Talk:Remote viewing/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Link blanking 2 Shutdown at Fort Meade 3 Science and pseudoscience 4 Merging with Clairvoyance? 5 Criticism 6 Merge with Project Stargate? 7 POV? 8 Category change 9 Copyright 10 Live Remote Viewing Demo 11 Rewrite opening section? 12 Work on Introduction Section 13 Large Rewrites 14 Sourcing/references? 15 Remote Viewing Process 16 Purported 17 Papers/References 18 POV lead 19 Third opinion 20 Added Talk header and Paranormal Group 21 Removed Paranormal designation 22 Hobbes was right 23 Update Early SRI Work? 24 Changes to lead etc. 24.1 Break, section too long 25 Pink thing

Link blanking

Please don't blank links without discussion. If you think they should be removed, please discuss here on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I blanked some links for instance CSICOP as they have nothing to do with remote viewing.

Also new age and psudoscience tags do not belong there. It has not claims to be a science, but it mesurable by normal scientific methods so what is psudo about it.

It's not pseudoscience, if only by a technicality-- it doesn't claim to be a science. Wether or not something is "measurable" doesn't make it non-pseudoscience. Something being measurable isn't even part of the definition.

The study must adhere to the basic concept of the Scientific Method-- taht is to say....

1. Use your experience - consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations; if this is a new problem to you, then do

2. Conjecture an explanation - when nothing else is yet known, try to state your explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation- if 2 were true, then state a consequence of that explanation.

4. Test - look for the opposite of that consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

(gathered from Scientific Method page, wikipedia)

I would argue that noone posting on this wiki would likely know wether or no they actually followed this method. That it is not pseudoscience, however, does not mean that it is real. --Melissia 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown at Fort Meade

This information is cited to a specific source - why has it been repeatedly deleted? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall rightly, the source only said that it was going to be shut down, and it's dated, so we need a source saying it actually was. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An episode of the progarm "The Unexplained: Remote Sensing" on the Biography Channel, aired 4/1/2007 12-1pm MDT stated and showed a photograph that the building WAS torn down at Ft. Meade. I did not catch the date of the episode, and the channel guide did not have the next repeat of this story. Further internet searches on the Bio Channel and other sources may find other information. LanceBarber 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This was removed:

"In part because the program managers believed that anyone could learn accurate remote-viewing, the loss (through death and retirement) of the "naturals" was never replenished. Within the program, this was controversial. Some of the "naturals" believed that their talents were superior to those of the trainees. "

and

"The trainees (see Smith 2005, Schnabel 1997, Buchanan 2003) generally believed that the research program had succeeded not only in training them acceptably but in finding ways to make remote viewing an intelligence-collection tool as reliable as other standard methods (for example, human-source intelligence, which is not always reliable). Meanwhile, one of the authors of an official 1995 report, authorized by the CIA wrote that "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community."

I thought this all pretty funny. It is like art. In a hypothetical situation ... Somebody has a gift of capturing insightfully something and puts it on canvas with paint. It becomes a famous painting. Later, the government wanting much more analyzes the mechanics of how the drawing was done and trains people who become more skilled than the artist at the mechanical techniques. The new batch of artist technicians then produces, perfectly, mass quantities of crap. So, the government closes the program. *grins*

Notice in the real quote, the CIA said the remote viewing did not demonstrate enough practical value to the business of intelligence gathering, which is not the same as saying it was not true or did not work. Skeptics interpret this to mean the methods did not work, even though the government that closed the program is the same one that ran a program for decades with a number of historic successes.

I am not going to put it all back in. What it the point? If I were to lay out the Targ protocol and demonstrate it, what would it really do? If one can do this, it is a little creepy, but still not reliable. When someday it is better understood, and some means to make practical use is found, the skeptics will still claim the moral high ground, and those who worked to make it a part of science will know who busted hump to advance science.

Good luck with the article. Last word from me for awhile. Get a copy of "Mind Race", try it, make it work, then decide what to do next yourself. It is actually quite simple to get a series of hits, just follow the instructions.

Bptdude 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Science and pseudoscience

This article can be connected to both science and pseudoscience. Please give sources if you remove one Cat but leave the other in. It should either be in neither Cat, or both. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin, RVings exploration may have been grounded in science at one stage, but that exploration just showed it to be invalid as a theory. Since it is still being explored with no theoretically basis for any of it's underlying principles, it makes is more pseudoscience than science. The science side has basically said "tested, failed", so really it does qualify for pseudoscience until such time it's underpinnings are grounded in solid science. This is how science works. As for sources, they are all in the history and criticism sections. Again, the fact that it is a science with little or poor theoretically underpinning, little interest from scientists and large amounts of criticism tend to sway it towards the "junk" side of science. Shot info 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to argue this at the present. There is more to the story than what you just said- but the Parapsychology article and some others need to be re-done first. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, just because something is researched doesn't make it a science. RVing (and others) may be "real" science in the future, but not at this present time with the conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method. At this moment in time here in WP, RVing (and others) are pseudoscience. Just like plate tectonics were until the theories were proven and evidence shown. Shot info 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is protoscience with some methodological problems- not pseudoscience. One doesn't have to choose strictly between pseudoscience and science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"conflicting evidence, poor theoretically and proven underpinnings, disputed peer review and dodgy implementations of scientific method"...pseudoscience. Shot info 00:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, protoscience is that which becomes science. This is a field to which very few reputable scientists would have given any credence either before or after the inconclusive investigations. of the 70s and 80s. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I say- if your're right, you're right. I'm not prepaired to argue this right now, but we'll get to it someday, eh? (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I am treading carefully, especially around BLPs and looking at other equivalent articles to see what they have done to help the way forward. However, you may just have to accept that in some instances the WP community regards certain categories as appropriate. Thanks though Shot info 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. The science side did not say "tested, failed", it said "tested, and we're hitting much better than random" as is known as statistically significant. This was the results of the Targ series of documented government funded experiments. I do find it odd, Targ's book "The Mind Race", keeps getting deleted off this page. It is the bible of how to sit in your living room with a few friends, and conduct simple experiments. You could do that and make it fail, but the point is, can you do it and show it NOT to fail under rules of the scientific method.

And is doesn't need theoretical and proven underpinng nonsense. If we have no clue why gravity works, we can still document how we came up with a nice math formula for how to calculte how fast the apple will fall. If it works, it works. The why is interesting, but not required. Bptdude 07:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The thing is, with gravity, we can say with complete confidence what rules govern it. With RV, we can say with very close to toal confidence that repeating the experiment with either or both parties replaced by a random individual, or replacing the observer by one who is not vested in proving the existence of the purported phenomenon, reduces the rate of positives to a point unmeasurably different from random. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about replacing the people with others not gifted or experienced gives an uncomfortable fuzziness to the claim of being scientific. This is the "gotcha" hold back RV. It makes it seems too much like a parlor trick. But, if a "master observer", one who is controlling the known secrets to be found, such as the objects in the brown paper bags with numbers, just records if the numbers are being hit or not, then it is tough to say it is not working, no matter how subjective and iffy the methods are. Either they can hit the winning ponies at the track or they can't. If the green is steadily accumulating on the table, defying the known odds, even with acceptable losses, using steady fixed betting amount, well..... we have a winner! Is that a better description than gravity? Bptdude 10:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the definition needs improving. It seems to me that there is quite a negative POV added there and no real explanation power. There's more in the world than science can explain. I think the views of RVers is just not being presented fairly. For starters its highly regarded among quite a few hypnosis practitioners. I feel more could be stated there. There is also quite a lot of advance in subliminal programming and RVing [1]. It could do with a far better intro I think. Steve B110 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have WP:V and WP:RS as a start. Shot info 09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Shot info. I think you need to explain what problem you have with that information. The skeptical attitude is a view, but quite shortsighted by a lot of updated science views. Just because some phenomena cannot be measured it doesn't mean they don't exist. There have been a lot of recent discoveries about the brain and human potential. For example, its been proposed by neurologists that the mind is an emergent phenomenon. Also, near death experiences are scarily similar in form. Research into perception indicates that ESP experiences may also be emergent from the combination of measurable sense organs. Remote viewing is becoming standard practice in a lot of neurolinguistic programming trainings. So from my point of view remote viewing is quite plausible (in fact I've had consistent success with the technique for several years in both information gathering and remote influence). I have no problem with skeptical views being heard, but I think they should be stated as skeptical views. Steve B110 11:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

