This book is based on a BBC Radio 4 series of the same name which was broadcast a couple of years ago. It is written in four parts: The Miracle Workers; Hidden Forces; Towards an Anthropology of the Paranormal; and How to be Psychic. In many respects Forbidden Knowledge is a welcome addition to the skeptical bookshelf, although I do have some reservations about it.
Couttie has made a useful contribution to the continuing Geller saga. During the course of making the radio series he saw Geller bend a spoon. Although Geller claimed not to have used force, Couttie became the fourth person I have met who has quite clearly seen Geller do just that. Couttie has also cleared-up another claim - or counterclaim - by Geller concerning a court case in Israel.
It had been reported in the Daily Mail in January 1974 that an Israeli court ruled that Geller performed his tricks by sleight of hand or other stage tricks and not by some hidden power. Geller denied this, saying 'No. If there was such a court case, wouldn't it be very easy for you to fly to Tel Aviv and find that court case? Of course there wasn't a case. This is elementary. Go to Israel, and find out." Couttie didn't need to go to Israel. He just asked the BBC's office there to check the story. The result is explained in the book.
Two chapters on astrology are generally fair, but I cannot understand why Couttie uses astronomy as an argument against astrology. That astronomy and physics cannot explain astrology is immaterial, although the author of a recently published book Astrology: The Evidence of Science would disagree with me. The question to be asked is Does astrology work?. If it does and astronomy and physics cannot explain how, then what we know of these disciplines is possibly at fault, not astrology. But astrology doesn't work, which Couttie makes clear by giving details of some of the negative experiments which have been conducted.
There are a number of annoying spelling and other small mistakes throughout the book. The Skeptical Inquirer is consistently spelt Enquirer. But more importantly Couttie makes one particular error which I find disconcerting considering he runs a parapsychology course and has designed ESP tests for the Radio Times and a computer network. Although from what I know of them, these tests do not seem to have been badly designed, Couttie should have consulted a psychologist and a statistician with experience in this field. He didn't do so until after the experiments had been conducted. What a chance may have been wasted.
Couttie's error concerns the chances of Doris Stokes getting a positive response from any audience when mentioning the name Rogers (or Rodgers). As Couttie explains:
"Such names seem not uncommon. For instance, in my own local telephone directory the names Rogers and Rodgers, which sound the same, occupy one page out of 712. It is reasonable to estimate that each person listed lives with two others of the same surname. If one went into the street and stopped anyone living in the area covered by the local telephone directory and asked 'Is your name Rogers or Rodgers?" the chances are about one in 237 of getting a positive response."
Can you work out where Bob has gone wrong?
The twelve pages of the final chapter 'How to be Psychic' over-simplifies the task. It tries to show that someone who knows a few pseudo-psychic tricks used by magicians can present himself or herself as a psychic. Couttie suggests conjuring books specialising in mental effects as a suitable source for the would-be-psychic. In fact, very, very few psychics use conjuring tricks. In the life-time of The Skeptical Inquirer I can recall only four who could be accused of this: Jean-Pierre Girard, Suzie Cottrell, James Hydrick, and Jason Michaels. However, if you want a few ideas for party tricks, this chapter is for you.
On the basis of this book Couttie has received some good publicity, appearing on radio and television and having articles written about him and the book. He is certainly the most publicised skeptic in the country at the moment, attributing this to being called a 'reluctant' skeptic.
I cannot unreservedly recommend this book, especially at £9.95, but I would recommend that you look at a copy, then decide for yourself if it is for you.
Answer to the Rogers' problem. Bob Couttie has not taken into consideration that all the people in the telephone directory might be expected to live with two others of the same surname. Dividing 712 by three is therefore unnecessary. The chances of meeting someone called Rogers or Rodgers in the circumstances outlined are somewhere below 1 in 700 bearing in mind that many of the directory entries are for business subscribers.