Remote Viewing Proven !!!

[Shannow]

In the '90s, I was reading a lot of the works of Puthoff and Targ from Stanford Research Institute, the civilian works, not the black stuff.


Anyway, this (bold) from a prominent sceptic...

Quote:
Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.


So why should certain areas of exploration require a different burden of proof to the ones that link aspirin and heart attacks ?

Or is the burden of scientific proof so lax that our "dead certain facts' (lets say statins and fluoride for examples), are on a par with mystiscism and needs to be tightened anyway ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html

(Link chosen only as it had the quote in context, not an endorsement of the publication).

 

[Pop_Rivit]

There are also people who believe the earth is flat, and they claim they can provide proof too. To use source material similar to yours, a paper published in Memory and Cognition by Stephen Gray and Dr. David Gallo from the University of Chicago tested psychic and clairvoyant skeptics against believers, all with similar years of education and academic performance. While the study found that there was no difference between the groups' memory recall or accuracy, the skeptics far outperformed the believers in evaluating arguments, logic tests and vocabulary tests.

While the research does not prove poor analytic abilities lead to believing in psychic powers, the results are consistent with the theory that the lack of these skills makes the person more prone to believe in psychic abilities, including "remote viewing".

I'm not a magician myself, but I do know that what magicians do is sleight of hand and nothing more than a trick. Remote viewers psychics, clairvoyants, are simply using well-proven tricks demonstrated by professional and amateur magicians every day.

 

[Shannow]

Pops, you might want to re-read the premise.

Either the scientific proofs "prove" Remote viewing, OR, and my premise, the "proofs" used to prove science that we use in everyday life are too lax, allowing remote viewing to be "proven".

Not talking beliefs, I'm talking the "burden of proof" that allows something to be accepted as a fact.

e.g. You brought up the flawed TV (IQ and brain structure) study the other day, and the foot structure/shoe argument...all evidence at what I'm getting at here (plus cognative bias on the basis of the researchers and restaters)

 

[Merkava_4]

Seems like binoculars would be a form or remote viewing.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Seems like binoculars would be a form or remote viewing.


Yeah, or access through remote console or remote desktop to your computer screen. Or those Wifi cameras, or drones. I thought it might even refer to TV, watching the Superbowl at home is remote viewing.

You can make educated guess and the more you guess, the better you get, if you can't hit 100%, then it's just guessing.

If you guess the outcome of the next card and you're only right 48% of the time, you probably still end up a loser at the casino.

 

[mk378]

You have to consider the possibility of experimenter bias, an extreme example was the opening scene in the original Ghostbusters.

 

[Errtt]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Seems like binoculars would be a form or remote viewing.

lol

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
lol


LOL!

 

[Nickdfresh]

LOL was right there, right then...

 

[Silk]

Never heard it called that, but I use it everytime I ride a motorcycle, specially on back roads like I did today. Sometimes things don't feel quite right, sometimes I find myself going slower than normal...I'll go with the flow, and sure enough there will be stock around a corner, or a large truck, tractor etc. It's kept me save for decades, and I have even more extreme examples.

 

[CharlieBauer]

The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.


There was a section dedicated to that in the Stanford Research Institutes (Targ and Puthoff) tome that I read.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.

 

[veryHeavy]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Quote:
He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

So why should certain areas of exploration require a different burden of proof to the ones that link aspirin and heart attacks ?


The burden of proof for gravity is near-100%. The proof for dark matter is around 90%.
I don't agree that 33% is sufficient.

Penn & Teller at vegas have an excellent example of this in their Vegas stage show. They ask an audience member to read a joke from a book (but don't reveal it). By asking leading questions Penn is able to tell the random person Exactly what the joke is about. It has nothing to do with paranormal reading..... it is all about using intelligence to know what the audience member just picked.

The guy from Sci-Fi Channel used the same trick to "talk" to dead relatives

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.

James Randi's testing of Uri Geller gave more interesting results.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: veryHeavy
The burden of proof for gravity is near-100%. The proof for dark matter is around 90%.
I don't agree that 33% is sufficient.

Penn & Teller at vegas have an excellent example of this in their Vegas stage show. They ask an audience member to read a joke from a book (but don't reveal it). By asking leading questions Penn is able to tell the random person Exactly what the joke is about. It has nothing to do with paranormal reading..... it is all about using intelligence to know what the audience member just picked.

The guy from Sci-Fi Channel used the same trick to "talk" to dead relatives


It's comparing it to "proofs" like aspirin and heartattacks, fluouride in your water, nutrasweet safety etc.etc....if these are "proved", then so is remote viewing.

Personally, I think that the burden of proof needs to be lifted somewhat...that was my original play with the topic, is that using the burden of proof that gets drugs through also "proves' remote viewing.

As to charlatans, that's the game with the FDA and nutrasweet...double blind against MSG ... that's sleight of hand.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's comparing it to "proofs" like aspirin and heartattacks, fluouride in your water, nutrasweet safety etc.etc....if these are "proved", then so is remote viewing.

Personally, I think that the burden of proof needs to be lifted somewhat...that was my original play with the topic, is that using the burden of proof that gets drugs through also "proves' remote viewing.

As to charlatans, that's the game with the FDA and nutrasweet...double blind against MSG ... that's sleight of hand.


I think this proves that your grasp of logic is weak. Recheck your work and see if you can tell us where the flaws are in your logic.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The CIA testing of Uri Geller gave interesting results.

James Randi's testing of Uri Geller gave more interesting results.

So did Johnny Carson (who was a magician/illusionist in his own right). Geller was unwilling to touch anything spoons he hadn't had previous access too...

 

[Garak]

His "career" never quite recovered after that. James Randi and Johnny Carson collaborated on that. When one is a stage magician, one should admit it. Claiming to be a sorcerer, a medium, or a psychic, or whatever it is that he has claimed, is problematic. This isn't 1870. There are famous, wealthy stage magicians out there, and he could have been one of them, without slicing all that baloney.