cf WP:V and WP:RS. Shot info 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, if you really want to know if remote viewing works you should take a look at some of the work being done at: http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr It is totally amazing.

Science in the case of remote viewing has clearly shown time and time again that something 'above the norm' is happening. This can be seen in the FOIA (freedom of information act) documents released from the DIA,SRI,CIA where reports and studies showed remote viewing occured at a levels much more than chance alone. Many of these domcuments and examples of remote viewing can be seen and downloaded from here: remote viewing FOIA documents and examples

Even the bodged MOD remote viewing study in 2001-02 under scientific protocols and study, showed a accuracy rate above the norm (28%) - these can be downloaded here UK MOD RV documents Also see this BBC article for details of the remote viewing study: BBC article on MOD RV study —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazdude (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was surfing today for old tube stereo equipment on ebay, and found a quote from the H.H. Scott stereo website. Somehow, it occurred to me this might be usefull to this topic.  :)

"If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad; if it measures bad and sounds good, you have measured the wrong thing."

- Daniel R. von Recklinghausen, former Chief Research Engineer, H.H. Scott

Bptdude 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Clairvoyance?

I couldn't find a specific sub section regardering the suggested merge tag on the front page, so I'm starting one. I vote NO. Remote viewing is not the same ability as clairvoyance. eveningscribe 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote NO. Remote Viewing is a set of projects intended for discovery of science valid results. It can be argued they failed or results are questionable. Clairvoyance implies means beyond physics and the natural world. This would be misleading to merge. People hearing about remote viewing are most likely looking for refernce for the set of CIA funded research very specific about this topic.

Bptdude 09:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Remote viewing is NOT clairvoyance:

The term "Remote Viewing" has one definition with two separate parts to it. The first part of the definition says it is:

The process of an individual acquiring information about a person, place, thing or event which is distant in time or space, when that information could not be accessible to the individual through any means currently known to science.

A certain type of psychic or "ESP" process, defined as Remote Viewing instead of ESP by the fact that it is done within an approved Remote Viewing protocol.

There are rules in Remote viewing to ensure the information one is obtaining could not be accessible to the psychic through any means but psi. These rules are not aplicaable to clairvoyance.

[daz smith] I vote NO. Remote viewing is not the same ability as clairvoyance. Vald 12:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the two subjects are dissimilar enough that they warrant two seperate articles. Ersby 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Remote viewing" refers broadly to a set of ESP protocols used in the government-sponsored program, or to protocols derived from them by commercial operators. Thus, remote viewing techniques comprise a subset of ESP/clairvoyance techniques. The articles should make this clear.

Criticism

1. Some of the changes to the criticisms were pointless and mealy-mouthed. Pointing out that one particular criticism doesn't explain all the results is vacuous when the article doesn't say it does. And besides, no one argument could possibly explain all the results by itself. You need an extensive list to do that.

2. Referencing the ganzfeld experiments is also a mistake. The two are best treated seperately.

3. Plus, the article needs to be rewritten so as to rely less on one source. Am I being paranoid in noticing a similarity between wikijs7's name and the email of Jim Schnabel? Doesn't a lot of this contravene no original research? I've added POV in the meantime. Ersby 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Hello? Wikijs7? This is where debates about the article go. Not in the article itself.Ersby 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

5. I've numbered your comments in this section, Ersby, for ease of reference. Re #1: The reference to Marks's criticism was (and still is) written in a way that implies a far greater relevance to the RV debate than it ever had. Re #2: Remote viewing is merely a "brand name" for a variety (not "one form") of ESP-type protocols used in the government-sponsored program (or subsequently derived from those protocols by commercial operators). With the way the article is written now, most uninformed readers will tend to read any criticism of any "remote viewing" experiment as a criticism of all ESP-type phenomena. To be more even-handed, an editor should clarify the limits of any methodological criticism. Re #3 and #4: Before I edited it, the article lacked the kind of information an entry on this subject should have, and any naive person reading it would have been grossly misinformed about the RV program. Surely completeness and accuracy are priorities over diversity of authorship??? Frankly, it appears to me that the people who control this page have scared away the people who are knowledgeable about this subject. (I understand that this is a general criticism of wikipedia.) But it should be possible to have an informative article on this subject which focusses particularly on the history of the program and is even-handed with regard to the views of skeptics and believers. (I'll have more to say about all this, and more to add on the history part of the article, when I have more time to devote to all this.)

So anyone who disagrees with you is scared of the truth? Nice attitude. Your "response to criticism" still lacks references. Putoff and Targ 1978 is not in the list at the bottom of the page. I'll leave it this way for now so you can add them in.

Clearly I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is scared of the truth. But the article lacked detail, and was biased towards the rejectionist view. (I agree that the article should be agnostic about the phenomenon's validity, while detailing what different groups believe and why.) Frankly, it appeared that people who were once involved in the program had abandoned the article to people who knew relatively little about RV. It seems to me that this is a situation to be particularly avoided by anybody who believes in wikipedia's long-term viability.

You are wrong in assuming that because an article contains one section on remote viewing called "criticism", that this implies all parapsychological research is flawed. This article is about remote viewing, and nothing else. There are other articles that take a wider view of parapsychology.

I repeat: For the sake of even-handedness, notes on methodological criticisms should describe the limits of those criticisms. I don't see why this should be objectionable. I think that part of the problem is the previous article's implication that "RV" is just one technique. I'll draft a section later which describes several types of RV protocol (outbound, associative, coordinate, etc.) so that in the reference to Marks's criticism, it can be specified that it referred to an early phase of outbound RV experimentation.

And it is preferable to have multiple sources. I can't believe this isn't obvious. And subjective validation has been considered a reason for "amazing hits", not just in remote viewing but also in ganzfeld and pyschic mediums and has been written about in parapsychological papers. It is totally relevant to the issue.Ersby 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that having multiple sources is desirable. It isn't obvious that that consideration takes priority over accuracy and detail. I'm going to try to expand the article (again, when I have time) and I am hoping that that will encourage others who are deeply knowledgeable about the program -- and skeptics who had some access -- to contribute to the appropriate sections. Please bear with me.

Rather than argue this "subjective validation" point with you endlessly, I will draft an expansion of the sections on criticisms/responses to clarify all these arguments so they don't look like mere hand-waving. I will also add some (stronger) criticisms (of certain RV techniques) that are currently absent.

In general, I'm not trying to dominate the contributions, but to specify sections (perhaps 5-10 more than exist now) in a way that allows content to be added in the right places, by the right people, with minimal controversy -- and with what ought to be a relatively quick stabilization of the historical content.

Merge with Project Stargate?

There seems to be a lot of new material that is better suited to the Project Stargate page. Or do people think that Remote Viewing and Project Stargate are sufficiently similar that the two can be merged? Ersby 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, "remote viewing" is really a kind of brand name invented by Puthoff et al to cover the protocols devised at SRI under the auspices of the govt-sponsored program, so there is a close connection between "remote viewing" and "Project Star Gate." However, "remote viewing" is really the dominant and broader term. "Star Gate" was only the last of several different names for the program (Grill Flame, Gondola Wish, Center Lane, Sun Streak, Star Gate). So I suggest that it would make more sense for Star Gate and the other code-names to have their own brief articles linked to the main "remote viewing" article.--Wikijs7 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. RV needs its own article. I don't do much editing here, but I watch it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This subject is wide enough to stand alone. In the discussions I hear reflections of the difficulty the editors appear to be experiencing in regard to incorporating the topic into their personal world view. I see little demonstration of an inclination to devote time toward attaining an educated perspective. This will be to the detriment of Wikipedia.

POV?

What is the justification for this now?--Wikijs7 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Use of terms like "killing" to describe the end of the program, and putting the word "evaluate" in quotes.
• Describing Hyman as a long-term opponent of psi, but not describing Utts as a long-term supporter of psi, which is, after all, why she was chosen to contribute to the paper. Also, calling her the "team's statistician" is misleading. She was one of the main authors of the paper.
• "Each side was convinced the other was utterly wrong" is then followed only by arguments for the pro-ESP side.
• "such claims beg the question of why the program lasted twenty three years" - not for wikipedia to ask leading questions like that.
• No mention of Stargate's more curious targets, such as Mars at the year 1,000,000 BC, or the Tunguska explosion. According to McMoneagle, the program became more and more new age, especially after its trasfer to SAIC

Ersby 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this issue should probably be revisited after I've had time to integrate the new sections, re-check the existing material (e.g., the descriptions of Utts that were there before I came along) and add some basic material -- for example on the weird targeting and apparent psychological/psychiatric side-effects of RV involvement.--Wikijs7 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That description of Utts is yours. 87.194.43.100 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The "weird targeting" was only a fraction of the output of the remote viewing unit. After searching through the 12,000+ documents in the CIA's declassified archives, I found about three dozen sessions involving "weird" targets. The vast majority -- at least a couple of thousand -- were against more conventional targets. Considering "weird" targets in the Wiki article seems justified only for the fact that such targets -- and media attention to them -- loom larger in the public mind. For encylopedic purposes, such mention seems trivial. Re: the disputed Utts reference -- last night I reworded it slightly to reflect her status as firmly in the "pro" psi camp. However (to be fair to the original drafter) Hyman's presence in the skeptic camp (50 years or more, now, and a number of books) far exceeds Utts' 20 years in the pro-psi category. If you examine their respective contributions to the AIR report, it becomes clear that Utts' work was far more rigorous than was Hyman's. See: [2]An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning by Jessica Utts. [3] Evaluation of a Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena by Ray Hyman. Paul H. Smith 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

President and prime instructor for RVIS, Inc (Remote Viewing Instructional Services) The promotion of remote viewing is directly connected to Mr. Smith's book, business, and livelyhood, something to keep in mind. Teaching RV? seems to be very profitable. Be cautious. Kazuba 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you, Kazuba, that ad hominem attacks are against official Wikipedia talkpage policy. While nothing you say above is factually incorrect (except, unfortunately, the profitability of teaching remote viewing), you have intentionally presented it in such as way as to impugn my trustworthiness. I had drafted a detailed post rebutting your insinuations, but decided it was more appropriate to merely draw your attention to the Wiki ad-hominem policy. Rather than committing the logical fallacy of attacking the character of the person presenting an argument, one is expected rather to discuss the merit of what is argued. In that light, I should point out that nothing in the post in question involves any outrageous claims, and everything I asserted in it is either verified (via sourcing) or verifiable.Paul H. Smith 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the heated conversation going on, one harsh critic said:

"It is not objectively proven to exist, and there is no mechanism known to science by which it can exist." This actually is true. But his attitude of ridiculing something that has been functionally used by public institutions, and well documented as such, is unprofessional and he should take he pet peeves to some other article. Actually, although people have wierd theories, nobody knows the mechanism for gravity to work. But, the apple still falls with the observed mathmatical predicted speed as developed by Sir Issac Newton.

Remote viewing is not standard science because it can not pass the tests of the scientific method. But working practical use has been made based on the current status of a functioning working theory that has been proved at least statistically significant by those who have funded serious projects that produced working results. This article can state what Remote Viewing is by those who created, used, and supported the term. After all, even if you do not belive it to be true, and this is all some big hoax, including all the documents of the United States Government, it still has a definition in detail that belongs in Wikipedia.

Running a big red virtual marker through it and calling it "horsefeathers" is just childish behaviour and borders on libel against the working careers of professionls who have spent decades working on this and producing documentation. Nobody is saying this is proven science, but nobody should mass delete valuable reference information, or be crude and insulting, because they have a personal vendetta that this all somehow just can not have anything to it. Bptdude 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very balanced view. He reverts everything I try to do, though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Category change

Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I searched Google for some of the text said to be a copyright violation, and don't fine it. Where is it from? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Live Remote Viewing Demo

Check out the More Information: Video: Live Demonstration, See if you can spot the flaws, the con. They are most definitely there. If you can't recognize these juicy tidbits maybe you should keep away from this PSI stuff. You are just too easy. "Welcome to my web," said the spider to the fly. [4] Kazuba 03:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you presume that this "demo" is representative of an authentic remote viewing session? Since anyone can append anything to a Wiki page -- at least in the short run -- it can happen (as in this case) that less-than-rigorous examples may be presented from sources that are not credible. An arbitrarily-posted video on the Web such as this does not constitute evidence of any sort either for or against remote viewing, because the circumstances under which it was produced are unknown and, as far as can be determined, uncontrolled. Paul H. Smith 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite opening section?

The whole opening section is way too long and rambling to meet WP quality standards. I propose tidying it up to be more concise, and relocate the useful material removed to elsewhere in the page. Any opinions on this? JXM 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've tightened up the opening section and moved the rest of that material elsewhere. Nothing has been deleted -- everything has just been moved around. There's a new (and not very well-done) Introduction, a section covering Stephan Schwartz and Distant Viewing, and a separate section on the AIR evaluation.

I haven't tried to do anything about the neutrality issue yet. The long quote from Opening to the Infinite was previously unattributed. It apparently comes from a book by Stephan Schwartz, and consequently may not be NPOV. The criticism-related sections near the end are also in need of NPOV attention.

Perhaps someone else can now take a crack at the next round of refinement, like improving my Introduction scetion and addressing the neutrality problem. JXM 06:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Work on Introduction Section

I'm reversing the last edit (about Joseph McMoneagle) in the Introduction section because it's too off-topic in this early part of the article. Also, the Reader's Digest citation isn't complete - we need to show the issue date for example.

