|
A FARMER FROM NEARBY WHIDBEY ISLAND VISITED
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
HE HAD WITH HIM A CARVED WHALEBONE AND CLAIMED THAT IN HIS HANDS
THE BONE WAS AN EXTREMELY POWERFUL INSTRUMENT CAPABLE OF DETECTING
THE EXISTENCE OF EVEN SMALL QUANTITIES OF WATER. TO SUPPORT HIS
CLAIM HE SAID THAT SEVERAL OF HIS NEIGHBORS ON WHIDBEY HAD TRIED
UNSUCCESSFULLY TO BRING IN WATER WELLS. FINALLY THEY HAD CALLED
UPON HIM FOR HELP. HE HAD TAKEN HIS WHALE BONE, GRASPED ONE FORK
IN EACH HAND, AND WALKED SLOWLY OVER THE GROUND. SUDDENLY THE
POINT OR APEX OF THE BONE HAD DIPPED SHARPLY TOWARD THE GROUND.
WHEN HIS NEIGHBORS HAD DRILLED WELLS AT THE POINTS HE HAD LOCATED
IN THIS FASHION, THEY HAD FOUND WATER. WHAT WAS THE FARMER'S
NAME? FARMER BROWN. THE FARMER ADDED THAT HE WAS UNABLE
TO EXPLAIN HIS PARTICULAR POWER. HIS NEIGHBORS WERE UNABLE TO
USE THE WHALEBONE IN LOCATING WATER. IT HAD TO BE IN HIS HANDS
BEFORE IT WOULD DIP SHARPLY INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF WATER.
HE WAS SOMEWHAT DISTURBED BY HIS ABILITY AND HE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS
THE UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGISTS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EXAMINING
HIM AND TELLING HIM WHY IT WAS THAT HE WAS ABLE TO USE THE BONE
SO EFFECTIVELY WHILE OTHERS COULD NOT. HE HIMSELF THOUGHT IT HAD
SOMETHING TO DO WITH "MAGNETISM" THAT EMANATED FROM HIS BODY.
WHY DID HE GO TO A PSYCHOLOGIST? IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS MAGNETISM
WHY DIDN'T HE GO TO A PHYSICIST OR SOME OTHER NATURAL SCIENTIST?
MAYBE HE THOUGHT IT WAS SOME KIND OF SPIRITUAL SICKNESS.
BUT IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS MAGNETISM WHY WOULD HE THINK OF SICKNESS?
WELL MAYBE HE THOUGHT IT WAS SOME PECULIARITY OF HIS BODY.
THEN WHY NOT A DOCTOR? ANYWAY, HE WOULD BE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE
HIS ABILITY SO THAT THE PSYCHOLOGISTS COULD SEE FOR THEMSELVES.
PERHAPS THEN THEY COULD EXPLAIN IT TO H I M. I'M STILL NOT
SURE I UNDER STAND WHY HE WENT TO A PSYCHOLOGIST. BUT HE
DID. AT THIS POINT IN HIS STORY THE FARMER TOOK A PAPER CUP
AND FILLED IT WITH WATER AND PLACED THE CUP ON THE FLOOR. APPARENTLY
EVEN HIS NEIGHBORS WERE DISTURBED. OTHERWISE WHY DID THEY WAIT
SO LONG TO CALL ON HIM? HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WAITED SO
LONG? IT SAYS "FINALLY THEY HAD CALLED UPON HIM..."
ALSO, WHERE DID THE WHALEBONE COME FROM? IT WAS CLEARLY A DIVINING
ROD "A CARVED WHALEBONE." IT WAS SUPPOSED TO FIND WATER.
DID IT BELONG TO THE FARMER OR TO ONE OF HIS NEIGHBORS WHO WAS
UNABLE TO USE IT? IF IT BELONGED TO A NEIGHBOR, HOW DID THE FARMER
EVER DISCOVER HIS GIFT? IF IT BELONGED TO THE FARMER, WHY DID
HIS NEIGHBORS BOTHER TO TRY USING IT THEMSELVES? AT THIS POINT
IN THE STORY THE FARMER TOOK A PAPER CUP AND FILLED IT WITH WATER
AND PLACED THE CUP ON THE FLOOR. HE THEN GRASPED THE WHALEBONE
AND HELD IT STIFFLY IN FRONT OF HIM AS HE MOVED SLOWLY ABOUT THE
ROOM. WHEN THE APEX OF THE BONE PASSED OVER THE CUP OF WATER HIS
ARMS TREMBLED SLIGHTLY AND THE BONE DIPPED TOWARD THE GROUND.
THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN AND REMARKED THAT THE FORCE
WAS SO POWERFUL HE WAS ALMOST UNABLE TO KEEP THE BONE IN HIS GRIP.
I WONDER HOW CLOSE IT HAD TO BE? HOW PRECISELY HE COULD LOCATE
THE WATER. SUPPOSING IT WAS VERY PRECISE AND LED HIM TO A WATER
COOLER. IF THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE AVAILABLE WHAT IF IT LED
HIM TO A WATER PIPE? THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN. WOULD
IT LEAD HIM TO ICE? OR STEAM? OR ICE CREAM? DO YOU
THINK IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO ANY RESERVOIR OF WATER? IT COULDN'T,
BECAUSE IT WOULD LEAD HIM TO TOO MANY THINGS. ME IT WOULD LEAD
HIM TO LEAVES. THE WATER CONTENT OF LEAVES IS VERY HIGH. IT WOULD
LEAD HIM TO CUCUMBERS. MAYBE THE FARMER WAS TIRED OF TREMBLING?
