Is there a Scientific Basis for Believing in Remote Viewing?

[BasketCase]

I could possibly imagine that considering our brains run on electricity and the Earth is enveloped in an electromagnetic field of sorts, someone who was sensitive enough and knew what to look for could theoretically do it I guess.

When you're near a high-voltage power line, are you able to sense the presence of that power line from its magnetic field? Nope.

 

[Polycrates]

Okay, I found the full article. Had trouble reading it without my brain dribbling out of my ears. Essentially they put a bunch of photos in an envelope in front of him, and then got him to draw and write associated words about what he "saw" and then subjectively scored him on how accurate they thought he was while the guy was still in the room with them. Christ.

Even then, for some hard numbers:

The drawings and written descriptions of the 16 photographs and four
objects were rated on a Likert scale with anchors of 1 to 7 where 1 was no
information or totally inaccurate, 4 was ambiguous but possible, and 7 was
identical or obvious congruence. There were three categories: ( I ) rating of
actual drawings compared to the stirnuh, (2) ratings between the denotative
definitions of the words employed to describe the s t i r n S and the targets,
and, (3) ratings of the emotional meanings or connotations of the words or
the metaphorical quality of the words employed to describe the targets

The means and standard deviations for the ratings of the congruence
between the drawings and the stimuli were, for picture 3.5, 2.3, for denota-
tive measure 3.7, 2.3, and for connotative measure 4.1, 2.4. The means were
for total time (in sec.) for each trial 229 (SD=54) , the total number of 7-Hz
sec. 10.7 (SD= 12.2), the percentage of 7-Hz sec. per trial 4.8 (SD= 6.2), the
numbers of separate episodes of 7-Hz 1.9 (SD = 1.8), and the longest train of
7-Hz spikes 1.6 ( S D = 1.3)

So even with the guy still in the room with them to point out just how accurate he had been and what he had "really" meant, his mean accuracy was below "ambiguous but possible".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He relies on confirmation bias. People get suckered into his scam because they only want to believe it rather that view it skeptically.

That may be true. My point was he pulls off stuff that is more impressive and which I can not figure out than anything I have seen from people who claim to be paranormal. So the impressiveness of the feat or the fact I don't know how it's done makes me not more prone to believe it's genuine.

There are many ways to prove this ability. Now I admit I haven't seen your 45 minute clip, because I probably won't be able to figure out how it's done either. But there are scientific ways to test it. If this were real, it should be testable and it would mean a big breakthrough in the way we think the brain works.

I'd be very scared if it would work though. Say goodbye to privacy.

 

[Murky]

That may be true. My point was he pulls off stuff that is more impressive and which I can not figure out than anything I have seen from people who claim to be paranormal. So the impressiveness of the feat or the fact I don't know how it's done makes me not more prone to believe it's genuine.

There are many ways to prove this ability. Now I admit I haven't seen your 45 minute clip, because I probably won't be able to figure out how it's done either. But there are scientific ways to test it. If this were real, it should be testable and it would mean a big breakthrough in the way we think the brain works.

I'd be very scared if it would work though. Say goodbye to privacy.

Maintaining the mystery is key to mysticism. If everyone knew about the man behind the curtain nobody would pay the fee to get into the show if they were hoping to indulge their fantasies.

I'm sure the government has more ways to violate your privacy than remote viewers do.

 

[Andvare]

Not anymore. He took down the prize sometime in 2010, though quite a few other prizes are available through other groups.

I knew he was going to, but I didn't know it was down. Ah, well, the point still stands.

OK. So have several self-declared skeptics here. Get to work debunking it.

Why?
Debunking "psychic phenomenon" is like proving that Santa isn't real, or the Easter Bunny only lay green, ecological, eggs.
It pretty much has to be the "psychic phenomenon" that provides the evidence, not the other way around. Just like any other scientific field.

 

[BasketCase]

Why?
Debunking "psychic phenomenon" is like proving that Santa isn't real, or

I'm not sure what you're angle is here, but I should point out the above has already been done. With hard math. Turns out Santa's yearly trip around the world, to the household of every morally sound child on Earth, violates Einstein's laws of relativity.

(the thing that makes this really funny is, it's not a joke!)

 

[Leonel]

When you're near a high-voltage power line, are you able to sense the presence of that power line from its magnetic field? Nope.

Heck if I know! I guess? You'd have to get someone who actually believes in it to comment.

