Remote Viewing

[John Phoenix]

I'll open another one for your consideration. I don't know much about this subject and I haven't tried it. But for years the U.S. government military had a remote viewing program to try to find out what our enemies were up to and to help the guys in the field with their missions.

 

Basic info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

 

It seems to me that at some point there had to be real scientist who thought it was a good idea to try this stuff.. the Government just don't spend millions of dollars on a project that it feels is just a bunch of bull. I am sure the Government would have used and consulted the top scientist they could find.

 

What do you think.. is there scientific evidence or at least good scientific theories for the existence of remote viewing?

[JillSwift]

I'll open another one for your consideration. I don't know much about this subject and I haven't tried it. But for years the U.S. government military had a remote viewing program to try to find out what our enemies were up to and to help the guys in the field with their missions.

 

Basic info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

 

It seems to me that at some point there had to be real scientist who thought it was a good idea to try this stuff.. the Government just don't spend millions of dollars on a project that it feels is just a bunch of bull. I am sure the Government would have used and consulted the top scientist they could find.

 

What do you think.. is there scientific evidence or at least good scientific theories for the existence of remote viewing?

No. The very studies you mention found nothing. (Reports to the contrary are baseless.)

[bascule]

the Government just don't spend millions of dollars on a project that it feels is just a bunch of bull

 

You have far too much faith in what the government spends money in.

 

What do you think.. is there scientific evidence or at least good scientific theories for the existence of remote viewing?

 

God no

[John Phoenix]

Guys please do me a favor.. instead of just saying no, why don't you show me.. that's what i'm asking for.. pick apart their arguments.. don't just use that one link I gave you.. there are many websites on the web that are pro remote viewing and many people do think there are valid reasons for this remote viewing thing to be real. Find them, study them, and then expound on them. I ask you guys to do this because you are the scientist. Just saying No is too easy.. I expect better from you guys.

 

How about someone doing this: Find a few good examples of the right on 'Hits' from a remote viewing session.. something really uncanny.. and then try to explain how it could have been done. Even if the explanation cannot be based in science but only what you think is possible, or could be possible.

Edited September 7, 2009 by John Phoenix

[bascule]

Guys please do me a favor.. instead of just saying no, why don't you show me..

 

But that would be shifting the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim. The onus is on you to defend it.

 

that's what i'm asking for.. pick apart their arguments.. don't just use that one link I gave you.. there are many websites on the web that are pro remote viewing and many people do think there are valid reasons for this remote viewing thing to be real. Find them, study them, and then expound on them. I ask you guys to do this because you are the scientist. Just saying No is too easy.. I expect better from you guys.

 

I know it's hard, but in this crazy world of logic and evidence based thinking, telling people "I know I'm right, and the proof is out there, go fish" is a huge cop-out. If you feel the evidence is out there, your duty is to aggregate and present it to us, then it can be judged. Asking us to go find evidence to criticize is an enormous cop out.

 

But hey, just for sh*ts and grins:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

 

Psychologist Ray Hyman says that, even if the results were reproduced under specified conditions, they would still not be a conclusive demonstration of the existence of psychic functioning. He blames this on the reliance on a negative outcome—the claims on ESP are based on the results of experiments not being explained by normal means. He says that the experiments lack a positive theory that guides as to what to control on them and what to ignore, and that "Parapsychologists have not come close to (having a positive theory) as yet".[27] Ray Himan also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles", due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny.[10]

 

Science writer Martin Gardner, and others, describe the topic of remote viewing as pseudoscience.[8] Gardner says that founding researcher Harold Puthoff was an active Scientologist prior to his work at Stanford University, and that this influenced his research at SRI. In 1970, the Church of Scientology published a notarized letter that had been written by Puthoff while he was conducting research on remote viewing at Stanford. The letter read, in part: "Although critics viewing the system [scientology] from the outside may form the impression that Scientology is just another of many quasi-educational quasi-religious 'schemes,' it is in fact a highly sophistical and highly technological system more characteristic of modern corporate planning and applied technology."[9] Among some of the ideas that Puthoff supported regarding remote viewing was the claim in the book Occult Chemistry that two followers of Madame Blavatsky, founder of theosophy, were able to remote-view the inner structure of atoms.[9]

Edited September 7, 2009 by bascule

[JillSwift]

Guys please do me a favor.. instead of just saying no, why don't you show me.. that's what i'm asking for.. pick apart their arguments.. don't just use that one link I gave you.. there are many websites on the web that are pro remote viewing and many people do think there are valid reasons for this remote viewing thing to be real. Find them, study them, and then expound on them. I ask you guys to do this because you are the scientist. Just saying No is too easy.. I expect better from you guys.

 

How about someone doing this: Find a few good examples of the right on 'Hits' from a remote viewing session.. something really uncanny.. and then try to explain how it could have been done. Even if the explanation cannot be based in science but only what you think is possible, or could be possible.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, however:

 

I don't feel like debating a web site. If you have an argument or hypothesis you'd like to talk about, present it yourself.

 

The reason you're just getting "no" as an answer is that's all there is to say - there is no known evidence for "remote viewing". It's not up to us to go hunting for it ourselves, it's up to whomever wishes to present the idea of remote viewing as a real phenomenon. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

 

On that: Asking us to examine a "hit" then try to disprove that hit by coming up with alternative explanations is placing the burden of proof on us. It doesn't work that way.

 

However, what we can do is examine an argument or hypothesis for weaknesses. Essentially gauging whether or not the burden of proof has been met satisfactorily.

 

That still requires you to present something that can be examined.

 

And once again, I don't want to debate a web site.

Edited September 7, 2009 by JillSwift
Spellink

[John Phoenix]

But that would be shifting the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim. The onus is on you to defend it.

 

I know it's hard, but in this crazy world of logic and evidence based thinking, telling people "I know I'm right, and the proof is out there, go fish" is a huge cop-out. If you feel the evidence is out there, your duty is to aggregate and present it to us, then it can be judged. Asking us to go find evidence to criticize is an enormous cop out.

 

But hey, just for sh*ts and grins:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

 

No I am not making any claim.. I am just throwing it out there.

 

Hey yes, I can do the research myself and form opinions but you see I am not coming to you with a preconceived notion of right or wrong.. I am asking this to be debated on for or against.. and I expect good arguments from both sides to make the discussion interesting. Like I said, i'm throwing this topic out there. Thus simply because I brought up the subject, for you to demand that I be the one to present evidence is just silly. I want to hear what others think.. that's the whole point.

 

But I would like for and against arguments.. try to make them is all I am asking.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, I can't speak for everyone, however:

 

I don't feel like debating a web site. If you have an argument or hypothesis you'd like to talk about, present it yourself.

 

The reason you're just getting "no" as an answer is that's all there is to say - there is no known evidence for "remote viewing". It's not up to us to go hunting for it ourselves, it's up to whomever wishes to present the idea of remote viewing as a real phenomenon. The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

 

On that: Asking us to examine a "hit" then try to disprove that hit by coming up with alternative explanations is placing the burden of proof on us. It doesn't work that way.

 

However, what we can do is examine an argument or hypothesis for weaknesses. Essentially gauging whether or not the burden of proof has been met satisfactorily.

 

That still requires you to present something that can be examined.

 

And once again, I don't want to debate a web site.

 

You don't feel like debating a website. No Problem. If you don't want to do this you don't have to. In fact, no one says you have to read this thread or even answer this thread. Again, I am not making any claims therefore I do not have to any burden of proof on me.

 

" On that: Asking us to examine a "hit" then try to disprove that hit by coming up with alternative explanations is placing the burden of proof on us. It doesn't work that way. "

 

Yes it does work that way exactly. That's the whole point of this discussion as I brought it up. If you don't want to participate, no one is going to force you to.

 

I refuse to "present something that can be examined" as i am just the host of this topic so to speak. if I were to do that, it would put me in a position for you to say " This is your evidence you presented bla bla bla". I had enough of that crap with the ghost thing, so now, I will not state a personal opinion or present evidence myself, I am just acting as the host, the person who threw this out for discussion.

[iNow]

I refuse to "present something that can be examined" as i am just the host of this topic so to speak. if I were to do that, it would put me in a position for you to say " This is your evidence you presented bla bla bla". I had enough of that crap with the ghost thing, so now, I will not state a personal opinion or present evidence myself, I am just acting as the host, the person who threw this out for discussion.

Just a nickels worth of free advise... This is part of your problem. If you have a claim, make it. Then, we can spend time seeing if it's valid or not. If you have a question, ask it. If we know the answer, we will provide it. However, simply asking us all to go on (what is most likely to be) a wild-goose chase is not something many of us are willing to waste spend our time doing.

