Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Remote viewing
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===PEAR's Remote Perception program=== Beginning in the late 1970s, the [[Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab]] (PEAR) carried out extensive research on remote viewing. By 1989, it had conducted 336 formal trials, reporting a composite [[z-score]] of 6.355, with a corresponding [[p-value]] of {{val|1.04e-10}}.<ref name=hansen>{{cite journal |last1=Hansen |first1=George P. |last2=Utts |first2=Jessica |last3=Markwick |first3=Betty |date=June 1992 |title=Critique of the PEAR remote-viewing experiments |url=http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.pdf |journal=Journal of Parapsychology |volume=56}}</ref> In a 1992 critique of these results, Hansen, Utts and Markwick concluded "The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years."<ref name=hansen/> The lab responded that "none of the stated complaints compromises the PEAR experimental protocols or analytical methods" and reaffirmed their results.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dobyns |first1=Y.H. |last2=Dunne |first2=B.J. |last3=Jahn |first3=R.G. |last4=Nelson |first4=R.D. |date=June 1992 |title=Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick |url=http://icrl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/1992-response-hansen-utts-markwick.pdf |journal=Journal of Parapsychology |volume=56}}</ref> Following Utts' emphasis on replication and Hyman's challenge on interlaboratory consistency in the AIR report, PEAR conducted several hundred trials to see if they could replicate the [[Science Applications International Corporation|SAIC]] and SRI experiments. They created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process criticized in past experiments, and they released a report in 1996. They felt the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.<ref>{{cite journal |url= http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_nelson.pdf |journal= [[Journal of Scientific Exploration]] |publisher= [[Society for Scientific Exploration]] |volume= 10 |issue= 1 |pages= 109โ110 |year= 1996 |title= Precognitive remote perception: Replication of remote viewing |first1= RD |last1= Nelson |first2= BJ |last2= Dunne |first3= YH |last3= Dobyns |first4= RG |last4= Jahn |access-date= 2008-06-02 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100107161704/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_nelson.pdf |archive-date= 2010-01-07 }}</ref>{{unreliable source?|date=February 2020}} However, statistical flaws have been proposed by others in the parapsychological community and within the general scientific community.<ref name="Jeffers2006">{{cite journal |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |title= The PEAR proposition: Fact or fallacy? |publisher= [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |journal= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |first= Stanley |last= Jeffers |date= MayโJune 2006 |access-date= 2014-01-24 |volume= 30 |issue= 3 |archive-date= 2014-02-01 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140201122738/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |url-status= dead }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)