare asked if any spirits were present. The arrow pointed to the letter Y
    (indicating "Yes."). Hare next asked the spirit to provide the initials of
    his name. The index pointed to R and then to H. Hare asked, "My honored
    father?" The index pointed to Y.
     

    Hare carried out several more such experiments with similar results.
    Apparently he never fully understood the key aspect of Faraday's results --
    that honest, intelligent people can unconsciously engage in muscular
    activity that is consistent with their expectations. Although the medium
    sitting opposite him could not see the letters or the index on the disk, she
    was looking directly at Hare as he was observing the behavior of the index.
    We now know from many other investigations of ideomotor action -- such as
    Oskar Pfungst's classic investigation of the allegedly intelligent horse,
    Clever Hans[18] -- that people frequently give clues about what they are
    thinking or observing without realizing it.[19] These subtle clues can guide
    the behavior of other individuals -- or even animals. Sometimes these
    individuals consciously detect these clues and use them to deceive,[20] but
    frequently the person being guided by the clues is just as unconscious of
    them as is the individual providing them.
     

    Hare eventually found he could work alone, without the help of mediums, and
    still get meaningful communications from his Spiritscope. He had no inkling
    that he could be source of the messages being spelled out on his
    Spiritscope. Hare's example shows again that intelligence, professional
    accomplishment, and personal integrity offer no automatic protection against
    wishful thinking and self-delusion. Hare's Spiritscope served as the model
    for the later commercial development of the Ouija board -- another striking
    example of the power of ideomotor action.
     
     
     

    Radionics and Medical Radiesthesia

    Perhaps in no other area has the seduction of ideomotor action created as
    much mischief as it has in medical settings. Over the past two centuries,
    many Europeans have used the term radiesthesia to refer to the alleged force
    that underlies dowsing and the exploring pendulum. The term is especially
    prevalent in connection with medical and healing applications. Medical
    radiesthesia is used to diagnose a variety of ailments -- often from a
    distance. During this century, medical radiesthesia has often been merged
    with what is called "radionics." Radiesthesia remains very popular today
    among naturopaths.[21] Radionic devices are "black boxes" or similar
    contrivances that proponents claim have the ability to harness energy to
    diagnose and to heal illness. Today's practitioners of medical radiesthesia
    and radionics trace their beginnings to contraptions created by the San
    Francisco doctor Albert Abrams at the beginning of this century.[22]

    Abrams had a conventional medical education, becoming professor of pathology
    at what eventually became the Stanford University School of Medicine. In
    1910, Abrams claimed to discover that he could diagnose a variety of
    diseases by tapping his fingers on the patient's abdomen and listening for
    locations that yielded a dull sound. He then claimed to diagnose a patient
    from a distance by tapping on the belly of a proxy patient and using a drop
    of dried blood. Later, finding that an autograph was sufficient, he
    diagnosed by proxy numerous past celebrities, many of whom he diagnosed with
    syphilis. Next, Abrams built "electronic" boxes that would enable doctors to
    diagnose patients at a distance. He went further and devised other gadgets
    that he leased to others to treat patients at a distance. He required the
    others to sign an oath that they would never open them. But when finally
    examined, they revealed a functionless jumble of components. Abrams became
    extremely wealthy and earned an American Medical Association title, "the
    dean of the twentieth-century charlatans."
     

    Some of his students had difficulty with the proxy percussion method, so
    Abrams devised a substitute -- a glass rod drawn across the proxy's abdomen.
    When the glass rod encountered an area corresponding with the distant
    patient's disease, the friction would increase and the rod would "stick."
    Note that this "sticking" response resembles the modus operandi of the
    Toftness Radiation Detector and the Oregon rubbing plate. Indeed, Abrams was
    the grandfather of the use of the sticking response as the "output" feature
    of many subsequent radionic devices.
     

    "Dr." Ruth Drown replaced the abdomen with a rubbing plate as the detection
    component in radionic devices. Mrs. Drown and her various contraptions were
    the objects of well-publicized quackery trials just before World War II.
    Like Abrams, Drown invented gadgets to both diagnose and treat patients from
    a distance. During the war, it became impossible to import Drown instruments
    into England. George de la Warr was recruited to construct a copy of Drown's
    apparatus for the British market, and developed grandiose and aggressively
    marketed descendants of the rubbing plate in England for 30 years. He added
    a variety of changes -- all relying on a rubbing plate. He and his promoters
    claimed they had discovered a new form of radiation that would revolutionize
    science and society. In 1949, an inventor named Hieronymous obtained the
    first patent for a radionic machine. Not surprisingly, its alleged ability
    to detect unusual emanations depended upon a rubbing a plate and the
    sticking response.
     