We probably need a new "RV Today" section further on, that covers the more recent on-going work, where this McMoneagle item perhaps resides. More generally, the Introduction section needs some close editing attention to tell a better story, but this isn't the way to achieve that. jxm 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Large Rewrites

Please don't do mass alterations with some amount of discussion. For example, the whole SRI series of experiments are certainly controversial, but they merit a description of what the protocols were and where the methodological failures lay. Similarly, the way the funding moved from one organization to another is useful, to help show where the influences of 'less rigorous' sciences came into play. I think it would be helpful to get some decent section structure in there first and then prune away the POV stuff. If nothing else, we need to provide readers with accurate NPOV descriptions of the overall topic, to help them present rational arguments about its lack of validity. Thanks for your help with this. jxm 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually I was reverting a massive addition of POV by one or two users over a period of six months. We've been round this circle before, bloated with crap and then pruned down, I just short-circuited the process by going back to a version that was at least tolerable. I think it's better to work fomr that, using the intermediate version as a pointer form time to time. Remote viewing has no significant currency, and it's not an "experimental protocol" unless you're a proponent - it's a purported paranormal phenomenon, and one which has virtually no support these days. Better by far to go back to something an intelligent size and expand it if you like, with good sources. Guy (my Big Boob edits) (Help!) 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, as you wish. I agree that there's been a lot of meandering POV added, which needs to be corrected. I think we just disagreed on the sequence for dealing with it. I'd like to try and summarize, in an NPOV manner of course, the studies sponsored by the CIA et al in the 70s, by drawing upon the peer-reviewed pubs (IEEE, Nature, etc.) and government reports at the time, and discussing the (significant) limitations in them. One approach would be to introduce a separate article specifically on this narrower topic, which I will undertake to ensure remains POV-free. The other approach would be to continue editing work on the current article, where I'd presumably be dealing with the ongoing bloat problem, in addition to your concerns about the overall efficacy of the topic in general. (For example, I'm uneasy about your linking of the term "experimental protocol" to "proponent", but that's a separate matter.) I'm rather in favor of the first approach, with the assumption that we could always merge in the future, if both pieces were of sufficient quality. But I'll take your guidance on this -- you're the admin after all, and I've no desire to waste my time unnecessarily. Thanks for your input. jxm 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be great, vastly more constructive than the POV-pusher's revert summary calling it, if I recall, "vital" history. The most crucial thing about remote viewing is that it has been found to be complete twaddle. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that comment, Guy. I'll get weaving on this and run a draft by you before insertion as a separate article. Cheers! jxm 04:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• That would be good. The article has been almost exclusively written by believers, and it really could do with a sanity check; they "know" what is significant but this "knowledge" appears to be coloured by a pressing need to make the idea seem legitimate and even mainstream, which clearly it is not. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing/references?

I am puzzled as to what happened to a fairly extensive addition of peer-reviewed and academic references on remote viewing that I contributed to the article a few months back (in response to complaints that there were "no" or "too few" of such documents listed). They have been replaced by a mixed bag of references, some of which have merit, but others that are of questionable provenance or reliabilty. I am fairly new to this Wikipedia stuff, so don't know what might have happened or why. Paul H. Smith 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen this article being "tweaked" over time, even though contributions are well written and documented with references. You would think if RV was really bogus, this "wierd" editing would not happen. To the user who asked about simple procedure being spelled out, before the topic being argued .. The most simple is the first to get cut. To those out here who have read the original research and experiments of Targ, have tried them, and seen success, the smoke and mirrors is very annoying and a bit concerning. The basic experiments are extremely simple things. Yes, you have to be subjective and try to make them work, but either you are successful at finding targets or not, is straight forward to be convinced of trying it yourself if you have the dreamlike intuitive ability and somebody willing to work with you. This is science, not supernatural, and if this works, it is the tip of some realm of science we know almost nothing about. To pry open this great unknown to a hidden field of physics is the greatet thing Remote Viewing could bring to the world. It is not rational to those who can not produce it, and I do not blame them for being skeptical. But those who strive to bury this are not likely the ones who think it is all crap.

Bptdude 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd think that it it wasn't bogus at least one or two mainstream sources would cover it. But they don't. Because it is bogus. Ah well, never mind. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "covering it." You seem unaware that articles on remote viewing reporting positive results have been published in "Nature," "Proceedings of the IEEE," "Perceptual and Motor Skills," a Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. A further problem with your comment, however, is that it is a logical fallacy. Your argument amounts to this: 1) Only those research programs are legitimate that are covered by mainstream science publications. 2) Parapsychology research programs are not covered by mainstream science publications. 3) Therefore parasychology research is not legitimate (or, as you colorfully put it -- 'is bogus'). This is a valid argument in that if both premises were true, the conclusion would follow. But it is not a sound argument, since Premise 1), at least, is false. "Being covered" by a mainstream science publication satisfies no truth conditions for a claimed phenomenon. Many phenomena now accepted into scientific discourse were once not covered by mainstream science publications, and we can be sure that there will be others accepted into science in the future that are not being covered today. One of these may turn out to be ESP. Paul H. Smith 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Remote Viewing Process

Whoa. Before one starts saying this or that about remote viewing shouldn't the process be described in detail? My favorites are how long can the viewer describe what the target is? 15 minutes, or is it 30 minutes? How many written and oral statements are allowed? A hundred? How many sketches are allowed to be drawn? How many hits are required? Only one? Where is all of this information revealed? Certainly not here. Where are the detailed records? Has anyone ever really seen them? The question of the down and dirty details are not even touched on in this entry, regardless if RV has value or not. Why? What does it mean when Joseph McMoneagle states, "A remote viewer can never be wrong." If there is a common target and six remote viewers, cannot some of them be wrong? Where's the detective work? If one reveals all the details is that being neutral? What if someone does not like the details? Kazuba 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) kazuba

Two points, if I may:

1) The alleged statement you quote is very uncharacteristic of Joe McMoneagle. Either it is falsely attributed, or has been taken seriously out of context. I am under the impression that skeptics, too, have the same obligation to provide source references as anyone else. Citation, please?

2) The following is from the WP talkpage guidelines: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." Your paragraph of questions is a thinly-veiled op-ed against remote viewing per se. Let's stick to the business at hand -- trying to craft a fair, accurate, neutral article on remote viewing. Paul H. Smith 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Quote: "Speaking of failures, one of my earliest discoveries was to be one of the most valuable. In remote viewing there are failures for the scientists, there are failures for the judges, there are failures for the observers- but there are no failures for the remote viewer." [The italics are also in the text.] Mind Trek: Exploring Conconsciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing, Hamptons Roads Publishing Co., Inc., 1997, page 62, Paragraph four. I guess if you wait and use your creative imagination long enough maybe you'll get something right. Now don't go changing the text on me. (Who owns Hampton Roads?) Asking for detailed information is NOT arguing. It deals with the quality of the remote viewing entry. Could it be improved? I have absolutely nothing against remote viewing. I just want to learn more about it. Haven't you ever been curious about something? Really curious? Enough to read books written by remote viewers themselves, so you are dealing with primary sources? In the world of the professional historian objectivity is the goal. Kazuba 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that I have misunderstood your motives. And you will yourself, I'm sure, be glad to hear that you have misunderstood Joe McMoneagle! In the same section from which your quote comes, he sums up his point thus: "The scientist sees a failure, the judges sees failure, any observer sees failure, but... I have learned something, so I have not failed. Right or wrong, I am learning and squeezing 100% from the experience" (p. 63). So it is clear that Joe is not saying remote viewers are never wrong (I note that you did indeed misquote him in your previous post -- inadvertently, I'm sure). He seems to be saying instead that even in being wrong there is something to be learned and the only failure is not to learn it. This is, of course, a point that remote viewer Lyn Buchanan and others have also often made, and it applies in most areas of life, not just remote viewing. I'm pleased that we have gotten to the bottom of this! Now, back to work... Paul H. Smith 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) What about the quote: "Upon seeing the actual target, I find out that it wasn't the bow of a ship: it was a church." That's a big difference.(p. 63) Kazuba 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He is acknowledging analytical overlay. It is a big obstacle to accurate remote viewing -- perhaps the biggest one. Joe is not claiming this as a hit, but as a miss -- though an interesting one. Perhaps if he can come to understand the mental mechanisms that led him to the belief of 'ship' rather than 'church,' he will get it right next time. He obviously doesn't go into this much detail in his text, but it is what he is implying when he counts this not as a failure but as a useful learning experience. Paul H. Smith 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read the bible of remote viewing, a reference that keeps getting deleted from this article, "The Mind Race", by Russell Targ, you will be able to read a functioning process. The process takes into account that there are two "fuzzy" processes involved. The first is the viewer retrieving vague mental images on command from somebody sent out to the target timed to be at exactly noon for instance. The second is the intepreter recording the ramblings or drawings of the viewer and guessing a most closest match. There are all kinds of ways to make it not work or setup conditions of failure. The object is to make it work. A set of household objects are selected for target objects that vary widely as possible, so a fuzzy bear, a pen, and a basketball are not easily confused with each other. To make a long story short, if the interpreter, who has no idea what the selected target is suppose to be { as setup by yet another person, the experiment control person }, can select from 20 objects the teddy bear, even from really crappy vague drawings, but he does pick the right target, then it is a hit.