 

However, John... Based on the nature of many of your posts, I get the sense that you are very interested in these alternative ideas rooted in parapsychology. That's fine, but I think it's disingenuous to present yourself as "on the fence." You clearly seem to be leaning toward the possibility that these things exist.

 

So, use that.... Go find some research... Share it here and let us know what you think... ask questions about it, etc.

 

But just hosting a thread about something which has zero credible evidence among a group of scientifically-minded people, and expecting them to bring momentum to your thread and get the conversation rolling is not really your best approach.

 

 

I, for one, couldn't really care less to go out and find remote viewing examples and prove them wrong. However, if you were to share one or two specifics here, I'd gladly share my time with you in explanation how/if it is flawed.

 

I bring you this message with kind intentions and a friendly spirit. I hope it is perceived as such.

[JillSwift]

You don't feel like debating a website. No Problem. If you don't want to do this you don't have to. In fact, no one says you have to read this thread or even answer this thread. Again, I am not making any claims therefore I do not have to any burden of proof on me.

If there is no claim, what is there to discuss?

 

" On that: Asking us to examine a "hit" then try to disprove that hit by coming up with alternative explanations is placing the burden of proof on us. It doesn't work that way. "

 

Yes it does work that way exactly. That's the whole point of this discussion as I brought it up. If you don't want to participate, no one is going to force you to.

No, it does in no way work that way. Meaning, it fails to work if done that way. Disproving something is neigh impossible, so the scientific method concerns itself only with the gathering of evidence - observations - and drawing conclusions from that evidence - hypothesis - then testing that hypothesis and expanding it as the testing gathers new evidence until you have a working theory - something that explains the facts observed - which is itself the tested and reviewed and re-tested.

 

One "hit" is meaningless, because there is the possibility of a chance guess being right. We take the misses and the hits both and have a look at whether or not the hits occur with significantly greater frequency that random chance would allow. If so, we considered there may be a real phenomenon. In the case of remote viewing, there was never a greater number of hist than chance would allow, and in several of the studies done for the CIA, the hits were fewer than what chance would produce.

 

This means there is no reason to think there is a phenomenon of "remote viewing". It does not "disprove" it, however, because there is always those 'what if' questions: "What if it only works on certain times o the year. What if it only works when the subjects are intoxicated. What if..."

 

We can't test every possible what if. We can look for evidence, then draw conclusions from it, however, and make real progress.

 

I refuse to "present something that can be examined" as i am just the host of this topic so to speak. if I were to do that, it would put me in a position for you to say " This is your evidence you presented bla bla bla". I had enough of that crap with the ghost thing, so now, I will not state a personal opinion or present evidence myself, I am just acting as the host, the person who threw this out for discussion.

If you don't present a claim, what is it you are "hosting"?

 

The question you asked:

What do you think.. is there scientific evidence or at least good scientific theories for the existence of remote viewing?

There is no evidence supporting remote viewing. Without evidence, there can be no theory.

 

That's it. That's where the scientific method leads us. What else is it you want?

[John Phoenix]

Just a nickels worth of free advise... This is part of your problem. If you have a claim, make it. Then, we can spend time seeing if it's valid or not. If you have a question, ask it. If we know the answer, we will provide it. However, simply asking us all to go on (what is most likely to be) a wild-goose chase is not something many of us are willing to waste spend our time doing.

 

However, John... Based on the nature of many of your posts, I get the sense that you are very interested in these alternative ideas rooted in parapsychology. That's fine, but I think it's disingenuous to present yourself as "on the fence." You clearly seem to be leaning toward the possibility that these things exist.

 

So, use that.... Go find some research... Share it here and let us know what you think... ask questions about it, etc

But just hosting a thread about something which has zero credible evidence among a group of scientifically-minded people, and expecting them to bring momentum to your thread and get the conversation rolling is not really your best approach.

 

 

I, for one, couldn't really care less to go out and find remote viewing examples and prove them wrong. However, if you were to share one or two specifics here, I'd gladly share my time with you in explanation how/if it is flawed.

 

I bring you this message with kind intentions and a friendly spirit. I hope it is perceived as such.

 

I understand your point of view. But hey, I can wait. Someones going to take me up on my challenge. I post about these things in the area of parapsychology because I think it's possible some of them do have roots in real science.. we just haven't found that yet.. but unless it is discussed from fresh perspectives, we never will. That's why I post these things in General Discussion.