Ralph,
How could I insult your intelligence. You're obviously smarter
than Physicists and the Intelligence analysts that the CIA, DIA, NSA
had access too. ;-)
Apparently they are intelligent people. They determined the phenomenon was not real and was not effective. The twenty year long experiment was shut down. For some reason that fact doesn’t seem to sink in with some people. If it really worked, it wouldn’t have been declassified and abandoned.
When I was showing people in North Carolina RV, my first
target wasn't even close... Second target, had good info intermixed
with bad info. At this point, no one believe it.
Third target was a direct hit.
We’ve already discussed what you qualify as direct hits. I’m not impressed.
I've given you plenty to go look at... you haven't
even read the basic history. It's six bucks, if you
can afford it maybe you should do a little reading.
Remote Viewers - Jim Schabel
I’ve read up on this a bit more than you may think. I just might pick up that book for fun. Right now I’ve got too many others on my reading list, though.
>I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view?
I'm not the one asking if RV is real.
You are
You don’t understand the value of a falsifiable theory then. I could say I have an invisible dragon in my garage. You don’t believe me. You suggest we put some baking soda on the floor so we can detect its footsteps. I come up with an ad hoc explanation that the dragon is constantly flying, so there will be no footsteps. This can go on and on and on. If my belief is not falsifiable, then it is worthless.
Again – how bad would the results have to be for you to disbelieve? There must be some point, otherwise your belief is not based upon evidence, but is rather based on emotion.
Why is this such an important point with you? Whether I believe
RV works or doesn't work makes no difference.
It is not your belief that is in question here. It is the fact that you are making an extraordinary claim without providing evidence beyond anecdotes and highly criticized studies – studies that have not been replicated. These claims are calling into question what we know about science and ultimately hamper progress by making people distrust the scientific method. That is dangerous because if too many people distrust science, then we can find that superstition reigns and knowledge and progress such as we have seen in the past few hundred years is halted.
Really? How would you know? You must be up on all the studies
the Universities are doing?
Explain to the list what Dean Radin was studying at the University
of Nevada?
Radin is doing autoganzfeld and random number generator experiments. Along with that he has been occupied with metaanalysis of parapsychology data over the last few decades. His research is very interesting, but it is not conclusive, has not been replicated, and is not beyond criticism:
http://members.cruzio.com/~quanta/review.html
http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html
Thanks for the insult.
Utts was assigned by the government to study the RV sessions.
She wasn't a member of the RV unit. I'd like know how and where she
was involved in psi before doing the RV study.
Since you know, please inform the list. This is the first I've
heard of it.
I apologize if you took that as an insult. It was possibly a false dichotomy. The information about Utts involvlement in some of the studies was reported in Nature 12/7/95. Unfortunately Nature magazine’s archive does not go that far back, but it could probably be found in a library. Here is a reference to the Nature article’s report:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
>The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability. Try Stanford Research Institute - Russell Targ and Hal Putoff
Even Utts discounts the research done by Targ and Putoff in her evaluation of the SRI and SAIC programs. See section 3.2 in Utt’s paper AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING:
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
> No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow.
Really? That's quite a claim.
What studies are you quoting from, please list them.
I am talking about reanalysis of prior positive findings using metaanlysis techniques. Specifically the research done by Julie Milton of the University of Edinburgh and Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, England. Some information can be found here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/7_31_99/fob4.htm
http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html
> If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers.
I mostly agree with this statement too.
For example at a crime scene, If 3 people see
a crime they all may report it slightly differently.
But there must be at least some consistency between witnesses or their testimony is worthless. Three people witnessing a car accident should all agree that it was indeed a car accident. One should not see a murder and another a bank robbery.
Tests? You call these tests?
You can't be serious. You are saying your test proves if
RV works.
No one one was trained in RV who went after the target.
No one here was trained to analyze a RV session.
What you all did was guess. Guessing is fun, RV takes
time and effort.
I do not claim that our tests are in any way scientific. I’ve noted this before in other threads that you have not participated in. I think they are just fun diversions, but it is interesting that even these informal tests seem to go along with my theory. Also, it didn’t seem to be so informal to you when you were defending a hit earlier. Which way do you want to play it? Was there some psi ability shown or was it just a lucky guess as most of us have agreed?
I had a target that I said was the space shuttle, and it was.
That session, if you had watched it and seen it done would
probably convince you. But on the other hand, me telling
you about it, won't.
If I didn’t know that magicians were just illusionists, I’d be convinced that they had magical powers too. What does that prove? I’ve learned that humans are very easy to fool. That is why rigorously designed double blind experiments are necessary. Then these experiments must be replicated. Even then we have found holes in protocol, and experiments have to be revamped and redone.
I think it was on ABC, "Put to the Test" with Joe McMoneagle.
He's one of the best, they do a live a RV session on the show.
I won’t even go into how bad radio and TV programs are when it comes to extraordinary claims. First, they go after ratings. Second, they have been shown to be extremely gullible – even being fooled by hoaxters. I don’t see such media shows as evidence but merely entertainment for the masses. I remember having to convince my brother that we really did land on the Moon and that it wasn’t just a hoax after he watched a ridiculous TV program. Also, remember such shows about finding Noah’s Ark? Sometimes such shows even air on Discovery, History, or The Learning Channel, giving them an air of authenticity and respectability.
I think some of the most damning evidence against RV is what type of people back it and what types of things some RV’ers claim to see. RV’ers have claimed to remote view the inner structure of atoms and even the planets and other galaxies. In most cases they have been shown to be completely wrong ( http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html and Occult Chemistry, Annie Besant and C. M. Leadbeater) and in others are completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable at this time. Interestingly Puthoff was an advocate for such claims (page 62, Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?, Martin Gardner) and is linked to ufology. Some have even claimed to see the insides of UFO’s (Cosmic Voyage, Courtney Brown).
To me it’s all a bit too far on the fringe and supported by too many wackos. It seems that many have a lot of financial interest in the phenomenon as Remote Viewing training classes are offered around the world and they are not cheap. I suppose as long as people are making money, there will always be studies done and analysis that attempts to support RV claims. We’ve seen such conduct before in the tobacco industry.
rem
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell
