Editing Remote viewing (section)

==Scientific reception==
A variety of scientific studies on remote viewing have been conducted. Early experiments produced positive results, but they had invalidating flaws.<ref name="Marks 2000"/> None of the more recent experiments have shown positive results when conducted under [[Scientific control|properly controlled conditions]].<ref name="jordan" />{{refn|group=n|name="Eval of RV"}}<ref name="Time" />{{refn|group=n|name="Randi Encyclopedia"}}<ref name="uk_research">{{cite web |title= Remote Viewing |publisher= UK's Ministry of Defence |page= 94 (page 50 in second pdf) |orig-year=June 2002, disclosed in 2007|date=23 February 2007 |url= http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/RemoteViewing.htm |archive-url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/RemoteViewing.htm |url-status= dead |archive-date= 26 October 2012 }}</ref> This lack of successful experiments has led the mainstream scientific community to reject remote viewing, based upon the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.<ref name="Alcock 1981"/><ref name="Gilovich 1993">[[Thomas Gilovich|Gilovich, Thomas]] (1993). ''How We Know What Isn't So: Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life''. Free Press. pp. 166–173. {{ISBN|978-0029117064}}</ref><ref name="Marks 2000"/><ref name="wiseman_one">{{cite journal | journal = [[Journal of Parapsychology]] | url = http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/SAICcrit.pdf | title = Experiment One of the SAIC Remote Viewing Program: A critical reevaluation |last1=Wiseman |first1= R  |last2= Milton |first2= J  | pages = 297–308 | issue = 4 | volume = 62 | year = 1999 | access-date = 2008-06-26 }}<br />* Obtained from  [http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/papers.html listing of research papers on Wiseman's website]</ref>

Science writers [[Gary L. Bennett|Gary Bennett]], [[Martin Gardner]], [[Michael Shermer]] and professor of neurology [[Terence Hines]] describe the topic of remote viewing as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="Gardner2000">{{cite book|last=Gardner|first=Martin|author-link=Martin Gardner|title=Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience|pages=60–67|year=2000|publisher=W.W. Norton|location=New York|isbn=978-0393322385}}</ref><ref name="Paranormal. Prometheus Books p. 136">{{cite book |author-link= Terence Hines |last= Hines |first= Terence |date=2003 |title= Pseudoscience and the Paranormal |publisher= Prometheus Books |page= 136 |isbn= 1573929794}}</ref><ref name="heretical">{{cite book |chapter-url = http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1994/PV1994_4003.pdf |chapter = Heretical science – Beyond the boundaries of pathological science |title = Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 29th, Monterey, CA, Aug 7–11, 1994, Technical Papers. Pt. 3 (A94-31838 10–44) |last = Bennett |first = Gary L. |publisher = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics |location = Washington, DC |year = 1994 |pages = 1207–1212 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111213192032/http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1994/PV1994_4003.pdf |archive-date = 2011-12-13 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author-link= Michael Shermer |last= Shermer |first= Michael |chapter= Science and Pseudoscience |editor1-link= Massimo Pigliucci |editor1-last= Pigliucci |editor1-first= Massimo |editor2-link= Maarten Boudry |editor2-last= Boudry |editor2-first= Maarten |date= 2013 |title= Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem |publisher= University Of Chicago Press |page= 206 |isbn= 978-0226051963}}</ref>

[[C. E. M. Hansel]], who evaluated the remote viewing experiments of parapsychologists such as Puthoff, Targ, John B. Bisha, and Brenda J. Dunne, noted that there was a lack of controls, and precautions were not taken to rule out the possibility of fraud. He concluded the experimental design was inadequately reported and "too loosely controlled to serve any useful function."<ref>{{cite book |author-link= C. E. M. Hansel |last= Hansel |first= C. E. M |date= 1989 |title= The Search for Psychic Power |publisher= Prometheus Books |pages= 160–166 |isbn= 0879755164}}</ref>

The psychologist [[Ray Hyman]] says that, even if the results from remote viewing experiments 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".{{refn|group=n|[[Ray Hyman]] wrote in an article in ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'': "Because even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome—the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet."<ref name="hyman claims v reality">{{cite news |last= Hyman |first= Ray |author-link= Ray Hyman |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/show/evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality |title= The evidence for psychic functioning: Claims vs. reality |magazine= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date= March–April 1996}}</ref>}}

Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are far too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles" due to its findings still not being replicated successfully under scrutiny.{{refn|group=n|[[Ray Hyman|Hyman]] also says in the ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'' article: "What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful."<ref name="hyman claims v reality"/>}}

[[Martin Gardner]] has written that the founding researcher Harold Puthoff was an active Scientologist before his work at Stanford University, which influenced his research at SRI. In 1970, the [[Church of Scientology]] published a [[Notary|notarized]] letter that Puthoff had written 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".<ref name="Gardner2000"/> 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 (Blavatskian)|theosophy]], were able to remote-view the inner structure of [[atom]]s.<ref name="Gardner2000"/>

[[Michael Shermer]] investigated remote viewing experiments and discovered a problem with the target selection list. According to Shermer, with the [[Sketch (drawing)|sketches]], only a handful of designs are usually used, such as lines and curves, which could depict any object and be interpreted as a "hit". Shermer has also written about [[Confirmation bias|confirmation]] and [[hindsight bias]]es that have occurred in remote viewing experiments.<ref>[[Michael Shermer|Shermer, Michael]]. (2001). ''The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense''. Oxford University Press. pp. 8–10. {{ISBN|978-0198032724}}.</ref>

Various [[Scientific skepticism|skeptic organization]]s have conducted experiments for remote viewing and other alleged paranormal abilities, with no positive results under properly controlled conditions.<ref name="Marks 2000"/>