     
     

    Facilitated Communication, Applied Kinesiology, and TCM

    Devices whose seeming utility depends ultimately on a rubbing plate or some
    related form of ideomotor action are still widely promoted on the fringes of
    medical, agricultural, forensic, geological, mining, and other applied
    fields. The preceding account provides the barest outline of the extent to
    which theories, systems, and machinery, dependent on some kind of ideomotor
    action, delude intelligent, sincere people -- sellers and buyers alike. The
    following are three contemporary instances of ideomotor action in medicine:
    "facilitated communication," "applied kinesiology," and certain aspects of
    Traditional Chinese Medicine.

    "In facilitated communication,"[23] the "facilitator" attempts to aid
    autistic children or those with other cognitive and language deficits to
    communicate. The child is placed in front of a keyboard, letters of which
    appear on a screen. The facilitator physically steadies the child's finger
    as it presses the keys. The child then types coherent sentences, apparently
    revealing high level communication skills.
     

    Advocates of the method claimed that the children possessed high
    intelligence and considerable knowledge, but they could not express thoughts
    in speech or writing. Facilitators helped reveal the intellect within.
    Parents and many therapists were thrilled. Several university professors who
    specialized in treatment of mentally handicapped children claimed that the
    method was a revolution in the understanding of autism. Scientists who
    called for controlled experiments were rejected for showing lack of
    understanding and sympathy. Facilitators maintained that they were not
    influencing the children's letter selections.
     

    Some patients, guided by facilitators, typed out messages claiming that
    their parents or other caregivers had sexually abused them. Reputations were
    ruined, alleged perpetrators were jailed, and families were torn apart.
    Eventually, controlled, blinded experiments isolated the information coming
    to the facilitator from that coming to the patient, proving the source of
    the messages was the facilitator, through ideomotor action.
     

    Another example is "applied kinesiology." Legitimate kinesiology is the
    study of human motor performance using the standard tools of biochemistry,
    physiology, biomechanics, and psychology. "Applied kinesiology" purports to
    show that isolated muscle group weakness can be used to diagnose allergies,
    toxicities, and other disorders. Naturopaths and chiropractors are among its
    most ardent practitioners.[24] Such things as refined foods, foods grown
    with chemical fertilizers, artificial food colorants and preservatives,
    infinitesimal pesticide residues, refined sugar, or even flourescent
    lighting are said to sap vital energies and cause disease.
     

    To measure susceptibility to such influences, practitioners place their
    palms face down on the hand or forearm of the patient who is told to exert
    an upward counter-force. The practitioner then puts a small amount of the
    allegedly offensive substance on the patient's tongue, skin, or nostrils, or
    turns on the fluorescent lights. The patient loses strength instantaneously,
    the kinesiologist's force easily overcomes the resistance, and the arm
    collapses. Of course, both participants in this folie à deux feel they
    maintain a constant effort throughout. As the reader is no doubt aware by
    now, such a demonstration proves nothing in the absence of a placebo control
    and a double-blind administration. Knowing an allegedly harmful substance
    has been applied, the practitioner unconsciously presses a little harder and
    the patient unconsciously resists a bit less.
     

    Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr.
    Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of
    chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers
    and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to
    illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we
    would try some double-blind tests of their claims. The chiropractors
    presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that
    the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad"
    sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a
    truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant
    for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one
    arm vertically. They then would put a drop of glucose (in a solution of
    water) on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the
    volunteer's upraised arm down to a horizontal position while the volunteer
    tried to resist. In almost every case, the volunteer could not resist. The
    chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad"
    sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and a drop of fructose was
    placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted
    movement to the horizontal position. The body had recognized fructose as a
    "good" sugar.
     

    After lunch a nurse brought us a large number of test tubes, each one coded
    with a secret number so that we could not tell from the tubes which
    contained fructose and which contained glucose. The nurse then left the room
    so that no one in the room during the subsequent testing would consciously
    know which tubes contained glucose and which fructose. The arm tests were
    repeated, but this time they were double-blind -- neither the volunteer, the
    chiropractors, nor the onlookers was aware of whether the solution being
    applied to the volunteer's tongue was glucose or fructose. As in the morning
    session, sometimes the volunteers were able to resist and other times they
    were not. We recorded the code number of the solution on each trial. Then
    the nurse returned with the key to the code. When we determined which trials
    involved glucose and which involved fructose, there was no connection
    between ability to resist and whether the volunteer was given the "good" or
    the "bad" sugar.
     