TREMBLING? THE FARMER SHOWED SIGNS OF STRAIN AND REMARKED
THAT THE FORCE WAS SO POWERFUL HE WAS ALMOST UNABLE TO KEEP THE
BONE IN HIS GRIP. THE PSYCHOLOGIST THANKED THE FARMER FOR HIS
DEMONSTRATION AND SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO TEST THE FARMER'S
ABILITY TO LOCATE WATER UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS, BUT THAT
THIS WOULD REQUIRE SOME PREPARATION. WOULD THE FARMER BE AGREEABLE
TO RETURNING FOR THESE TESTS NEXT WEEK. THE FARMER AGREED AND
PROMISED TO RETURN AT AN APPOINTED TIME. NOW IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
THE "EVIDENCE" THE FAR ME R CITED AS TO HIS ABILITY IS NOT THE
KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO A TRAINED SCIENTIST.
THE FARMER WASN'T CITING EVIDENCE. HE WANTED TO FIND OUT WHY
HE HAD THE ABILITY TO DISCOVER WATER AND NOBODY ELSE DID. HE WAS
DISTURBED BY HIS PECULIARITY. HE WASN'T AT ALL DISTURBED ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD IN FACT DISCOVER WATER. WHAT EVIDENCE
WILL BE SATISFACTORY? TO WHOM? HOW SHALL THE CLAIM OF THE
FARMER BE INVESTIGATED? I WASN'T AWARE THAT HE WAS MAKING A
CLAIM. HE HAD A PROBLEM. LET US SEE HOW THE PSYCHOLOGIST DESIGNED
AN EXPERIMENT WHICH WOULD YIELD DATA BEARING UPON THE PROBLEM.
THE PSYCHOLOGIST HAD A PROBLEM. BUT THEY WERE NOT THE SAME
PROBLEM. WHEN THE FARMER RETURNED TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY
THE NEXT WEEK HE WAS GREETED BY THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND TAKEN TO
ONE OF THE LABORATORY ROOMS. SPREAD AROUND THE FLOOR OF THE ROOM
WERE 10 PIECES OF PLYWOOD ABOUT 1 FOOT BY 1 FOOT IN SIZE. NUMBERS
FROM 1 TO 10 HAD BEEN MARKED UPON THE TOP OF EACH SQUARE. THE
PIECES OF PLYWOOD WERE RESTING ON TIN CANS ABOUT NO. 2 IN SIZE.
THE PSYCHOLOGIST EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD USED A TABLE OF RANDOM
NUMBERS AND HAD PICKED 5 CANS TO BE FILLED WITH WATER WHILE THE
REMAINING 5 WERE LEFT EMPTY. WHAT WAS THE FARMER'S NAME?
FARMER BROWN. NO, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS WHY THE FARMER
DIDN'T RECEIVE A NAME. THE PSYCHOLOGIST DIDN'T RECEIVE
A NAME EITHER. BUT THEY NAMED THE ISLAND. A LOT
OF TIMES. WHIDBEY ISLAND. ONE. TWO. TWICE, THEY
NAMED THE ISLAND AND THE UNIVERSITY. IT WAS WHIDBEY ISLAND
AND WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY AND WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
AND IT WAS A PSYCHOLOGIST. A PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY.
THEY DIDN'T WELL WHY DIDN'T THEY NAME THE PSYCHOLOGIST.
I DON'T KNOW. THEY DIDN'T NAME THE PEOPLE AT ALL. THEY
EVEN DESCRIBE THE WHALEBONE WITH GREAT PARTICULARITY. HE
DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE PEOPLE AT ALL. IT WAS A CARVED WHALEBONE
WITH AN APEX AND TWO FORKS THAT IS TO SAY TWO BRANCHES COMING
TO A FORK AND THE FARMER HAD OWNED IT AND THE FARMER HAD NO NAME.
NO. AND HE ALSO HAD NO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS EITHER.
HE WASN'T TALL, HE WASN'T SHORT, HE WASN'T FAT, HE WASN'T SKINNY.
BUT HE TREMBLED. BUT HE TREMBLED. I WAS THINKING THAT.
WE'RE AWARE THAT HE TREMBLED AND HE WAS AND HE WAS
UPSET AND HE WAS UPSET AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST GREETED THE
FARMER HE ALSO HAD NEIGHBORS HE HAD NEIGHBORS
HE DID HAVE NEIGHBORS AND WERE THE NEIGHBORS UPSET?
WE LL, THEY WAITED ALONG TIME BEFORE COMING TO HIM. THEY
WERE RELUCTANT TO CALL ON HIM? YEAH, SO THEY WERE SOMETHING.