===Sensory cues===

The psychologists [[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]] and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff's remote viewing experiments<ref name=":0" /> that were carried out in the 1970s at the [[SRI International|Stanford Research Institute]]. In a series of 35 studies, they could not replicate the results, so they investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets or having the session date written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | last2 = Kammann | first2 = Richard | year = 1978 | title = Information transmission in remote viewing experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 274 | issue = 5672 | pages = 680–681 | doi=10.1038/274680a0 | bibcode = 1978Natur.274..680M| s2cid = 4249968 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | year = 1981 | title = Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 292 | issue = 5819 | page = 177 | doi=10.1038/292177a0 | pmid = 7242682 | bibcode = 1981Natur.292..177M| s2cid = 4326382 | doi-access = free }}</ref> According to [[Terence Hines]]:

{{blockquote|Examination of the few actual transcripts published by Targ and Puthoff show that just such clues were present. To find out if the unpublished transcripts contained cues, Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts. Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues.<ref>[[Terence Hines|Hines, Terence]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 135. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref>}}

[[Thomas Gilovich]] has written:

{{blockquote|Most of the material in the transcripts consists of the honest attempts by the percipients to describe their impressions. However, the transcripts also contained considerable extraneous material that could aid a judge in matching them to the correct targets. In particular, there were numerous references to dates, times and sites previously visited that would enable the judge to place the transcripts in proper sequence... Astonishingly, the judges in the Targ-Puthoff experiments were given a list of target sites in the exact order in which they were used in the tests!<ref name="Gilovich 1993"/>}}

According to Marks, when the cues were eliminated the results fell to a chance level.<ref name="Marks 2000"/> Marks achieved 100 percent accuracy using cues alone, without visiting any of the sites himself.{{refn|group=n|Martin Bridgstock wrote in ''Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal'': "The explanation used by Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of [[Occam's razor]]. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues' – clues to the order in which sites had been visited—provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve 100 percent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified".<ref>{{cite book |first= Martin |last= Bridgstock |year= 2009 |title= Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal |publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]] |page= 106 |isbn= 978-0521758932}}</ref>}} [[James Randi]] has written that controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cueing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students also solved Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues in the transcripts.<ref name= "randi_encyclopedia"/>

Marks and Kamman concluded: "Until remote viewing can be confirmed in conditions which prevent sensory cueing the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff remain an unsubstantiated hypothesis."<ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel|Hansel, C. E. M]]. (1980). ''ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation''. Prometheus Books. p. 293</ref> In 1980, [[Charles Tart]] claimed that a rejudging of the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthoff's experiments revealed an above-chance result.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tart | first1 = Charles | author-link = Charles Tart | author-link2 = Harold E. Puthoff | author-link3 = Russell Targ | last2 = Puthoff | first2 = Harold | last3 = Targ | first3 = Russell | year = 1980 | title = Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 284 | issue = 5752 | page = 191 | doi=10.1038/284191a0 | pmid = 7360248 | bibcode = 1980Natur.284..191T| doi-access = free }}</ref> Targ and Puthoff again refused to provide copies of the transcripts and it was not until July 1985 that they were made available for study when it was discovered they still contained [[sensory cue]]s.<ref name="Paranormal. Prometheus Books p. 136"/> Marks and Christopher Scott (1986) wrote, "Considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart's failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously concluded, remote viewing has not been demonstrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | last2 = Scott | first2 = Christopher | year = 1986 | title = Remote Viewing Exposed | journal = Nature | volume = 319 | issue = 6053 | page = 444 | doi=10.1038/319444a0 | pmid = 3945330 | bibcode = 1986Natur.319..444M| doi-access = free }}</ref>

The information from the [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Stargate Project]] remote viewing sessions was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data. The project was never useful in any intelligence operation, and it was suspected that the project managers, in some cases, changed the reports so they would fit background cues.{{refn|group=n|name="Eval of RV"|Mumford, Rose and Goslin wrote, in ''An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications'': "remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for 'actionable' intelligence operations{{snd}}that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result (...) a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports. (...) remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with known background cues. While this was appropriate in that situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomena independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume."<ref name="psiland">{{cite book |last1= Mumford |first1= Michael D. |last2= Rose |first2= Andrew M. |last3= Goslin |first3= David A. |title= An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications |url= http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf |date= 29 September 1995 |publisher= [[American Institutes for Research]] |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170113100257/http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/AirReport.pdf |archive-date= 13 January 2017 }}</ref>}}

Marks in his book ''[[The Psychology of the Psychic]]'' (2000) discussed the flaws in the Stargate Project in detail.<ref name="Marks 2">[[David Marks (psychologist)|Marks, David]]. (2000). ''[[The Psychology of the Psychic]]'' (2nd Edition). Prometheus Books. pp. 71–96. {{ISBN|1573927988}}</ref> He wrote that the experiments had several flaws. The possibility of cues or [[sensory leakage]] was not ruled out, the experiments were not independently [[Reproducibility|replicated]], and some of the experiments were conducted in secret, making [[peer review]] impossible. He further noted that the judge, [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Edwin May]], was also the [[principal investigator]] for the project, risking a significant conflict of interest. Marks concluded the project was nothing more than a "subjective delusion", and after two decades of research, it had failed to provide any scientific evidence for remote viewing.<ref name="Marks 2"/>

Professor [[Richard Wiseman]], a psychologist at the [[University of Hertfordshire]], and a fellow of the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] (CSI) has pointed out several problems with one of the early experiments at SAIC, including information leakage. However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems.<ref name="wiseman_one" /> Wiseman later insisted there were multiple opportunities for participants in that experiment to be influenced by cues and that these cues can affect the results when they appear.<ref name="wiseman_may" />