 

[BasketCase]

Do an experiment. Put on a blindfold and have a friend drive you about town. Make sure he chooses a route that takes you under power lines at various points. See if you can tell when he drives you under a power line. (make sure the windows are up so you don't hear the electrical buzzing or smell ozone--it's not your nose or ears you want to be testing)

 

[emzie]

BasketCase is... dead on. Merely proposing some mechanism is not an answer. Go test it. That's a pretty good motto for life: go test your ideas!

 

[Andvare]

I'm not sure what you're angle is here, but I should point out the above has already been done. With hard math. Turns out Santa's yearly trip around the world, to the household of every morally sound child on Earth, violates Einstein's laws of relativity.

(the thing that makes this really funny is, it's not a joke!)

I know, I have also done those same calculations when I studied physics years ago.

However, you could easily claim that he had powers that went beyond those limits (or that there really aren't all that many good children).
Just like you would have a hard time disproving god. Or magic. Or the soul.

Just about anything that, by definition, is outside our reference frame, is, let's just say difficult, to prove.
You could claim that it makes no sense that some alien, with the help of psychiatrists, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs, for their souls to infect humans.
But if he had "special powers", it takes the whole mess outside of our frame of reference.
Or that Adam and Eve's sons somehow found daughters, and yet we are not inbred.

Any fantastic claim has to show that it is itself reliable, otherwise it is not in the real of science.
The whole "show me the math that proves X does exists" is bollocks.*

*Where X can be anything fantastic, like God, or Xenu, or Homeopathy, wait, that last one actually claims to function inside normal laws of nature, and has been proven to be placebo. Yes, I have a special, hateful, place in my heart for homeopathy, and the Xenu story is just so fun.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Do an experiment. Put on a blindfold and have a friend drive you about town. Make sure he chooses a route that takes you under power lines at various points. See if you can tell when he drives you under a power line. (make sure the windows are up so you don't hear the electrical buzzing or smell ozone--it's not your nose or ears you want to be testing)

Do an experiment: Hold a spoon in you thumb and for finger, stay still and try to bend it with you bodies electromagnetics.

 

[Murky]

I've done a little more research on the subject. Apparently remote viewing requires training so it's not like you can a friend can just set out to try to do it on your own. But anyone supposedly can do the training so if you are so inclined knock yourself out. Any experiment to verify remote viewing would need to involve a "trained remote viewer." Remote viewers claim it is a different phenomenon than being a traditional paranormal psychic. It's supposedly about expanding perception so that you pick up on magnetic fields or something.

I found some pretty far-out claims like finding life on Mars and a Moon base (on the far side of the moon) so take as you will.

They have a long ways to go to convince mainstream scientists that it is real. It does seem odd that the government would fund it for as long as it did unless it had given them some results.

These projects were active from the 1970s through 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

Spending over 12 years on a something that doesn't work doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

 

[BasketCase]

Do an experiment: Hold a spoon in you thumb and for finger, stay still and try to bend it with you bodies electromagnetics.

No need to be snarky. That's my job. Fact is, leonel's hypothesis, that people can sense the world through changing magnetic fields, can be empirically tested. The paranormal can be scientifically verified to be malarkey.

I know, I have also done those same calculations when I studied physics years ago.

Back in the 90's, did you ever dial onto a BBS called The Nasty Old Lady?

However, you could easily claim that he had powers that went beyond those limits

Not really. If it's impossible to test, there's no basis to claim it. If it IS possible to test, it's possible to prove it, at which point the claimant must prove it.

Any fantastic claim has to show that it is itself reliable, otherwise it is not in the real of science.

Bingo.

Yes, I have a special, hateful, place in my heart for homeopathy, and the Xenu story is just so fun.

NO WAY, dude. The Xenu story is some of the worst B-movie sci-fi crap I've ever seen.

 

[Andvare]

Back in the 90's, did you ever dial onto a BBS called The Nasty Old Lady?

Oh, man, can't remember. Perhaps?
Does my age show that much, that you know I have used a dial-up modem, and that I actually know what a BBS is, and have used it?

Not really. If it's impossible to test, there's no basis to claim it. If it IS possible to test, it's possible to prove it, at which point the claimant must prove it.

Well, you can still claim it. That is the whole basis for the ID crowd.
"It is so complex, there has to be a designer!" Wait, what? Leap-O-logic much?
But, yeah, we agree-

NO WAY, dude. The Xenu story is some of the worst B-movie sci-fi crap I've ever seen.