THE NEIGHBORS WERE RELUCTANT TO CALL ON HIM BUT CAME TO
HIM AT LAST HE TREMBLED. HE WAS UPSET. THEY WERE PROBABLY SOMEWHAT
DISTURBED. THE PSYCHOLOGIST WASN'T TROUBLED. HE MERELY GREETED
THE FARMER. IT SAID HE GREETED THE FARMER. RIGHT. DID HE WELCOME
HIM BACK TO THE LABORATORY WHEN HE CAME BACK? HE WAS GREETED
AND THEN HE RETURNED TO THE LABORATORY. HE WAS GREETED AND THEN
TAKEN TO ONE OF THE ROOMS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PSYCHOLOGIST
SAID WHEN HE GREETED HIM? "HELLO, FARMER BROWN?" "HOW DO YOU DO,
FARMER BROWN?" "COME THIS WAY, FARMER BROWN?" "I HOPE YOU'RE
ALL SET, FARMER BROWN, HEE, HEE, HEE?" "WERE READY FOR
YOU, FARMER BROWN?" PERHAPS THE FARMER WAS NOT NAMED FARMER BROWN.
HE SAID, "I'M READY FOR YOU, ABRAHAM." AND THEN ABRAHAM SAID,
"I AM READY." "I AM READY DOCTOR." THE DOCTOR SAID, "COME THIS
WAY ABRAHAM." AND ABRAHAM FOLLOWED HIM OUT. ABRAHAM WAS WEARING
A BUCKSKIN SUIT. NO, PROBABLY NOT. HE WAS WEARING HE WAS
WEARING OVERALLS. OVERALLS. HE MAY HAVE GOTTEN DRESSED
UP BETTER TO SEE THE PSYCHOLOGIST. WELL HE MAY HAVE EXPECTED AN
EXPERIMENT OF SOME SORT SO MAYBE HE WAS JUST WEARING OVERALLS
EVERYDAY CLOTHES BUT HE COULD HAVE WORN SUNDAY CLOTHES. NO,
I IMAGINE THE FARMER WAS WEARING HIS SUNDAY SUIT. BUT SINCE
HE DIDN'T CONFESS TO A PRIEST I DOUBT IF HE WAS RELIGIOUS.
THAT'S RIGHT, SO WHAT DID HE HAVE A SUNDAY SUIT FOR? FOR WEDDINGS
OR FUNERALS. A SUNDAY SUIT IS FOR GOING DRIVING
INTO TOWN. GOING INTO TOWN. FARMERS GO INTO TOWN IN THEIR
REGULAR OVERALLS. I'VE SEEN THEM. THAT'S TRUE. MAYBE IT
WAS FOR GOING TO THE FIREMAN'S ANNUAL DINNER. RIGHT, OR GOING
TO THE UNIVERSITY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S AUXILIARY PERHAPS
HE GOT DRESSED UP YOU THINK HE REGULARLY VISITED THE UNIVERSITY?
NO, BUT PERHAPS HE DID THIS TIME. SO MAYBE HE PUT ON HIS GOOD
SUIT WELL, IT WAS THE SUIT THAT HE PROBABLY WORE WHEN HE
WENT OUT. NOW THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS WEARING
IS A CURIOUS POINT. WAS THE PSYCHOLOGIST WEARING A SUIT ALSO?
BY THE WAY I WOULD EXPECT THAT HE WOULD WEAR HIS REGULAR WORK
CLOTHES WHEN HE CAME IN BECAUSE HE ALWAYS DID IT AND HE USED THE
WHALEBONE IN HIS REGULAR WORK CLOTHES. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE
DID THE FIRST TIME HE CAME BUT NO, HE ALSO DID THE EXPERIMENT
THEN HE HAD TO SHOW HIM I SUSPECT THAT HE CAME BOTH TIMES IN HIS
REGULAR WORK CLOTHES BECAUSE HE WAS PROBABLY GETTING VERY SUPERSTITIOUS
ABOUT THE WHOLE THING AND MAYBE HE THOUGHT THE MAGNETISM HE WANTED
TO COME AS HE ALWAYS CAME WHEN HE DEALT WITH IT. SO ABRAHAM
ARRIVED IN HIS WORK CLOTHES THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS DRESSED IN A
SUIT PROBABLY WITHOUT THE JACKET AND WITH THE TIE OPEN RIGHT.
WITH THE TIE LOOSE AND THE SHIRT OPEN AT THE TOP BUTTON. MAYBE
HIS SLEEVES ROLLED UP. MAYBE HIS SLEEVES ROLLED UP BECAUSE
HE HAD JUST PLACED PLYWOOD OVER CANS AND THE KNEES OF HIS SUIT
WELL HE COULD HAVE GIVEN ORDERS HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT.
AND THE KNEES OF HIS SUIT... IF I KNOW PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES
HE HAD DONE IT HIMSELF. THERE WAS NOBODY TO DO IT FOR HIM?
PROBABLY NOT. THERE'S NO OTHER PEOPLE SO ... PROBABLY
THERE WAS NO MONEY TO BE SPENT ON USING ASSISTANTS FOR THIS EXPERIMENT
SO THAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST'S KNEES WERE STILL DIRTY FROM CRAWLING
AROUND ON THE FLOOR PLACING PLYWOOD OVER TIN CANS. YOU
DON'T THINK THE FLOOR WAS CLEAN? PROBABLY NOT OVERLY CLEAN.
PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORIES ARE NOT SWEPT WITH THAT IMMENSE REGULARITY
WELL THIS WAS ONE OF THE ROOMS. THAT'S RIGHT.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A SMALL ROOM THAT WASN'T FREQUENTLY USED.
WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DUSTY. MMM. WELL
THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO HAVE IT OVERLY CLEAN CONSIDERING THE
FARMER WORKED OUT IN THE EARTH ANYWAY. AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST
WAS WEARING A SHARK SKIN SUIT WITHOUT THE JACKET UNLESS IT WAS
THE SUMMERTIME IN WHICH CASE HE WAS PROBABLY WEARING A TROPICAL
SUIT WITHOUT THE JACKET. WHAT COLOR TROPICAL SUIT?
TAN. A TAN TROPICAL SUIT AND A WHITE-ON-WHITE TRANSPARENT SHIRT
WITH SHORT SLEEVES SO HE DIDN'T HAVE THE SLEEVES ROLLED UP. THAT'S
RIGHT. AND PROBABLY A TIE PIN. AND PINK FRECKLY ARMS
BUT THEN HE WOULD HAVE HAD WELL PERHAPS FRECKLED ARMS BARE ARMS
AND YELLOW HAIR RECEDING YELLOW HAIR I WAS THINKING
OF YELLOW HAIR ON HIS ARMS AND HE HAD RECEDING YELLOW HAIR
ON HIS HEAD AND STEEL RIMMED GLASSES UNLESS HE WAS A SNAPPY PSYCHOLOGIST
AND WORE SHELL RIMMED GLASSES AND HE LOOKED LIKE A VILLAGE INDEPENDENT
DEMOCRAT WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE UNLESS HE WAS A VERY HANDSOME
YOUNG MAN WHICH IS ALSO POSSIBLE AND HE HAD VERY DARK HAIR WITH
VERY BLUE EYES. AND HE WORE A TURTLE NECK SWEATER NOT IN
THE SUMMER HE DIDN'T. NOT IN THE SUMMER. HE WORE A SWEAT
SHIRT AND THE FARMER WAS SOMEWHAT IRRITATED AT HIM BECAUSE THE
FARMER WAS WEARING A SUNDAY SUIT AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST WAS WEARING
A SWEAT SHIRT. ALL RIGHT. GO ON. WHAT DID ABRAHAM SAY?
NOT ABRAHAM. GOD. SAID THAT HE HAD USED A TABLE OF RANDOM
NUMBERS AND HAD PICKED 5 CANS TO BE FILLED WITH WATER WHILE THE
REMAINING 5 WERE LEFT EMPTY. WINSTON. WHO'S WINSTON?
WINSTON HOROWITZ. IS THE DOCTOR? AND WHO'S THE FARMER?
ABRAHAM. NO, ABRAHAM? JUST PLAIN ABRAHAM? ABRAHAM.
HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER 5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS
OF WATER. EGGERS? ABRAHAM EGGERS. IT'S GOOD. ABRAHAM
EGGERS HAD REPORTED TO WINSTON HOROWITZ HE EMPHASIZED THAT
UNDER 5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS WITH WATER AND UNDER
5 OTHERS WINSTON HOROWITZ 5 OTHER SECTIONS WHY COULDN'T
HE BE CALLED WINSTON? BECAUSE HE HAD JEWISH PARENTS? THERE'S NO
REASON NOT TO NO. I'M NOT ANTI-SEMITIC. HE WAS CALLED
WINSTON. HE EVEN PRECEDED THE CIGARETTE. HE MAY HAVE BEEN NAMED
AFTER WINSTON CHURCHILL. HIS MOTHER AND FATHER REMEMBERED THAT
SPEECH "ON THE BEACHES..." "WE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE BEACHES-
"WE WILL FIGHT THEM IN THE CITIES... " "BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS"
OH THAT. AND HIS PARENTS HAD WITH TEARS IN THEIR EYES REMEMBERED
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT AND WOULD HAVE CALLED HIM FRANKLIN DELANO
ROOSEVELT BUT THEY REMEMBERED THE SPEECH OF WINSTON CHURCHILL
AND THEY NAMED HIM WINSTON HOROWITZ. MAYBE BECAUSE IF HIS
NAME WAS FRANKLIN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FRANKIE AND THEY DIDN'T
LIKE THAT NAME THINKING IT WAS VULGAR. BUT WINSTON HE WOULD JUST
BE CALLED WINSTON ALL THE TIME WELL THEY WERE OR WINNIE
THEY PROBABLY HAD NEVER HEARD WINNIE AND WOULD HAVE IMAGINED WINSTON
LENT A CERTAIN DIGNITY AND PROBABLY WOULD ALWAYS HAVE CALLED UPON
THE REMEMBRANCE OF CHURCHILL BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY WINSTON THEY
HAD EVER HEARD MAYBE HE'S WINSTON DELANO WINSTON DELANO HOROWITZ?
THAT'S QUITE POSSIBLE WINSTON DELANO HOROWITZ BUT NOBODY WOULD
HAVE KNOWN THAT BECAUSE HE PROBABLY SIGNED IT WINSTON D. HOROWITZ
WHICH HE USED TO SIGN ALL HIS CHECKS. IF HIS NAME WAS WINSTON
HOROWITZ THEY ASSUMED WINSTON WOULD HAVE REMINDED EVER Y ONE OF
CHURCHILL WHEREAS IT REMINDED EVERYONE OF THE CIGARETTE LATER.
THAT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT. IN THOSE DAYS THEY HAD LUCKY STRIKES
WHICH HAD GIVEN UP ITS GREEN. WAS IT LUCKY STRIKE THAT HAD THE
GREEN PACKAGE AND THE GREEN METAL CASE THEY HAD RALEIGHS
AND CHESTERFIELD. NO THEY HAD A GREEN METAL CASE WHICH
THEY PHILIP MORRIS THERE WAS IN FACT AN AD THAT
SAID "LUCKY STRIKE GOES TO WAR" WHICH MEANT THAT THE LUCKY STRIKE
GAVE UP ITS GREEN BECAUSE THE GREEN WAS A METALLIC INVOLVED A
METALLIC COLOR AND THEY GAVE IT UP FOR THE WAR EFFORT.
OH REALLY? YES, IN FACT WHEN I WAS IN KANSAS LAST YEAR
TED BERRIGAN AND/ PICKED UP SEVERAL OF THE OLD CANS OF LUCKY STRIKE
WITH THE GREEN PAINT ON THEM AND THEN WE REMEMBERED THE SLOGAN
"LUCKY STRIKE GOES TO WAR. "AND I THINK THAT THEY HAD NOT KNOWN
OF THE BRANDS LIKE WINSTON. THEN YOU SEE THE PSYCHOLOGIST
AS BEING VERY YOUNG. YES I THINK HE PROBABLY WAS A YOUNG
PSYCHOLOGIST YOU SEE HIM AS BEING SOMETHING LIKE 27
PROBABLY. HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN VERY OLD BUT I DOUBT IT. PROBABLY
EVERYONE ELSE KEPT SENDING HIM LOWER AND LOWER IN THE ECHELON
AND FINALLY HE WAS SENT HERE. THEY PROBABLY GAVE HIM TO
THE YOUNGEST SNAPPIEST YOUNG DOCTORATE AROUND. ONE WHOSE PROJECTS
WERE NOT INVOLVED TO SUCH AN EXTENT. OF COURSE HE HAD TO
HAVE THE TIME. THEY HAD TO HAVE THE TIME TO EVEN CONSIDER
THE SUBJECT. THEY GAVE HIM TO THE FREE DOCTORATE. SO IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE A YOUNGER MAN. ANY OF THE EUROPEANS WOULD HAVE SOUNDED
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ANYWAY IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN AN AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGIST I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A EUROPEAN BORN BEHAVIORIST AND
THERE ARE OLDER AMERICAN BEHAVIORISTS BUT I SOMEHOW SEE HIM AS
A YOUNG 27, 28 YEAR OLD PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE FARMER? NAMED AFTER
WINSTON CHURCHILL. AND WHAT ABOUT ABRAHAM? I SEE ABRAHAM AS BEING
A MIDDLE-AGED MAN. I WOULD THINK OF ABRAHAM AS BEING ABOUT 50.
WHY DON'T YOU GO ON? YES. HE EMPHASIZED BUT ABRAHAM
WASN'T AWARE OF HIS GIFT I DON'T THINK UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY
NO. PROBABLY IT WAS A LATE DISCOVERY. HE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER
5 OF THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD WERE CANS WITH WATER AND UNDER 5
OTHER SECTIONS WERE DRY CANS AND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EMPTY
AND FILLED CANS WAS PURELY A RANDOM ONE. THE PSYCHOLOGIST NOW
WANTED THE FARMER TO TAKE HIS WHALEBONE AND ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE
THE 10 SQUARES OF PLYWOOD INTO 2 GROUPS ONE GROUP WOULD BE THE
5 COVERING THE CANS FILLED WITH WATER AND THE OTHER GROUP WOULD
BE THE 5 COVERING THE EMPTY CANS THE FARMER DID NOT NEED TO MAKE
HIS CHOICE IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER HE WAS MERELY TO DIVIDE THE
SET OF 10 SECTIONS INTO 2 GROUPS OF 5 EACH. LET US EXAMINE THIS
EXPERIMENT IN SOME DETAIL. WE SHALL PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO
THE KINDS OF CHOICES THE FARMER MIGHT MAKE THE HYPOTHESIS WHICH
THE EXPERIMENTER IS TESTING AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TEST OF
THE HYPOTHESIS IS TO BE MADE. THE PSYCHOLOGIST MAY REASON IN THIS
WAY, "LET US ASSUME THAT THE FARMER DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PARTICULAR
POWERS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO LOCATE PERHAPS YOU SHOULD CALL THE
FARMER ABRAHAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGIST DR. HOROWITZ AS YOU READ.
DR. HOROWITZ MAY REASON IN THIS WAY, "LET US ASSUME THAT ABRAHAM
DOES NOT POSSESS ANY PARTICULAR POWERS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO LOCATE
WATER WITH HIS WHALEBONE THAT THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH IS OPERATING
IN DETERMINING HIS CHOICE IS CHANCE." THIS IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS
WHICH THE EXPERIMENT IS DESIGNED TO TEST. THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
OF THE EXPERIMENT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED IN A SIMPLE WAY BY THE RULES
FOR PERMUTATIONS AND COMBINATIONS. PERMUTATIONS REFER TO THE NUMBER
OF ARRANGEMENTS (ORDERS) IN WHICH A SET OF n DISTINCT OBJECTS
MAY BE ARRANGED. IN GENERAL THE NUMBER OF PERMUTATIONS OF n
DISTINCT OBJECTS TAKEN r AT A TIME IS GIVEN BY THE EQUATION
nPr = n!/(n- r) WHERE n! IS CALLED FACTORIAL n AND
REPRESENTS (n)(n-1)(n-2) AND SO ON OR THE PRODUCT OF ALL THE SUCCESSIVE
INTEGERS FROM n TO 1. IN THE PROBLEM AT HAND THE NUMBER
OF ORDERS IN WHICH 5 SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD MAY BE SELECTED FROM
THE AVAILABLE 10 IS 1OP5 = 10!/(10-5)! = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)/(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)
= (10)(9)(8)(7)(6) = 30,240. THIS FIGURE GIVES US EVERY POSSIBLE
ORDER I.E. ANY I OF THE 10 SECTIONS MAY BE SELECTED FIRST. THIS
CHOICE MAY BE FOLLOWED BY ANY I OF THE REMAINING 9. THIS CHOICE
MAY BE FOLLOWED BY ANY 1 OF THE REMAINING 8 AND SO ON UNTIL 5
HAVE BEEN SELECTED BUT IN THIS EXPERIMENT THE PSYCHOLOGIST IS
NOT GOING TO DEMAND THAT THE FARMER SELECT THE SET OF 5 CANS CONTAINING
WATER IN THE PARTICULAR ORDER IN WHICH THE PSYCHOLOGIST PUT THE
WATER INTO THEM OR IN ANY OTHER PARTICULAR ORDER. ALL THAT THE
PSYCHOLOGIST IS INTERESTED IN IS THE SET OF 5. ONCE THE SET HAS
BEEN SELECTED AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED THE SET OF 10 5 8 2 3
SELECTED IN THAT ORDER IS EQUIVALENT TO THE SET 8 3 2 10 AND 5
SELECTED IN THAT ORDER OR IN ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORDER. IT MAY
BE NOTED THAT THE SET OF 5 SELECTED OBJECTS OR SECTIONS MAY THEMSELVES
BE ARRANGED IN (5)(4)(3)(2)(1) = 120 ORDERS ACCORDING TO FORMULA
5. THUS DIVIDING 30,240 BY 120 ORDERS WE OBTAIN 252 WAYS IN WHICH
A SET OF 5 OBJECTS MAY BE SELECTED FROM 10 IF THE ARRANGEMENT
IS IGNORED. IN GENERAL THE NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS (ARRANGEMENT
IGNORED) OF n DISTINCT OBJECTS TAKEN r AT A TIME IS GIVEN
BY THE EQUATION nCr = NPR/rPr = n!/(n-r)!/r! = n!/r!(NR)! OR IN
THE PRESENT PROBLEM 1OC5 = (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)/[(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)][(5)(4)(3)(2)(1)]
= (10)(9)(8)(7)(6)/(5)(4)(3)(2)(1) = 30,240/252. NOW THE BEST
THAT ABRAHAM COULD POSSIBLY DO IN THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT WOULD
BE TO SELECT THE PARTICULAR SET OF 5 WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THOSE
WITH WATER IN THE CANS AND THIS PARTICULAR SELECTION WOULD BE
1 OUT OF 252 POSSIBILITIES. IF ONLY CHANCE FACTORS WERE OPERATING
IN DETERMINING THE SELECTION AND THIS EXPERIMENT WAS REPEATED
AN INDEFINITELY LARGER NUMBER OF TIMES, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT THIS
PARTICULAR SET TO BE SELECTED WITH A FREQUENCY APPROACHING 1/252.
THUS 1 DIVIDED BY 252 GIVES A VALUE OF .004 (MORE PRECISELY .00397)
AND THIS MAY BE REGARDED AS A PROBABILITY. AS POINTED OUT EARLIER
WE SHALL REGARD PROBABILITY AS A STATEMENT CONCERNING THEORETICAL
RELATIVE FREQUENCY. WE SAY THAT THE VALUE OF P IS .004 OR THAT
THIS RESULT WOULD BE EXPECTED BY CHANCE ALONE ONLY ABOUT 4 TIMES
IN 1000. THIS VALUE OF P IS OBVIOUSLY SMALLER THAN .05 WHICH WE
AGREED TO REGARD AS SIGNIFICANT. WE ALSO AGREED THAT A SIGNIFICANT
VALUE OF P WOULD RESULT IN A REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS BEING
TESTED. HENCE IF ABRAHAM IS ABLE TO CHOOSE THIS PAR SET OF 5 WITH
THE AID OF HIS WHALEBONE THEN WE SHOULD UNDOUBTEDLY FEEL THAT
THE PROBABILITY OF THIS OCCURRING BY CHANCE ALONE IS SUFFICIENTLY
SMALL THAT THE HYPOTHESIS WITH ITS RELATED ASSUMPTIONS IS NOT
CONSIDERED TENABLE. AT THIS POINT WE SHALL DO WELL TO CONSIDER
WHAT THE REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS MEANS. IF THE HYPOTHESIS
IS REJECTED THIS MEANS ONLY THAT THE EXPERIMENTER IS NOT WILLING
TO ASSUME THAT CHANCE DETERMINED THE SELECTION. IT DOES NOT PROVE
THAT THE WHALEBONE HAS HAD ANY PARTICULAR INFLUENCE UPON ABRAHAM'S
CHOICE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH. THE PSYCHOLOGIST MIGHT BE WILLING TO ASSUME
OR INFER THAT THE WHALEBONE PLAYED SOME PART IN ABRAHAM'S SELECTION
BUT HE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY DO THIS ONLY IF OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
HAD BEEN RULED OUT IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLS. WHAT ARE
SOME OF THESE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS? WITHOUT THE EXPERIMENTER
KNOWING ABOUT IT ABRAHAM MAY HAVE USED THE TOE OF HIS FOOT TO
TAP THE CANS UNDER THE BOARD. SINCE IN THIS MANNER THE CANS FILLED
WITH WATER COULD EASILY BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EMPTY CANS IT
WOULD ACCOUNT FOR A PERFECT SELECTION UPON ABRAHAM'S PART. IF
THIS WAS THE BASIS OF ABRAHAM'S SELECTION THEN OBVIOUSLY THE WHALEBONE
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CHOICES. ABRAHAM MIGHT EVEN DENY THAT
HE HAD USED THIS CUE THE SOUND OF THE CAN WHEN TAPPED WITH HIS
FOOT IF QUESTIONED ABOUT IT. BUT THE PSYCHOLOGIST KNOWS THAT MANY
OF OUR CHOICES AND JUDGMENTS DR. HOROWITZ? BUT DR. HOROWITZ
KNOWS THAT MANY OF OUR CHOICES AND JUDGMENTS ARE BASED UPON FACTORS
OF WHICH WE ARE NOT AWARE. IT WOULD BE DR. HOROWITZ'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO HAVE RULED OUT BY OBSERVATION OR BY SOME OTHER CONTROL THIS
POSSIBILITY. AGAIN DR. HOROWITZ WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ABRAHAM
HAD NOT TAPPED THE TIP OF THE WHALEBONE ON THE TOPS OF THE PLYWOOD
SECTIONS. IF ABRAHAM HAD DONE THIS HIS CHOICE MIGHT BE DETERMINED
BY THE DIFFERENCES IN SOUND OF THE SECTIONS COVERING THE WATER-FILLED
CANS AND THE SECTIONS COVERING THE EMPTY CANS. HE COULD THUS MAKE
A PERFECT SELECTION OF THE FIVE WATER-FILLED CANS AND THE EXPERIMENTER
WOULD REJECT THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE BUT NOTE AGAIN THAT THE
REJECTION OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY
OF ABRAHAM'S CLAIM CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE OF THE WHALEBONE.
ANOTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE PERFECT SELECTION MIGHT BE
THAT DR. HOROWITZ HAD SPILLED SOME OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR IN
FILLING THE CANS. THIS WATER MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY MOPPED
UP BUT SLIGHT CUES MAY HAVE REMAINED THE ABSENCE OF DUST OR THE
CLEANLINESS OF THE FLOOR UNDER THE SECTIONS OF PLYWOOD CONTAINING
WATER AS A RESULT OF THE MOPPING MIGHT PROVIDE CUES FOR ABRAHAM'S
CHOICE. OR PERHAPS DR. HOROWITZ GAVE SOME SIGN A HOLDING OF HIS
BREATH OR AN UNCONSCIOUS BITING OF HIS LIPS AS ABRAHAM MOVED THE
WHALEBONE OVER THE SECTIONS CONTAINING WATER. ABRAHAM'S CHOICE
MIGHT THUS BE BASED UPON ONE OF THESE UNCONSCIOUS GESTURES OR
REACTIONS OF DR. HOROWITZ WITHOUT OF COURSE DR. HOROWITZ AND PERHAPS
EVEN ABRAHAM BEING CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THESE CUES WERE
THE BASIS OF ABRAHAM'S CHOICE. WHEN WILL HE EVER GET TO THE
WHALEBONE? OR WHEN WILL THE WHALEBONE GET TO HIM? LOOK
SUPPOSING A MAN COMES BY WHILE ABRAHAM IS OUT IN THE FIELD WITH
HIS WHALEBONE.. AND HE COMES B Y SOMEHOW IN A HELICOPTER AND HE
TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS OF ABRAHAM... AND ABRAHAM IS BENT OVER HIS WHALEBONE
AND HE TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS FROM RIGHT ABOVE HIS HEAD AND YOU SEE
THE TOP OF ABRAHAM'S HEAD AND HIS BACK AND IT'S BENT AND YOU SEE
HIS ARMS DOWN AND HE DEVELOPS THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THERE IS NO
WHALEBONE. HE JUST LOOKS LIKE A HUNCHBACK. WHAT IF ABRAHAM'S
LYING? WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? THAT WOULD MEAN THAT HE NEVER
FOUND WATER OUT IN THE FIELD BUT IT WOULD MEAN THAT HE'D HAVE
TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT IN THE LABORATORY OR IT WOULDN'T BE WORTH
HIS WHILE. WELL, HE'D BE FOUND OUT TOO QUICKLY. SO
THAT THE QUESTION OF LYING IS NOT A QUESTION OF HIS HAVING NO
POWER BUT HIS HAVING POWER TO FIND THE WATER IN A LABORATORY.
