The Scole Experiment
Said to be the best evidence yet for the afterlife -- but how good is that evidence?
Filed under Paranormal
| Skeptoid #179 November 10, 2009 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 179, November 10, 2009
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179
Turn out the lights and link your hands, for today we're going to hold a seance and contact the dead, and have them perform parlor tricks for us in the dark. We're going to look at the Scole Experiment, a large, well-organized series of seances conducted by members of the Society for Psychical Research in the late 1990's in Scole, a small village in England. Reported phenomena included ghostly lights flitting about the room, images appearing on film inside secure containers, reports of touches from unseen hands, levitation of the table, and disembodied voices. Due to the large number of investigators and sitters involved, the number and consistency of paranormal episodes observed during the seances, and the lack of any finding of fraud, many believers often point to the Scole Experiment as the best scientific evidence that spirits do survive in the afterlife, and can and do come back and interact with the living, demonstrating an impressive array of conjuring powers.
There were a total of six mediums and fifteen investigators from the SPR. The Society for Psychical Research, or SPR, is based in London and is more than a century old. Its membership consists of enthusiasts of the paranormal. The authoritative source for what happened in the Scole Experiment is a report several hundred pages long, called The Scole Report, originally published in the journal Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and written by three of the lead investigators who were present at the sittings, all current or former senior officers of the SPR: plant scientist Montague Keen, electrical engineer Arthur Ellison, and psychologist David Fontana. I have a copy here on my desk. It goes through the history of how the experiments came together, details each of the many seances, and presents analysis and criticism from a number of the SPR investigators who observed.
Unfortunately, the Scole Experiment was tainted by profound investigative failings. In short, the investigators imposed little or no controls or restrictions upon the mediums, and at the same time, agreed to all of the restrictions imposed by the mediums. The mediums were in control of the seances, not the investigators. What the Scole Report authors describe as a scientific investigation of the phenomena, was in fact (by any reasonable interpretation of the scientific method) hampered by a set of rules which explicitly prevented any scientific investigation of the phenomena.
The primary control offered by the mediums was their use of luminous wristbands, to show the sitters that their hands were not moving about during the seances. I consulted with Mark Edward, a friend in Los Angeles who gives mentalism and seance performances professionally. He knows all the tricks, and luminous wristbands are, apparently, one of the tricks. There are any number of ways that a medium can get into and out of luminous wristbands during a seance. The wristbands used at Scole were made and provided by the mediums themselves, and were never subjected to testing, which is a gross dereliction of control by the investigators. Without having been at the Scole Experiment in person, Mark couldn't speculate on what those mediums may have done or how they may have done it. Suffice it to say that professional seance performers are not in the least bit impressed by this so-called control. Tricks like this have been part of the game for more than a century. Since hand holding was not employed in the Scole seances, the mediums effectively had every opportunity to be completely hands free and do whatever they wanted to do.
Believers in the Scole Experiment are likely to point to specifics in the Scole Report and say something like "But according to the detailed notes, the medium never moved his hands," or something like that. But we have to remember that, assuming the Scole mediums were using trickery, the authors of the Scole Report were merely witnesses who were taken in by the tricks. Of course their report is likely to, and does, state that they could not have been fooled. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias. These Society for Psychical Research fellows firmly believed they were witnessing genuine spirit phenomena, and desired a positive outcome. They followed the mediums' instructions to the T and acted as an audience only and not as investigators. The Scole Report details the authors' perceptions of what happened in the room; no reader has cause to believe it describes what actually happened in the room.
Repeatedly, throughout the Scole Report, the authors state that no evidence of fraud or deception was found. For example:
There is a further complaint: that we made little mention of the views of people like West or Professor Robert Morris, "who expressed reservations on the basis of their experiences." That is partly because no such reservations were expressed to us at the time... We were looking for evidence of deception... We looked in vain.