The workings of the human mind to resolve visual imagery and symbolic queues is truly amazing, and probably lies at the heart of this.

When later somebody else, some skeptic not involved in the experiment, looks at the crappy vague drawings and is asked if it looks like a drawing of a teddy bear, he might think the drawing could be anything from a tomatoe with a tumor to a dirty pile of laundry. But that matters not.

Bptdude 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "Mind Race" is the "bible" of remote viewing. It is a good book on the subject, but there are others, including "Mind Reach" by Targ and Puthoff, that might be contenders for that title. But contenders only -- I don't think the real remote viewing "bible" has yet been written nor, perhaps, will it be. Few fields, controversial or not, actually have anything one could call a "bible." The experimental protocol you describe here resembles the ARV (for "associative remote viewing") protocol. Done properly, I think it does provide solid evidence for the reality of the remote viewing protocol.Paul H. Smith 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what matters is that any attempt to reproduce the experiment without cues by people not already committed to the idea has failed to replicate the supposed phenomenon. The biggest obstacle to "accurate" remote viewing is, according to the dominant scientific view, that it does not exist as an objectively provable concept. No provable mechanism exists, no objectively verifiable demonstration has ever been given, the experiment fails the scientific method and indeed occam's razor. Pretty much every article on or related to remote viewing is written in an "in-universe" style. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, as far as I know there has only been one attempt by skeptics to do what you describe above -- and that was Marks and Kammann. And their experiment duplicated many of the same errors of the earliest SRI RV attempts -- mistakes that were quickly corrected, though Marks and Kammann were apparently unaware of that. What's interesting in the skeptic vs. proponent debate with remote viewing is the nearly complete absence of skeptic/critic attempts at replication. In other words, no attempts to replicate RV experiments by 'nonbelievers' have succeeded because there have been virtually no such attempts. That makes your claim here question begging. The assertions in the second half of your post are pretty much a rehash of older skeptical arguments that have been answered numerous times in the scientific parapsychology literature (best compendium for that would be Radin's "The Conscious Universe"). Perhaps I can respond more to this in a later e-mail, but for now I am late to an appointment! Paul H. Smith 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• And that is a core of the problem. Almost the only people who have investigated it in any way are those who believe. And when it's tried by a non-believer, and no results, it's because of "errors". It's absolutely typical of fringe and pseudoscience subjects: close to zero mainstream coverage because the mainstream is unpersuaded that there is either a credible mechanism or any scientific rigour. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Progress, of a sort. You have moved from saying 'any attempts' by non-believers have failed (implying there were at least several) to the more accurate 'the' attempt by a non-believer has failed. Unfortunately, that doesn't buy you what you want, since one attempt is insufficient to establish any claim (you would certainly not accept only one experiment by a parapsychologist). The fact that there is only one skeptical attempt at replication (a half-hearted one at that) is not a problem of the phenomenon, of course. Instead it is a problem with the sociology (and perhaps the psychology) of scientists. Notice the parallel between the skeptics being unwilling to even test the claims parapsychologists are making and the academics in Galileo's day who refused to even look through the telescope, since they 'knew' that there was nothing there to be seen. But there is at least one modern instance where a skeptic did agree to try a parapsychology experiment. Skeptic Daryl Bem, professor of psychology at Cornell, agreed to a joint Ganzfeld experiment with Charles Honorton, fully expecting it to fail. However, under controlled conditions the experiment succeeded, as did a number of other experiments Bem has since pursued. Bem says he is no longer a skeptic. Of course, Ganzfeld is only a related ESP research protocol, not specifically an actual remote viewing one. As noted above, there are no examples of skeptics attempting remote viewing experiments other than Marks and Kamman.Paul H. Smith 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy (JzG), I find it interesting that you created a template, called Template:Partisan, just so you could tag this article. There should be no problem with putting information in the article, both in the lead and in the criticism section, that mainstream science has not been convinced. But your changes to the lead controvert WP:WTA, and the ArbCom on the paranormal [5]. Are you going to respond below, so that the problem can be worked out? The basic thing here is that we have to go with what sources we have. There is a govt report, I believe, which concludes that there is nothing to it. We can include that. But there is nothing wrong with the sources being partisan. If there are no non-partisan sources out there, then that is what we go with, per WP:FRINGE. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was a response to the fact that no sources other than partisan ones appear to exist in the article. Feel free ot produce rigorous scientific investigations by independent scientists investigating this, but actually I don't think there are any. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You call Nature partisan? That is one of the citations. Government reports? Don't they cite the gov't reports any more? And if there aren't any alternatives to partisan sources, then there is no need to tag. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Purported

I chose this word very carefully for its exact English meaning. Generally we avoid the word purported, as in "X purported to demonstrate Y", because where it is attached to individuals and subjects it implies a value judgement. In this case, however, it implies no such judgement. See wikt:purport: "1. To convey, imply, or profess outwardly; 2. To have the appearance of being intending, claiming, etc."; Merriam-Webster has "the idea that is conveyed or intended to be conveyed to the mind by language, symbol, or action" - I think it is more precise than a claimed (or alleged or supposed, or other near synonyms) ability, since the people doing the claiming are bringing what they consider as evidence, albeit either disputed or refuted according to mainstream science. If anyone can think of a better word I'd be glad to talk about it, English is a great language and has many words that convey nuance, allowing for an enviable precision in description. I am an engineer, not a linguist, so I am always open to persuasion in matters of usage.

This is comparable to the use of the word "belief" in articles on belief systems. It is necessary to set the scene in the same way that we set the scene in the lead of articles on fictional characters, by saying "in the fictional foo universe, Bar is..." - I wouldn't mind identifying this as a concept within the fictional remote viewing universe, but I doubt that its proponents would think much of that, and it would not really be good style anyway. What's important is to make it clear in the lead (which acts as a summary of the whole article) that this has been investigated and rejected by the mainstream, but that it still has currency among a fairly small group of believers. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good word, which allows one to give a definition without any bias at all as to the validity of the subject:

define means:

b: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions>

And as used in a lead, it would obviously be that meaning. Then we could specifically state, per WP:WTA, the controversy, having defined what the article is about.

