From: Old Baldie Subject: Re: Virtuality as a system of actions Date: 4 Oct 91 12:40:52 BST Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster In article <1991Sep28.202307.23511@milton.u.washington.edu>, smoliar@maclane.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes: > > In article <1991Sep25.022239.28221@milton.u.washington.edu> > HSR4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Old Baldie) writes: >> [items deleted] >>Although I understand the point you're making (and accept it), the difference >>between the subjects under study by a parapsychologist and those under study >>by the animal communications researchers is that the former have a strong >>tendency to be charlatans and confidence tricksters, while one would assume >>(carefully) that a signing ape is not likely to pretend to have understood >>abstract concepts unless he/she already has a detailed understanding of the >>abstract concept of deception... >> > Perhaps a bit of context is required here. Gould's article was a review of the > book, SCIENCE: GOOD, BAD AND BOGUS, by Martin Gardner. One of Gardner's > favorite targets has been Uri Geller. The real target of Gardner's flames, > however, was not Geller himself but the rather ludicrous study of his "talents" > which was undertaken at SRI. Admittedly, SRI researchers are obliged to pursue > research for which they can raise funding; but I do not think any readers of > this bulletin board would accuse them of being "charlatans and confidence > tricksters." The point Gardner and Gould wanted to make is that at least > one skilled conjurer could have told them more about Geller than they were > about to establish by their "scientifically correct" techniques. Perhaps I should have emphasised differently - my reference to charlatans and confidence tricksters DOESN'T relate to the researchers, but to their subjects: ... the difference between the *subjects* under study by a parapsychologist and those under study by the animal communications researchers is that the *former* (i.e., subjects under study by a parapsychologist) have a strong tendency to be... >> >>Incidentally, the use of a professional conjuror recently in the assessment >>of claims made by a certain European researcher turned what should have been >>a simple task into a circus. If you would like the references (Nature), I >>will be happy to post them. The conjuror is someone for whom I have a great >>deal of respect, not least because they have spoken out against one of the >>foremost quacks of our time (see sci.skeptic), but the methods he advocated >>brought the whole process into (scientific) disrepute since he was applying >>techniques more appropriate for the investigation of those with a criminal >>bent rather than for those who had exercised bad scientific judgement. >> > I, for one, would like to see that citation. I would not want to take a > defending position until I have read that article. I would also be willing > to accept that the line between criminal fraud and bad scientific judgment > is a narrow one. I, for one, have not established in my own mind whether > the activities of Sir Cyril Burt should, in retrospect, be judged as criminal. > Nevertheless, until I know more about this particular matter, I would be > willing to opine that a sound scientific judgment should be able to jump > through ANY hoops, even those of a criminal investigation. Here's the citation: 'Nature' references concerning the involvement of a professional magician in investigation of 'scientific' claims: The paper which started things: Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. Davenas, E. et al, Nature Vol. 333, 30 June 1988, pp 816-818. The paper carried an 'editorial reservation', since the claim being made was startling: dilute an antibody to such an extent that there is a negligible chance of any molecule of the original material remaining, and yet antibody activity is 'demonstrable'. Nature's Editor, John Maddox, arranged with Professor Benveniste (whose name appeared last on the list of authors) that independent investigators should be allowed to observe repetitions of the experiments. (The experiments appeared to support claims made for homeopathic remedies, which probably explains the reservations). The independent investigators were John Maddox (Editor), James Randi (MacArthur Foundation fellow and professional magician), and Walter W. Stewart (chiefly concerned in the study of errors and inconsistencies in scientific literature, and with the subject of misconduct in science). The subsequent report appeared under News And Views: "High-dilution" experiments a delusion. Nature Vol. 334, 28 July 1988, pp 287-290. This report essentially dismissed the claims as arising from carelessness and 'bad' science. Maddox had suggested that he withold publication of the adverse report if Benveniste would withdraw the original paper or write to qualify his findings and interpretation. Clearly Benveniste refused. Also in News And Views, (same issue, p 291) Benveniste was given the opportunity to reply. He lambasted the report in general and certain aspects in particular (such as the taping of documents to the ceiling). The media covered some aspects of the affair, and generally the impression given was that Maddox et al were made to look foolish. The taping of documents to the ceiling was a key factor in this. However, Benveniste did not come out of the affair unscathed, and his credibility in the orthodox scientific community must inevitably have taken a knock. Subsequent publications in Nature were: Evidence of non-reproducibility (Correspondence) Vol. 334, 18 August 1988, p 559. Seagrave, J. Benveniste on the Benveniste affair (News And Views) Vol. 335, 27 October 1988, p 759, Benveniste, J. Waves caused by extreme dilution (News And Views) Vol. 335, 27 October 1988, pp 760-763, Maddox, J. This may not be an exhaustive list, but the index gives little help and I had to resort to a manual brute-force search to find related references. (Apologies if this part of the thread seems totally out of place). >> >>It's also interesting that you mention the theatrical metaphor, since in the >>multi-media field (which could be regarded as a subset of VR ?) at least one >>product - Macromind Director - uses that for its animation and also its >>authoring package (Director Interactive); the screen is a stage, the objects >>active upon it are cast members, and so on, and the last (MM) company I worked >>for was heavily biassed towards television production methods, skills, and >>standards - visual impact was king (or queen, since the director was a woman), >>and many tricks of the trade were used (especially in graphics, where depth >>and texture cueing were vital in the presentation of credible (albeit >>stylised) images (chromosomes, and DNA synthesis, in case you wondered), and >>human psychology played a large part in the design of even the simplest text >>feedback (such as statements of approval or correction). >> >>If you'd like to pursue this peripheral thread independent of sci.virtual- >>worlds (the moderator may feel this is not pertinent) I am happy to engage >>in discussion until the (virtual) cows come home... >> > Actually, I think the theatrical thread is DEFINITELY pertinent. I worry a bit > that we are spending more time on fancy new hardware than on some relatively > fundamental questions of interaction and communication. A few theater > technicians could bring significant intuition to the "virtual arena." > Are there any projects which have engaged such talents? It depends on exactly how you classify the talents, but the managing director mentioned above had a BBC production background, directed the video sequences to be used in the MM product, (also produced, directed, provided special effects etc., etc., in various theatrical items, some 'al fresco', and the last time I had contact, was obtaining rights to certain literary works in order to set them up as television series'). However, since the company is still, as far as I am aware, the subject of a DTI investigation (in liquidation), I don't think I can discuss the product in detail (especially since it might embarrass the client, who has paid for the product but not yet received more than a demo). I'm not as clued up on some of the facets of Apple's System 7 as I should be, but I have a feeling that they are exploring the use of 'guides' - male and female cartoon characters who will assist Users with questions. (I may be off-beam here and it might be Xerox or some other company employing the metaphor - if you know differently I'd welcome some feedback). I gather that the characters' mouth will open and shut in the style of the best puppet shows to match the speech (not clear if this is to be balloons or actual digitised sentences). If we flesh that out in terms of both the theatrical metaphor (the Prologue, and in some productions, the use of a character who comments aloud to the audience on the action on-stage) and in terms of the greater potential of VR, then what we have is still a Guide: an artifical (but not necessarily so) creation devised to conduct participants through one or more particular routes through an environment (which may be 'real' or artificial). To give one specific instance of potential application (created off the top of my head without Deep Thought): A group of students are examining Japanese culture. Their VR environment is re-created from actual sites in Japan, and they can travel wherever they wish (even into the sea if the desire takes them). The individuals they see at work and play can be encountered (in japanese if this is part of a language course) and interrogated. Their 'guide' is an artificial samurai or courtesan (depends upon their requirement) who can either be followed and listened to, or who can be consulted while investigating sections which are 'off the beaten track' - perhaps the slopes of Mount Fuji. A sort of Pick 'n' Mix experience, if you will. Course credits may be linked to a combination of guided and exploratory elements. The course tutor may be either 'obviously' present or not (cf language laboratories where a tutor may eavesdrop on any individual student's interaction) - if you want to be wildly speculative, how about the tutor monitoring as a bird ? None of this is new - I think that Hypercard stacks offer the facility to navigate either everywhere, or only through established links. The thorny problem of exactly who decides on what should form the basis for the guide (both the form and function), and what routes would be appropriate for any particular study in any environment, I have carefully (or craftily) eschewed... > -- > Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science > National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace > Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511 > Internet: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (USE THIS ADDRESS; SOURCE LINE MAY BE WRONG!) +--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | Peter G. Q. Brooks HSR4@OX.VAX.AC.UK | | | Health Services Research Unit | | | Dept of Public Health & Primary Care | | | University of Oxford | | +--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | +44 (0) 865 224375 8.30 am - 7.30pm | | +--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+