If I go to Penn & Teller's magic show to look for evidence of deception, but I impose the rule that I have to stay in my seat and watch the show as presented, and I'm not allowed to go onstage and examine the performers or the equipment, or watch from behind, or observe the preparations, I guarantee you that I also will find no evidence of deception. Placing illuminated wrist cuffs on the seance mediums, and allowing no further controls, is perfectly analogous to having Teller show you his arms "Hey, look, nothing up my sleeves," then allowing him total control over everything that follows. It can reasonably be argued that the Scole Experiment investigators (whether deliberately or through near-total investigative incompetence) created the conditions of a stage show designed to fool an audience.
The phenomenon most commonly reported in the Scole Experiments were small points of light that flitted about the room, often striking crystals and illuminating them from within, or causing disconnected light bulbs or a small glass dome to light up. Since the mediums banned video gear, there's no way we can really evaluate these claims, other than by reading the Scole Report, which only tells us the perceptions experienced by a few true believers who were present. Mark Edward said these tricks have been commonly performed in seances with laser pointers since the 1970's when they first became available: Strike a light bulb or rock crystal with a laser pointer and it lights right up. An advantage of laser pointers is that the tip can be easily cloaked, obscuring the orifice from anyone whose eyeball is not the target of the beam. We have no evidence that the Scole mediums used such techniques, but their rules also prevented us from establishing that they didn't.
The next most impressive feat was the spontaneous appearance of images on film. During the seance, factory-sealed film cartridges were placed inside a padlocked box. The spirits were then asked to imprint images upon the film. The locked box was then taken and the film developed in the strict constant supervision of the investigators. This feat was repeated many times. One of the investigators, Alan Gauld, wrote critically of how he discovered this locked box could be quickly and easily opened in the dark, which allowed for easy substitution of film rolls. This box was provided by the mediums. Whenever any other sealed container was used, no images ever appeared on the film. Yet even while acknowledging these facts, the authors of the Scole Report still maintain that the film images are most likely evidence of the supernatural.
Perhaps the biggest red flag in the Scole Experiment is the venue in which the sittings took place: a room in the basement of the house in Scole where two of the mediums lived, Robin and Sandra Foy. Rather than controlling the environment, the investigators ceded total control over the room and conditions to the mediums. The seances were held about once a month, which gave the Foys ample time to make any desired alterations to the room. There's no evidence that they did so, but granting them unrestricted opportunity pretty much torpedoed any hope for credibility. The Scole Report states that the room was available for examination before and after every seance, but there's no reason to believe that any truly thorough examination was ever performed; and in any event it's a poor substitute for what the investigators should have done, which was to provide their own room over which the mediums had no control at all. (A few seances were held at other locations, but the Scole Report describes the results from those as "variable".)
The next biggest red flag was the mediums' insistence that the seances be held in complete darkness and their refusal to allow any night-mode video cameras or light enhancement equipment. The mediums' explanation was that they felt such equipment would distract the investigators! That's like telling a pilot that having instruments might distract him from flying. Astoundingly the investigators agreed to this, though they did express dismay, as if their desire and good intentions alone validate their conclusions. Audio recordings only were permitted, but since the claimed phenomena were primarily visual, the audio tapes are of essentially no value.
A third red flag is the fact that there's been no followup. If amazing phenomena truly did happen at the Scole Experiment, it would have changed the world. Mainstream psychologists and other academics would have gotten in on it, it would have made worldwide headlines, and it would be repeated in labs everywhere and become mainstream science. They did have the opportunity: experimental psychologist and author Richard Wiseman provided secure envelopes for the film rolls to the experimenters, within which film always failed to be exposed. Rather than coming away impressed and spreading the word, Wiseman summed it up to me in six words: "It was a load of rubbish!"
This same principle explains why we don't see articles from the Proceedings of the SPR, like the Scole Report, republished in scientific journals. A scientific investigation of a strange phenomenon assumes the null hypothesis unless the phenomenon can be proven to exist. But the authors of the Scole Report, with complete credulity, did the exact opposite: Their stated position is that the lack of disproof means their seances were real supernatural events. But a primary feature of good research is the elimination of other possible explanations, at which the Scole investigators made no competent effort. Many of the investigators expressed that they were not very convinced by what they witnessed, and it is to the credit of the Scole Report authors that they fairly reported this. But this raises the question: Why then write such a lengthy and credulous report, making such obvious conclusions that these phenomena were real? The lesson to take away from the Scole Experiment is a simple one. Although we all have preconceived notions, we have to put them aside and follow the evidence when we investigate.