WTA says:

Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.

– here

So basically, I think that this is one of several ways of talking about a controversial topic without taking sides. But I do think that purported, while it does have some advantages, is better left to dictionaries rather than encyclopedias, where we have the space to be specific about controversy.

In some cases, "means," "denotes," and "indicates" can also be used. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• But it is only defined as such by proponents. Sceptics don't consider it to be defined at all. You can't say that God is defined as the omnipotent being, because it's not objectively verifiable. You can say that believers in monotheistic religions consider God the omnipotent being. Likewise you can't say that remote viewing is defined as the ability for a viewer to perceive things at some remote location, because almost every scientist on the planet actually defines remote viewing as a load of dingos' kidneys. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions are analytic, hence a priori, not a posteriori (in other words, not empirical, or "objectively verifiable"). It is a mistake to require that a definition have a physical realizer (as in the "God" example above). Even though unicorns are non-existent, "unicorn" can still be defined. Further, virtually all new scientific definitions are generated by proponents (or discoverers, or developers -- which in science amounts to essentially the same thing). Skeptics do not have a mandate to determine what is definable and what is not. It is also an erroneous claim that "almost every scientist on the planet" has any definition of remote viewing at all since that would require nearly all scientists to have an idea of what remote viewing is alleged to be. Based on my (admittedly) arbitrary sampling of perhaps a dozen or more scientists from various scientific disciplines in various settings around the country, it appears that most of them have never even heard of remote viewing in the first place, much less have an opinion about it. Paul H. Smith 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"God (IPA: /ɡɒd/) most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]"

In other words, define first. In this definition, God is defined as the deity. Then the prominent belief is stated. For RV, you have:

"Remote viewing (RV)is a term for extra-sensory perception in which a viewer attempts to gather information on a remote target that is hidden from the physical perception of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer at some distance."

This is the same as the God definition: define the subject, then say what it's meaning is, in this case that it is a process which attempts to view at a distance.

So I suggest that if the God article is not in accord with WP, that you go change it, but we need to follow general WP practice, and the ArbCom, and we need to pay attention to WP:WTA. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• We are following ArbCom. The article accurately describes, in the lead at least, the fact that this is a purported ability with no objectively provable existence in reality. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed this interpretation, but we are not. Do we have to go through another ArbCom to get enforcement? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't need to, your current restriction should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Papers/References

Under the section "Papers" I have restored the list of peer-reviewed and academic articles that had been removed from the article some time in the recent past. I wonder, though, whether these papers should instead have been incorporated into the "Reference" section? If so, I can go back and do that. Paul H. Smith 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind -- I see that the "References" section is for foot-notes. Paul H. Smith 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV lead

The lead is POV, see above section Talk:Remote_viewing#Purported. It either needs to be reverted to where I NPOVed it, or a further suggestion needs to be made, which is in accord with the ArbCom and does not use WTAs. Suggestions are welcome. Editors should be aware of this page, and should not make arguments which controvert its letter or spirit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, the lead is neutral. Remote viewing is the purported ability to view objects at a distance. It is not objectively proven to exist, and there is no mechanism known to science by which it can exist. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will have to bow to the ArbCom on this one. Your definition isn't even sourced. I could remove it as unsourced, if nothing else.

Tell me, do you consider Nature a partisan source? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I bow to ArbCom, who says that we don't represent fringe views as if they were mainstream. Your preferred version does just that. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific- and please answer the question about Nature. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the recent arbcom restriction placed on you, please stop disrupting this article with fringe theory advocacy. There are no independent reliable sources, and nothing current either. Who wrote the paper in Nature? Targ and Puthoff. Who wrote the IEEE paper? Puthoff and Targ. No independent objective evaluation has ever duplicated the proposed effect. There are no current reliable independent sources supporting the existence of remote viewing, no credible mechanism has been advanced by which it might work, and it is very clear that it is a fringe theory rejected by the scientific establishment. In as much as it ever had any currency or perceived validity, that has long gone. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of question begging. Guy's definition of the term "independent reliable source" will always be the empty set. This is because anyone -- including a skeptic -- who successfully replicates a remote viewing or other ESP experiment automatically becomes a partisan source. This constitutes a tautology. Producing successful results, even with the cleanest of protocols, makes one a partisan. Producing negative results, even with the sloppiest of protocols, makes one "ojbective and independent." And of course there are no reliable sources (listed on the Wikipedia remote viewing page) because Guy/JzG deletes them when they are posted. Paul H. Smith (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. The only rigorous investigation into this by a sceptic, as far as I can tell, concluded that it's bogus. All the published papers are by the closed circle of proponents. See WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that means you don't know the sources. However, if you have alternate sources, please show them to us. Otherwise, the sources we have are the sources upon which we have to base the article, partisan or no. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw this page listed on WP:3O, so I'm here to comment. I have to admit, I'm not really sure why the page was listed on there. Is it really all over the use of "purported" in the introduction? And what is this ArbCom decision that keeps being mentioned? With a little more information as to what the problem is, I can give a better opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over: Here is the ArbCom, I've directed right to one of the sections which relate specifically to the word in the intro, but there are about 3 others. Here is the situation: I'm under ArbCom sanction, which basically says I can be banned for a week if I edit in a disruptive way [6]. Guy/JzG, an admin, is calling my participation on this page disruptive, and threatening to have me blocked (so if I can't get back to you that's why). I also feel rather insulted by his "spit in the soup" dismissal. He created the "Partisan" template just for use on this page, then tagged everything- but has no alternative sources to use, as far as I know. You might look over this discussion on his talk page- which says it all. Also see edit summary here. His version of the lead has been edit-warred in, over the objections of other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's... a lot of Wikidrama. Um, I'm not really sure on this one. You certainly need to watch yourself on this one. As for the use of "purported" in the first sentence, it seems okay, I guess. This resolution on the RfA seems to indicate that the addition of "purported" adds nothing to the case. Is the use of this word the reason you listed on 3O, or is there something else that I'm not getting here?

Side note: I wouldn't recommend it since you've been so recently sanctioned, but if you really feel bullied, you do have the option of bringing up an issue against an admin, either at WP:ADMIN#Dealing with grievances or WP:RFC/ADMIN. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming along. Unfortunately, the listing at 3O is just forum shopping - this is not a dispute between only two users. There is no indication that Martinphi will accept any answer other than that he is right, based on my interactions with him elsewhere. This is one of the reasons for his ArbCom sanction. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (: Actually, there are several issues, one the OWNING of the article, (the special template, edit warring etc.) and the other the threats and incivility, made merely for discussion on the talk page. I am not the only editor who opposes the word choice, or the other actions. I do feel bullied here, so I may take your advice. Thanks again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I'm having a problem with this user JzG. He continues to remove links to published material, referenced historical information, etc. as some personal crusade against Remote Viewing being factual. If it is real and works or not is not the point. It has a history, a definition, people who were paid by major governments to pursue research, and many documents { even if written by people who came to mistaken conclusions } that are part of what makes up the body of Remote Viewing information that people who are interested have a right to check out for themselves, when they look up RV in Wiki. What do we do with this person who just deletes all this with wild abandon, just because of his own personal undocumented faith system that RV just can not have any basis? Bptdude (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that the text you keep putting in contains the assumption that remote viewing works, and provides or provided "valuable" intelligence. Whereas of course there is no objectively verifiable evidence that it does work or that he provided anything other than a lucky guess. The way to deal with it is to cite it to a footnote which links to the citation, and let people make up their own mind. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, JzG, why do you keep removing the link to the referenced material and why remove the part about his reporting the information to national leaders. Both pieces of information do not make claim as to Remote Viewing being true or not, but point to sources for people to look into in. Exactly as you say it should be documented, you delete! I really think you misunderstand the nature of a piece of reference material. That a "normal" source, like a dictionary might define diving { finding water with a stick } doesn't mean the same as standing behind that it true. You can't just keep removing reference material and links about a topic that is contraversial, just because you are trying to push your personal belief that it is not an accepted fact. You are doing a form of "book burning" censorship! Bptdude (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh thank you so much. A denouncement of censorship is a pretty reliable indicator that a fringe view has been reduced to its proper perspective and weight. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Talk header and Paranormal Group