    When these results were announced, the head chiropractor turned to me and
    said, "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It
    never works!" At first I thought he was joking. It turned it out he was
    quite serious. Since he "knew" that applied kinesiology works, and the best
    scientific method shows that it does not work, then -- in his mind -- there
    must be something wrong with the scientific method. This is both a form of
    loopholism as well as an illustration of what I call the plea for special
    dispensation. Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure
    of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the
    possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective.
     

    Another variation of this special dispensation was illustrated by the
    reaction of a dowser that Barry Beyerstein and I tested on an edition of the
    television program Scientific American Frontiers, hosted by Alan Alda. The
    dowser had agreed in advance to a double-blind test that he felt would prove
    his powers, but failed the test. Mr. Alda felt some compassion for this
    dowser, and discussed the failure with him. The dowser admitted he was
    disappointed but he felt that the outcome simply revealed that science had
    not yet matured to the point where it could cope with dowsing.
     

    A final example of ideomotor mischief can be found in certain practices of
    Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM.)[25,26] The essence of TCM is a
    scientifically undetectable vitalistic force called Qi (pronounced "chee").
    Disease, according to TCM, results from an imbalance in the flow of the yin
    and yang forms of this universal "energy" in one's body. Acupuncture,
    Chinese herbs, massage, and so on, are supposed to restore the balance of Qi
    and thereby restore health. TCM practitioners claim to diagnose a wide
    variety of aliments using "pulse diagnosis" which bears little resemblance
    to the way scientifically trained physicians take a patient's pulse. The way
    in which the patient's hand is held by TCM practitioners while taking the
    pulse provides fertile ground for contamination by ideomotor activity (see
    the section on "muscle reading" in Marks and Kammann.) Not surprisingly,
    there is little to no objective evidence that these procedures have any
    diagnostic value. In a similar manner, TCM practitioners who employ the
    discipline called "Qi Gong" assert that they can direct their own Qi into
    others in order to achieve both diagnosis and healing. When a Qi Gong
    master's Qi is supposedly flowing, the "recipients" often feel suddenly
    energized or experience paralyzing weakness. In an unblinded demonstration
    shown on Bill Moyers' PBS series, Healing and the Mind, stalwart students
    were suddenly seen to lose the strength to push over their frail master. In
    properly blinded tests of Qi Gong masters, when "recipients" do not know
    when Qi is or is not being directed at them, such changes in how strong they
    perceive their muscles to be fail to appear.
     
     
     

    Some Common Features of Ideomotor-Based Systems

    Although the effects of ideomotor action have been understood for at least
    one hundred fifty years, the phenomenon remains surprisingly unknown, even
    to scientists. To conclude, the following are some of the psychological
    features that characterize nearly all the systems and schemes that have
    bases in ideomotor action.

    Ideomotor Action
     

    To reiterate, all systems using the rubbing plate, the dowsing rod, the
    exploring pendulum, or related technique depend on an almost undetectable
    motor movement, amplified into a more noticeable event. The impetus arises
    from one's own subtle and unperceived expectations. Elaborate, grandiose
    theories are then devised to explain the observed effects.
     

    Projection of the Operator's Actions to an External Force
     

    This is one of key properties of ideomotor action. Although the operator's
    own actions cause the fingers to stick, the rod to move, or the pendulum to
    rotate in a given direction, the operator attributes the cause onto an
    external force. Subjectively, that is what it feels like. Lacking a sense of
    volition, one credits unknown forces, radiations, or other external
    emanations.
     

    The Cause of the Action Is Attributed to Forces New to Science and
    Revolutionary in Nature
     

    This is implied in the previous point. Not only is the cause attributed to
    an external source, but each time the phenomenon is encountered anew, those
    who have not read their history attribute it to a force previously unknown.
     

    Delusions of Grandeur
     

    Not only do the proponents insist that the cause is external, but they tend
    to see themselves as revolutionary saviors of mankind. They claim to have
    discovered new principles and forces, ones whose ramifications will
    transform contemporary science, not to mention society as we know it.
     