© 2009 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Keen, M., Ellison, A., Fontana, D. "The Scole Report." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research. 1 Nov. 1999, Volume 58, Part 220.
Mellenbergh, G.J. Advising on Research Methods: A consultant's companion. Rosmalen: Johannes van Kessel, 2008. 143-180.
The Seybert Commission. Preliminary Report of the Seybert Commission for Investigating Modern Spiritualism. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1887.
Troy Taylor. "How to Have a Seance: Tricks of Fraudulent Mediums." The Haunted Museum. Dark Haven Entertainment, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 5 Nov. 2009. <http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html>
Wiseman, R., Greening, E., Smith, M. "Belief in the paranormal and suggestion in the seance room." British Journal of Psychology. 1 Aug. 2003, Volume 94, Issue 3: 285–297.
Wiseman, R., Morris, R. Guidelines for testing psychic claimants. Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"The Scole Experiment." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
10 Nov 2009. Web.
20 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 131 comments
You gotta love how the portion of the wikipedia article on mediumship addressing the Scole experiment entirely leaves out the findings of the Scole report itself, failing to even cite it as a source. Instead, the only source cited is this joke of an article by Brian Dunning. It's horrifying to think that there are real scientists out there who don't object to this kind of careless, hypocritical, and thoroughly unscientific "debunking."
Kenny Florence, NC
March 15, 2013 1:43pm
Kenny, I have an extremely noisy kitchen table.. Some times its quiet when I play Alex Harvey on my od-pod and then its gets raucous when I play the Pixies..
But when I play Judas Priest... the neighbours car catches fire..
God Bless Rock and Roll!
Satan Bless heavy Metal!
Mud, Pho\'s Slave palace, Gerringong the Brave, NSW
April 01, 2013 1:56am
Just like most of you i too find the skeptics arguments regarding the paranormal almost stupid. I live in Fiji and if anyone wants to see true paranormal things you need to come and visit. James Randi himself was apparently brought in to see the Fire walkers of Beqa island. These guys light a huge fire in a pit heat up stones and till they are white and then stroll on them and the hot coal as if they are on a nice white sandy beach. Mr. Randi left Fiji perplexed but as usual he will never admit it. This is done over and over again by this tribe and the powers were given to them by their ancestors spirits. These guys perform in front of tourists in the middle of open ground with no chance of trickery. We have many such paranormal stuff happening in Fiji. Most are BS but quite a few are real and not explainable.
The writer also fails to explain how that Italian fellow's radio kept talking and receiving voices with all the transmission equipment in the radio removed. This was part of the Scole experiment video. This is a simplistic opinion at best with no real attempt made at debunking.
Reaaz Ali, Fiji
April 08, 2013 6:02pm
I have read a bit about the scole report and many bits saying its a load of rubbish. In my humble opinion i dont believe anything much till i see it with my own eyes,simples. It seems to me that there are many things that cant be explained in our world,creation for example. Big bang my arse,who created it?Anti-matter,who or what created that ?Nothing?who gave it the will to become something,etc etc. I cannot explain or understand these things but i exist therefore something happened eh! I dont believe in god but i cant dismiss the fact that something/one must have created us and the whole universe etc.Science has no explanation at all,just meaningless mathematics that explain everything,except why?how etc and until someone provides a plausible answer for these huge questions,you cant just accept it. My point in all this is that there are so many things that are unexplainable to me,including my own existence,that its very possible that there is something 'outside' our normal experience. I will never see jupiter or any other part of space with my own eyes,yet i believe it exists. I will never see many millions of things,ever, yet i believe they exist. So why not 'ghosts' or something like it. I dont believe personally but ive seen far too little to in real terms,to say 'no,defo its not true'. Only a fool or an arrogant liar would do so. You should never believe anything you read or hear till you see it yourself really,too many agendas and egos. Id love to be proved wrong tho!
parabenjy, england
April 17, 2013 3:06pm
Just because you have not seen spirit does not mean that they are not around us. It must be awful to be of low vibrational energy wasting time disproving spirit. You'll be kicking yourselves when you die.