Peer review requested. This stub is too light. I'll add as time permits Maxwellordinary 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• As long as there are people in that project who support the mainstream as well as the pro-paranormal viewpoint, that will be helpful. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paranormal designation

Paranormal designation, and peer review withdrawn by editor. (Parallel peer review request active). --Maxwellordinary (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes was right

Well. Yesterday I re-posted a list of science articles, some favorable, a few critical of remote viewing. Today it is gone. After a bit of poking around and learning a few more Wikepedian ropes, I find that the list was deleted because the deleter arbitrarily decided that too many of the listed papers reported positive results or favorable judgments about remote viewing. The culprit was an anonymous someone going by the initials JzG who, on further investigation, may just be an alter-ego of another alter-ego of someone else who makes a hobby of going around vandalizing Wikipedia parapsychology entries. It seems that the social experiment known as Wikipedia is a failure when it comes to handling any entries on subjects slightly more controversial than the chemical make-up of salt. In any case, after fooling around trial and error with this for more than a year off and on and seeing entries and edits wiped out without a trace merely on the whim of some skeptical bigot who happens by, it seems that I could contribute more by spending my time building sand castles at low tide. I've also come to realize what an un-policed online "state of Nature" looks like.

My thanks and respect to those editors of good conscience who put their energy into trying to keep a balance going here. I don't envy you -- nor do I hold out much hope. Paul H. Smith 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a sad sad thing to have to read. These minds that wipe out sincere attempts to bring the truth to odd beliefs as best science can, are also the ones that would most likely declare somebody who displayed an odd ability a witch or demon, even now in the 21 century. Is not that truly ironic? Such people would create "The Mutant Control Agency". *sigh* Either it is not true, without even looking, or it is a threat to be destroyed or controlled without looking. And so we move to the Idiocracy.

Bptdude 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• First, Paul H. Smith should not be editing the article (per our conflict of interest guidelines). Second, Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that the world in general thinks this idea is horsefeathers. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a mis-representation of COI. Read the ArbCom I've already mentioned here. There is to be caution, but the quality of editing is everything. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a COI. He makes money selling "remote viewing". Guy (Help!) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat: the quality of editing is everything. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's argument begs the question. If making money or selling in a field is a disqualifier, then physicists employed at Los Alamos should not edit Wiki articles on quantum field theory, AMD computer scientists should never edit articles on semiconductor technology, nor florists edit an article on flower arranging. Obviously, the position is absurd. Fortunately, the Wikepedia guidlines are not so rigid as Guy seems to be. This is what they say about COI: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace." Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They do not make money by promoting quantum field theory, they are paid to study it. If you can show me a body of work in the reputable science journals in favour of remote viewing that is even one hundredth the size of those supporting quantum theory, I will happily help rewrite the article based on those sources. I'm afraid that Puthoff and Targ publishing in support of their own hypothesis is no more convincing than Fleischmann and Pons publishing in support of theirs. This is a better example than any of yours, I believe, since it addresses a more analogous situation, namely a theory with no significant remaining support outside of its few proponents. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop in and revisit this after a long absence doing other things. First, do you seriously think anyone will believe that the professor teaching classes and writing a book on his interpretation of quantum theory is not getting paid to promote quantum theory? Second, your position here is question begging. The size of a body of peer-reviewed, published work on a scientific topic as compared to the volume of work published on some other scientific topic has absolutely no bearing on the scientific legitimacy of either topic. You commit an apparently intentional logical fallacy here by implying that all that has been published on the subject of RV comes from Targ and Puthoff, when there is an extensive body of peer-reviewed articles in publications (both mainstream and specialty) by other researchers on remote viewing and related topics...a number of these cited on a reference list I posted on the Wiki page but which you kept deleting only because several of the referenced articles reported positive results! That kind of behavior implies that you will tolerate only the negative point of view, and even when there is evidence for the positive point of view you take it upon yourself to prevent others from seeing it. This attitude seems directly antithetical to Wikipedia's touted "neutral POV" policy. Paul H. Smith (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Early SRI Work?

Since "neutrality" has now apparently (and somewhat mysteriously) been achieved (see edit on March 10th), I'd like to recommend that we move the RV section on the main SRI page to this page instead. At least that material contains accurate citations of the various scholarly articles that this page still lacks. Comments? jxm (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to lead etc.

Martinphi made a number of changes which served, in my view, to give the impression that RV is widely accepted and disputed only by "out there" skeptics. This is a false impression. The scientific consensus is strongly against the existence of paranormal phenomena, and the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies. Randi is indeed one of the few proponents of the mainstream view who dignifies this twaddle with a rebuttal, but the fact remains that science in general simply does not accept the paranormal, mainstream support for investigation into the paranormal has been in decline since the 19th century because science has much better explanations now. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not write your posts in a way which insults those who believe in remote viewing.

If you can cite a scientific consensus, then that is what we should put in the article. Such a source -as with Astrology- is highly valuable. However, the other sources in the article militate against what you say. Thus, what you say needs sourcing.

By definition, science does not accept the paranormal, which is why we could frame the article with that word, or equally with the current "extra-sensory perception," per the decision of the ArbCom, which you can read in summary form here. However, citing skeptical sources, such as Randi requires attribution. This is standard and basic Wikipedia policy, and I see no reason why you have any objection to it.

I would also like a source for saying that the paranormal is not a mainstream view, and that Randi's view are mainstream. According to Gallup polls, it is the mainstream view, with I believe over 70 percent of people believing in one or more paranormal claims. The percentage goes up with education level, and a majority of physical scientists believe in the paranormal.

I also see no reason for wholesale reversion of good edits along with those you disagree with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help the fact that the dominant scientific view is that remote viewing is bunk. This is not just the view of skeptics such as Randi, it is the dominant scientific view of all paranormal phenomena, as you know perfectly well. Please stop trying to obscure this obvious and well documented truth. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the dominant view is as you say, why not cite the source? Right now the lead section you have added is OR and POV as any editor can see. My interest is not whether the topic is true or not but the policies. Not sure what the problem is, but wouold like to see this lead comply per Wikipedia policy. Martinphi seems to be making a reasonable claim and request. (olive (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Stop Wikilawyering. You know that JzG is right. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Wikilawyering, eh?....Nice one!(olive (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

"You know that JzG is right." A 'mind reader' who does not believe in remote viewing; fascinating.

