7 ms·

This oversimplifies decades of research. While early remote viewing studies at SRI had methodological flaws, later experiments at SAIC addressed these issues an

This oversimplifies decades of research. While early remote viewing studies at SRI had methodological flaws, later experiments at SAIC addressed these issues and produced statistically significant results that haven't been adequately explained. Randi's million-dollar challenge isn't considered scientifically valid - it's more publicity stunt than proper experimental protocol. The circumstances and rules for awarding his prize were opaque, controlled by Randi, and has nothing to do with how science tests hypotheses. The government programs (like STARGATE) actually produced some compelling results according to their declassified documents. The issue wasn't that they were "debunked" - the programs ended largely due to inconsistent results and questions about operational usefulness, not because of exposed fraud. I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research rather than relying on stage magicians' critiques. While healthy skepticism is good, dismissing the entire field based on cherry-picked cases misses the nuance in the data. The book "Phenomena" by the investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen is a fantastic and fascinating starting point.

gus_massa 2y ago
> I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research I'm very skeptical. Do you have a good one?
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Papers won't help much due to your priors, you'll just question method, design and stats and pretend they confirm your biases. See my answer for why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680 If you want to move beyond skepticism you need 1st hand experience. My linked answer gets you on the path :)
- LawrenceKerr 2y ago
  Phew... where to start? I think before randomly citing research, it's best to approach this subject theoretically first. Assume "psi" exists. Purely as a thought experiment. What does this mean? One key implication would be that consciousness can somehow access information beyond normal sensory channels. If this ability exists, it would likely be influenced by psychological factors - just like any other cognitive function. This leads us to a fascinating paradox: Our beliefs and expectations about psi would logically affect our ability to demonstrate it. This is exactly what researchers have found with the supposed "sheep-goat effect" - where belief in psi correlates with performance in psi experiments. While skeptics often dismiss this as special pleading, the ultimate cop-out for negative results, it's actually a logical consequence of the initial premise. Strong skepticism could act as a psychological barrier, while openness might facilitate the phenomena. This creates an interesting epistemological challenge. Unlike testing a new drug where belief shouldn't affect the chemical reaction, testing psi inherently involves consciousness - and therefore belief systems. The field has faced intense scrutiny because of these challenges and its implications. When Bem published his precognition studies in 2011, it sparked unprecedented criticism and launched psychology's replication crisis. However, this scrutiny has led to increasingly rigorous methods in the field - despite this controversial topic being a potential career-ender and underfunded (although there are some private initiatives...). So, having said all that as an important preface, in my opinion... One answer to your question: a recent example is the 2023 study in Brain and Behavior examining CIA remote viewing experiments (Escolà-Gascón et al.). Using extensive controls and blind conditions, they found significant above-chance results in high emotional intelligence participants. The authors - who describe themselves as skeptically oriented - conclude their data shows "robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi." They argue for continued rigorous research while acknowledging the philosophical challenges these findings present. This isn't hard proof of psi, yet, but it's evidence that there may be more going on than skeptics may think. We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, just because it's so controversial, and because it seems incompatible with a materialist worldview that says "mind" must be spatially and temporally localised, and cannot access or manipulate information elsewhere.
  - krapp 2y ago
    OK cool. Now please cite some of that peer-reviewed research you mentioned.
    - LawrenceKerr 2y ago
      Please read before replying first.
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        Exactly! The guy just totally misrepresented your answer where you clearly linked to one. Shameless
  - wat10000 2y ago
    That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it. Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs. We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision. And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.
    - 2y ago
YesThatTom2 2y ago
SRI was scammed. Randi literally walked in, showed how vaudeville magicians do spoon bending (spoiler alert: the spoon is swapped for one that’s already bent using sleight of hand) and the researchers blushed in embarrassment. They’d been HAD! Cite this so called research you claim to have. ps: your uncle didn’t actually steal your nose. That’s his thumb.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Can you cite this? Blushed in embarrassment? How was SRI scammed? They initiated the project and won the contract. Werner von Braun helped allocate the funds after meeting Targ.

gus_massa 2y ago

> I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research I'm very skeptical. Do you have a good one?

keepamovin 2y ago
Papers won't help much due to your priors, you'll just question method, design and stats and pretend they confirm your biases. See my answer for why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680 If you want to move beyond skepticism you need 1st hand experience. My linked answer gets you on the path :)
LawrenceKerr 2y ago
Phew... where to start? I think before randomly citing research, it's best to approach this subject theoretically first. Assume "psi" exists. Purely as a thought experiment. What does this mean? One key implication would be that consciousness can somehow access information beyond normal sensory channels. If this ability exists, it would likely be influenced by psychological factors - just like any other cognitive function. This leads us to a fascinating paradox: Our beliefs and expectations about psi would logically affect our ability to demonstrate it. This is exactly what researchers have found with the supposed "sheep-goat effect" - where belief in psi correlates with performance in psi experiments. While skeptics often dismiss this as special pleading, the ultimate cop-out for negative results, it's actually a logical consequence of the initial premise. Strong skepticism could act as a psychological barrier, while openness might facilitate the phenomena. This creates an interesting epistemological challenge. Unlike testing a new drug where belief shouldn't affect the chemical reaction, testing psi inherently involves consciousness - and therefore belief systems. The field has faced intense scrutiny because of these challenges and its implications. When Bem published his precognition studies in 2011, it sparked unprecedented criticism and launched psychology's replication crisis. However, this scrutiny has led to increasingly rigorous methods in the field - despite this controversial topic being a potential career-ender and underfunded (although there are some private initiatives...). So, having said all that as an important preface, in my opinion... One answer to your question: a recent example is the 2023 study in Brain and Behavior examining CIA remote viewing experiments (Escolà-Gascón et al.). Using extensive controls and blind conditions, they found significant above-chance results in high emotional intelligence participants. The authors - who describe themselves as skeptically oriented - conclude their data shows "robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi." They argue for continued rigorous research while acknowledging the philosophical challenges these findings present. This isn't hard proof of psi, yet, but it's evidence that there may be more going on than skeptics may think. We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, just because it's so controversial, and because it seems incompatible with a materialist worldview that says "mind" must be spatially and temporally localised, and cannot access or manipulate information elsewhere.
- krapp 2y ago
  OK cool. Now please cite some of that peer-reviewed research you mentioned.
  - LawrenceKerr 2y ago
    Please read before replying first.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Exactly! The guy just totally misrepresented your answer where you clearly linked to one. Shameless
- wat10000 2y ago
  That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it. Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs. We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision. And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.
  - 2y ago

YesThatTom2 2y ago

SRI was scammed. Randi literally walked in, showed how vaudeville magicians do spoon bending (spoiler alert: the spoon is swapped for one that’s already bent using sleight of hand) and the researchers blushed in embarrassment. They’d been HAD! Cite this so called research you claim to have. ps: your uncle didn’t actually steal your nose. That’s his thumb.

keepamovin 2y ago
Can you cite this? Blushed in embarrassment? How was SRI scammed? They initiated the project and won the contract. Werner von Braun helped allocate the funds after meeting Targ.