Annie, England
April 28, 2013 10:32am
Can a spirit kick itself? Would it feel it if it could? Interesting philosophical question there.
Pascal's Wager rears its head again. I'd prefer to be embarrassed in the afterlife then accept dubious things on no evidence in this one.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
April 29, 2013 3:25am
Parabenjy, buy a telescope. We believe in Jupiter and in the rest of space because we can look at it and see it. We explore the theory of the Big Bang because we can see indications that make it likely something like that happened. All you need are the right tools, and you can convince and prove these things yourself. That's part of the scientific method. Someone claims a discovery, and thousands of other scientists around the world skeptically try to disprove or reproduce it.
Whereas, in the paranormal, there is never evidence, only conjecture. You can always fabricate a reason why the skeptic fails to find proof. That's why it's called the supernatural: it is supposed to defy proof. It works the same way as conspiracy theories. There is no way of disproving conspiracy theories to the satisfaction of their subscribers, because their position is that lack of a proof of non-existence, is sufficient proof of existence. They can always fabricate an additional layer to the conspiracy that explains the lack of proof. The same way, you can always come up with some reason why none of the supposed paranormal happenings take place as soon as scientific observation takes place. It's so very convenient to claim that the spirits don't come out when a video camera is recording.
There is nothing inexplicable about the paranormal. But its explications are provided by psychology, not natural science.
Daniel, Switzerland
May 02, 2013 4:57pm
Look how many believers responded. And as usual believers are very loud about their disgruntlement with the skeptics. I don't mean that as a 'dis' I'm just saying please note it. There's a reason for that.
I'd like to propose a few things. 1 is that we don't become Us vs Them. We all want the truth, that's the thing that should bring us together. We aren't trying to prove or disprove anything, we are looking for the truth. 2. is that these questions are important, so when someone is trying to PROVE their truth, they should themselves be the most diligent about observable and repeatable results. I spent 40 years being a 'believer' and now I'm a skeptic. With good reason too, because as I sought answers (and I've had the freedom to do so) the facts became more and more supportive of what we're calling 'the skeptics view' and less and less the 'believers view'. There's no bias, just freedom and an inquisitive mind. As a friend and fellow human, I suggest all that happens in our world is "Natural" and that when someone proposes something 'unnatural', while there is a slim chance that it is just an as yet, undiscovered natural phenomenon. Mostly you can just "follow the money" whomever stands to profit from convincing you of the 'supernatural' is generally the source of it. While you will notice that scientists and skeptics generally don't make their money from convincing you of their 'rightness'. Let's remember we are all 'Explorers' on this mortal coil. We all seek truth.
JohnnyWho, Boston
May 06, 2013 10:53am
Search "saint paul cathedral blitz" in google image. You'll find the truth about scole experiment.
yann celor, paris
May 11, 2013 12:58pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
If this were a believer's article, it would without a doubt be scoffed by the author and many skeptics alike, not only for the lack of proof and abundance of mere ignorant opinion, but even more so for the ads and begging for donations, which can be found on the entire website. To skeptics, this would be an easy indication of "fraud" (as displayed in most "reviews" of theories or opinions that are non-mainstream, and feature ads or donation requests), yet apparantely not so if the website is a skeptics narrow minded opinion?
I was led here with the idea that the scole experiment would be debunked, yet all I got to read was the narrowminded opinion of a person who obviously knows nothing more than me and didn't debunk squat.
I'm sad you wasted my time with this rag of a biased review, in the future (that would be now) perhaps you could, or maybe even should, add a disclaimer in the likes of: "I know as much or as little as you do, read for your enjoyment but nothing more, we'll find out when we die, until then, here's my clueless opinion"
Maybe you'll be a bit more open minded in a next life, I hope so for you, or you'd be stuck on this rock for a few more lifetimes :)
Cheers, your friendly open minded skeptic who doesn't claim to debunk the undebunkable.
whatisthisidonteven, Everywhere
March 07, 2013 1:04pm