Yes, that is what makes it so fun!
I love how people actually believe this crap, that Xenu lured billions of beings with a tax return?
Did I mention I'm a big fan of Ed Wood? In my mind, they are about at the same level of hilarious stupidity.
Though Ed Wood didn't hurt anyone, and Scientology have taken all the hotness out of Jenna Elfman, which makes them evil!
(I thought she was supremely hot, until I learned that she is not just a Scientologist, but have actually assaulted a person because he wore a T-shirt that said something like Scientologists are stupid)

 

[Polycrates]

I've done a little more research on the subject. Apparently remote viewing requires training so it's not like you can a friend can just set out to try to do it on your own. But anyone supposedly can do the training so if you are so inclined knock yourself out. Any experiment to verify remote viewing would need to involve a "trained remote viewer." Remote viewers claim it is a different phenomenon than being a traditional paranormal psychic. It's supposedly about expanding perception so that you pick up on magnetic fields or something.

See, I kind of get the "picking up on magnetic fields" thing. It's the sort of thing where you could outline a plausible mechanism for how such a phenomenon might happen based vaguely within the framework of our current knowledge. Very unlikely, admittedly, and of course there's no evidence for it, but it's sort of within the realms of plausibility. But when it's something like "seeing a picture that's in a sealed envelope" (as it was in the OP article), that's when the plausibility goes, because how would that even work? Do the different colours of ink have special magnetic fields or something? Are they confusing remote viewing with x-ray vision? Why would shooting a magnetic field at the "remote viewer" the day before have any impact on the magnetic field of the object being viewed? Did they learn all their science from X-men comics? How can any of it possibly make any sense whatsoever? So when the "trained practitioners" bundle in that sort of patent nonsense with the vaguely plausible stuff like it's all the same thing, it starts to raise a very strong whiff about the whole enterprise.

They have a long ways to go to convince mainstream scientists that it is real. It does seem odd that the government would fund it for as long as it did unless it had given them some results.
Spending over 12 years on a something that doesn't work doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

Yeah, but governments can and do fund an awful lot of stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Police have funded crime-solving psychics for ages, there were all those cold war research projects on psychic powers etc etc etc. Very few government/bureaucratic people have any idea how science works, and if you can show them superficially plausible results like the the article from the OP and you pitch it to someone who watched enough X-Files, then you could well be in luck getting funded for ages.

 

[Andvare]

Yeah, but governments can and do fund an awful lot of stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Police have funded crime-solving psychics for ages, there were all those cold war research projects on psychic powers etc etc etc. Very few government/bureaucratic people have any idea how science works, and if you can show them superficially plausible results like the the article from the OP and you pitch it to someone who watched enough X-Files, then you could well be in luck getting funded for ages.

No no, the government are only led by intelligent guys, that knows when it comes to science, you should ask someone that knows what s/he is talking about.

 

[Masada]

Eh, Polycrates killed the thing stone cold dead when he described the methodology being used.

 

[Murky]

See, I kind of get the "picking up on magnetic fields" thing. It's the sort of thing where you could outline a plausible mechanism for how such a phenomenon might happen based vaguely within the framework of our current knowledge. Very unlikely, admittedly, and of course there's no evidence for it, but it's sort of within the realms of plausibility. But when it's something like "seeing a picture that's in a sealed envelope" (as it was in the OP article), that's when the plausibility goes, because how would that even work? Do the different colours of ink have special magnetic fields or something? Are they confusing remote viewing with x-ray vision? Why would shooting a magnetic field at the "remote viewer" the day before have any impact on the magnetic field of the object being viewed? Did they learn all their science from X-men comics? How can any of it possibly make any sense whatsoever? So when the "trained practitioners" bundle in that sort of patent nonsense with the vaguely plausible stuff like it's all the same thing, it starts to raise a very strong whiff about the whole enterprise.

I get that part. What if they just don't understand the mechanism? There's still lots of things physics has not figured out yet. What about the results of the double blind tests for accuracy? How do you explain it?

Yeah, but governments can and do fund an awful lot of stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Police have funded crime-solving psychics for ages, there were all those cold war research projects on psychic powers etc etc etc. Very few government/bureaucratic people have any idea how science works, and if you can show them superficially plausible results like the the article from the OP and you pitch it to someone who watched enough X-Files, then you could well be in luck getting funded for ages.

Still, that's over a decade of developing the program. Wouldn't someone have canceled the project sooner if there had not be any return on the investment?

 

[Rashiminos]

When you're near a high-voltage power line, are you able to sense the presence of that power line from its magnetic field? Nope.

The answer to this is actually yes, although we find humans have desensitized themselves as compared to other animals.

I'd be very scared if it would work though. Say goodbye to privacy.

Not really. There are those who are interested in maintaining that privacy.

 

[Traitorfish]

The answer to this is actually yes, although we find humans have desensitized themselves as compared to other animals.

Do you have any links about that? It sounds fascinating.