OR HAVING POWER OVER PSYCHOLOGISTS. WHICH IS THE POWER
OF FINDING WATER IN A LABORATORY. SO ABRAHAM SPECIALIZES IN PSYCHOLOGY
LABORATORIES. AND HE'S NEVER FOUND WATER IN THE FIELD. BUT HE
HAS A WHALEBONE. AND HE COMES IN. AND HE DEMONSTRATES HIS POWER
WITH THE WHALEBONE OVER A PAPER CUP. AND THEN HE TELLS DR. HOROWITZ,
"I CAN FIND WATER IN THE FIELD, LOOK." AND HE'S CONFIDENT THAT
WHEN DR. HOROWITZ SETS UP THE EXPERIMENT SOMEHOW OR OTHER HE'LL
FIND WATER, NOW DR. HOROWITZ SUSPECTS SOMETHING OF THIS SORT.
DR. HOROWITZ HAS ALREADY IN EXAMINING THE EVENT CONSIDERED THAT
ABRAHAM HAS FORCED HIM INTO ERRORS OF NEGLIGENCE OR ERRORS OF
PHYSICAL INADEQUACY. THAT'S RIGHT, HE CAN'T HEAR HIM WHEN
HE TAPS WITH HIS FOOT AND THAT HE CAN'T HEAR HIM THAT HE
CAN'T SEE LEAN OVER AND TAP THE CANS WITH THE WHALEBONE. OR FINALLY
THAT ABRAHAM HAS THAT HE'S SLOPPY AND LEAVES WATER ALL
OVER THE FLOOR THAT HE'S GOTTEN HIM NERVOUS ENOUGH TO BE
SLOPPY AND LEAVE SPOTS OF WATER ON THE FLOOR OR THAT ABRAHAM MANAGES
TO ELICIT FROM HIM PHYSICAL CUES INVOLUNTARILY THAT IS
HOLDING HIS BREATH. GOES PALE. DR. HOROWITZ SEEMS TO BE
WAITING FOR ABRAHAM. AND ABRAHAM.. AND TO EXPECT THAT HE WAS THAT
HE WAS VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABRAHAM. AND ABRAHAM SEEMS TO BE WAITING
FOR DR. HOROWITZ. HE'S LOOKING FOR DR. HOROWITZ AND DR. HOROWITZ
IS LOOKING FOR HIM. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK HE FOUND IT?
HE DIDN'T FIND IT. HE MUST HAVE FOUND IT OR DR. HOROWITZ
WOULDN'T HAVE ABANDONED THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. WELL HE COULDN'T
HAVE DONE IT MORE THAN 3 TIMES. WHY NOT? HE'D HAVE
GOTTEN BORED. SAY HE DID IT TWICE. DID WHAT?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL HOW MANY CANS DID HE FIND?
FIVE. WHAT IF HE FOUND 4? ON THE FIRST TRY OR THE
SECOND? ON THE FIRST TRY. THEY'D RUN THE EXPERIMENT
AGAIN. WHAT IF HE FOUND IT ON THE SECOND? THEY'D
STILL HAVE TO RUN IT AGAIN. WELL WHAT IF HE FOUND 4 ON BOTH SHOTS?
THE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONCLUSIVE. IN A WELL DESIGNED
EXPERIMENT THESE FACTORS AND MANY OTHERS THAT THE EXPERIMENTALIST
MAY SUGGEST MUST BE CONTROLLED IF LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE TO BE
DRAWN CONCERNING THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT. IT IS TO BE EMPHASIZED
THAT THESE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE DERIVED FROM THE STRUCTURE
OF THE EXPERIMENT AND THE NATURE OF THE CONTROLS EXERCISED. THEY
DO NOT COME FROM THE TEST OF THE STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS. THE STATISTICAL
TEST INDICATES ONLY THE PROBABILITY OF A PARTICULAR SET OF RESULTS
UPON THE BASIS OF THE STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTED, NAMELY THAT
CHANCE ALONE IS DETERMINING THE OUTCOME. IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT
THE FARMER BASES HIS CHOICE ON THE WHALEBONE OR THAT THE WHALEBONE
IS IN ANY WAY INFLUENTIAL IN DETERMINING THE OUTCOME. IF THE EXPERIMENTER
REJECTS THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE HE MUST STILL EXAMINE THE STRUCTURE
OF HIS EXPERIMENT AND THE NATURE OF HIS EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLS
IN MAKING WHATEVER EXPLANATION HE DOES MAKE AS TO WHY HE OBTAINED
THE PARTICULAR RESULTS HE DID. NEED LESS TO SAY MOST PSYCHOLOGISTS
IN TERMS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF EXPERIMENTS UPON RELATED PROBLEMS
WOULD WANT TO EXAMINE CRITICALLY AND CAREFULLY THE EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROLS IN THE FACE OF PERFECT RESULTS UPON THE PART OF THE FARMER.
THE ACCUMULATED EVIDENCE UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVINING RODS
IN LOCATING WATER IS NEGATIVE.
|
|