    Delusions of Persecution
     

    Those who suffer from delusions of grandeur frequently exhibit delusions of
    persecution. Self-styled revolutionaries assert that orthodox scientists
    dismiss discoverers of breakthroughs such as radionic devices and the like
    merely out of envy, pig-headedness, conformism, or unwillingness to give
    credit to brave outsiders who are not part of the scientific establishment.
     

    To Be Forearmed Is To Be Disarmed
     

    Proponents of quack devices and procedures will often argue that they are
    aware of ideomotor action and the role of expectancies. They often assert
    that their awareness makes them immune from its effects. Many dowsers now
    admit unconscious expectations can affect the action of the divining rod.
    They assert that their awareness prevents ideomotor action and allows
    expression of the "true dowsing response." Unfortunately, the awareness of
    ideomotor action does not make one immune from its expression.
     

    Self-Sealing Belief Systems
     

    Once the proponent becomes convinced that his favorite system "works," then
    the psychological forces discussed by James Alcock come into play. These
    self-serving biases serve to protect the belief system from falsification.
    Loopholism is one way proponents protect their beliefs in the face of
    contrary evidence. Saying "It is not the same thing" allows the believer to
    shield the system. Alcock supplies more examples of this ability to distort,
    forget, or ignore evidence. The true physician is aware of distortions of
    one's own judgement, as well as those of pseudoscientific competitors.
     
     
     

    References
     

    1.      Vogt EZ, Hyman R. Water Witching U.S.A. 2d ed. Chicago, IL:
    University of Chicago Press; 1979.

    2.      Ibid.

    3.      Spitz H. Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to
    Facilitated Communication. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.

    4.      Bowers KS. Dissociated control, imagination, and the phenomenology
    of dissociation. In: Spiegel D, ed. Dissociation: Culture, Mind and Body.
    Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1994: 21-38.

    5.      Carpenter WB. On the influence of suggestion in modifying and
    directing muscular movement, independently of volition. Proceedings of the
    Royal Institution of Great Britain. 1852;1:147-153.

    6.      James W. Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Holt; 1890.

    7.      Carpenter WB. Mental Physiology. London, UK: C. Kegan Paul; 1874.

    8.      Carpenter WB. Mesmerism, Spiritualism, &c. New York, NY: D.
    Appleton; 1874.

    9.      Carpenter, On the influence of suggestion in modifying and directing
    muscular movement, independently of volition.

    10.     Vogt and Hyman, Water Witching U.S.A.

    11.     Jastrow J. Wish and Wisdom. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts;
    1935.

    12.     Faraday M. Experimental investigation of table turning. Atheneum.
    July 1853:801-803.

    13.     Podmore F. Mediums of the 19th Century. Vol. 2. New Hyde Park, NY:
    University Books; 1963.

    14.     Wallace AR. On Miracles and Modern Spiritualism: Three Essays.
    London, UK: James Burns; 1875.

    15.     Wallace AR. My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions. New York: NY:
    Dodd, Mead; 1906.

    16.     Asimov I. Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and
    Technology. Rev. ed. New York, NY: Equinox; 1976.

    17.     Hare R. Experimental Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations,
    Demostrating the Existence of Spirits and Their Communication With Mortals:
    Doctrine of the Spirit World Respecting Heaven, Hell, Morality, and God. New
    York, NY: Partridge and Brittan; 1855.

    18.     Pfungst O. Clever Hans. New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart and Winston;
    1965. [This is a reprint of the original 1911 edition. It contains a useful
    introduction by Robert Rosenthal.]

    19.     Hyman R. Cold reading: how to convince strangers that you know all
    about them. Zetetic. 1977;1(2):18-37.

    20.     Marks D, Kammann R. The Psychology of the Psychic. Amherst, NY:
    Prometheus Books; 1980.

    21.     Beyerstein B, Downie S. Naturopathy. Scientific Rev Alternative Med.
    1998;2(1):20-28.

    22.     Armstrong D, Armstrong SM. The body electric: future shocks. In: The
    Great American Medicine Show. New York, NY: Prentice Hall; 1991.

    23.     Dillon K. Facilitated communication, autism, and Ouija. Skeptical
    Inquirer. 1993;17(3):281-287.

    24.     Beyerstein B, Sampson W. Traditional medicine and pseudoscience in
    China: a report of the second CSICOP delegation. Part 1. Skeptical Inquirer.
    1996;20(4):18-26.

    25.     Ibid.

    26.     Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Traditional medicine and pseudoscience in
    China: a report of the second CSICOP delegation. Part 2. Skeptical Inquirer.
    1996;20(5):27-34.