It is standard pseudosceptic practice to demand proof but provide none themselves, which is also the prevailing Wiki Editor approach, perfectly normal double standards, especially among those who hide behind pseudonyms. Surveys such as one referred to on the BBC Web Site have shown that most people believe in, accept, have exeperienced the non-physical. So, on a weight of numbers basis the dominant view is contrary to pseudosceptic propoganda.

I have only 'dabbled' in remote viewing but do have expereince of telepathy; thanks to a telepath to whom I was introduced, remotely of course, I was able to describe scenes and a two people, one of them the telepath herself, in mainland Europe (I was in Southern England), confirmed by someone who had met them and been there. It is real enough. RichardKingCEng (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what then, since Littleolive appears to challenge the assertion that the dominant scientific view is that paranormal phenomena are bunk, why not cite a list of successful reproductions of paranormal experiments by mainstream scientists published in mainstream scientific journals in the last 50 years? Guy (Help!) 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Lets be clear, and lets not put words in Olive's mouth. There was no challenge here to the truth of the material. Thats not my job as an editor. So "appears to challenge the assertion that the dominant scientific view is that paranormal phenomena are bunk, is, ahhhh, well, bunk . I didn't say that. I am very clearly challenging the reliability of the statement, rather than its truth, and the source, in terms of Wikipedia. It is OR and becomes POV.The original statement in place was neutral, so why you would remove it, is beyond me. Your atatement JzG is a red herring. The issue at hand is reliablity of source and OR and not what Olive believes.(olive (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

SA, why would you want a source in the lead that says nothing to prove what you are trying to say, that in fact weakens your argument because its basically a "non sequitur" source. Wouldn't this kind of source weaken the reliabilty of the statement, and the scholarship here.(olive (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Neutral enough for whom? This word is I believe directly referenced in Wikipedia WTA. Does this present a concern in trying to write an encyclopedic article that complies with certain standards.(olive (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

JzG, per the ArbCom on Paranormal [7], you cannot cite a scientific consensus without sources. But you can if you do have sources. As you see, the ArbCom dealt directly with this situation. Please cite your sources. I have sources which put your statement in serious doubt, as I said above and RichardKingCEng also said. Therefore, if you keep insisting that RV is rejected, as opposed to not accepted, (ie paranormal) all you have to do is cite your source.

RichardKingCEng, it is better not to call them pseudoskeptics. Let them be the insulting nasty ones. One can do better than that, both on a personal level, and in terms of working within the Wikipedia system to eliminate non-scientific skepticism.

We could all agree RV is bunk, and the argument would still go on. Because it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the sources say. And the sources and/or WP rules such as WP:ATT do not support the statement as it stands.

The word "purported" is not only a WTA, it was specifically stated to be not necessary by the Arbitration committee. It is also not necessary, as other neutral and accurate words such as "apparent" could be used in its place, if any qualifier is needed. Insisting on it is POV in action, as I can demonstrate from the edit summaries of the editors who insert it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Already discussed, and you lost that time as well. It is a 100% accurate way to describe supposed paranormal phenomena. Remote Viewing is not an ability, since there is zero credible objective evidence it exists, it is a purported ability. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To set things up as a "win or lose situation" is a huge misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Rather, you should try to come to a consensus with other editors. That is the way Wikipedia is set up to work. There would be no reason to describe RV as an "ability" which actually exists, but if we did, it would fall firmly within the cultural artefacts section of the paranormal ArbCom. If you refuse to discuss the issues and continue to own and edit war against multiple editors, I'll have to ask for mediation. You're going against WP regulations, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE WP:OWN, WP:ATT, WP:RS, and also the decision of the ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, silly of me to forgetL the way Wikipedia is set up to work is that you keep pushing the same fringe POV until everybody else has lost interest and you get your way. Oh, wait, no, that's precisely what you're not supposed to do. So I find myself wondering why you are, once again, requesting the same change with the same argument and hoping for a different result. No, hang on, I know why you hope for a different result: you don't like the scientific consensus and feel that the complete nonsense that is paranormal True Belief should be given parity or near-parity of esteem. Sorry, no. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no "result" last time- I find it disturbing that you, an admin, look at WP as a battleground. I just gave up on the article for a while. Now, even more editors (I think there were five last time) have expressed a problem with the POV, ATT status, etc. of this article. Further, as I said above, you're trying to violate some pretty basic policy and principle of WP. The arguments were not answered in substantiative form recently, nor were they last time. (There were a lot of very uncivil comments made, but those don't count as arguments.) That's because the arguments I made are valid, as are the arguments of others, also above. Please take a look at them. The closest thing to a substantiative argument was just that you like the word "purported" because it says what you believe, and that you happen to believe (without sources) that science has considered the claims of Remote Viewing, and formed a consensus against them, and therefore a skeptical online publication may be cited as fact- without attribution. I don't recall any arguments that the ArbCom didn't apply to this, nor that they should be ignored for some reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really incredibly simple. WP:WTA is a style guide, WP:NPOV is a core and non-negotiable policy. RV can rightly and accurately be described as a purported ability because purported means claimed and makes no judgment as to the validity of the claim. To describe it as an ability is in-universe and thus violates the guidance on coverage of fictional topics as well as violating NPOV by giving undue weight to the idea that it exists, when there is no objective evidence that it does exist. Now please stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, there are other ways to say it, which involve neither claims nor the word purported. Also, that word is only a minor issue. The two major ones are ATT and what appears to be WP:OWN on your part. And if you are going to make statements like "no objective evidence" which are not supported by 1) known or sourced scientific consensus 2) the sources of the article 3) the main skeptical sources such as Ray Hyman, and also other skeptics like Richard Wiseman, both members of CSI; and if you are going to keep doing that after it's having been discussed at length and repeatedly above; then I'm really having a problem assuming that there is no issue of your own POV influencing the way you are editing. So I'll take it to the next level. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Could another word be used instead of 'purported', for example 'supernatural'? PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, "apparent" (second meaning "Appearing as such but not necessarily so") would be fine, and completely accurate and NPOV. "Supernatural" is something which science cannot study, so that would be to dismiss it a-priori.

However, as I said, that little word is not that big a deal. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just filed a request for informal mediation, but did not include you as a party- you could include yourself if you want. [8] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would 'paranormal' be any better:

Leonard Zusne, Warren H. Jones (1989). Anomalistic psychology: a study of magical thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 167. ISBN 0805805087. 

At the moment purported is widely used in similar articles, so you could find an article content RfC more useful than informal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we went all the way through ArbCom, and got a ruleing on this matter. The problem is that editors, knowingly, ignore that. So I see no real reason to go further. Nor should we merely copy sources, especially if those are POV sources, as the book above obviously is (not a bad source, just POV). The real problem here is not the word, however, but the Attribution, and WP:OWN. I wasn't even going to bother dealing with the word now. But if you wish, then yes, "parnormal" is good, as is "apparent." "Purported" is not NPOV as it judges the matter from the start. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, about the book above, it says "paranormal?" I was in a big rush. Sure, "paranormal" is fine. That word was explicitly mentioned in the Paranormal ArbCom as being one with which to frame an article. They said [9] " The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose." and "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing." and ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." I'm guessing we can say the same for "purported remote viewing ability," especially when there are other NPOV words.

See, that's why I don't really think we need more dispute resolution (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why request it? ;-)

Is the question over the use of "purported"? Would that word be acceptable if a source you found neutral were used? Or do I have the issues mixed up? For you, Martinphi :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, the objective validity of remote viewing is not accepted by the scientific community since no demonstration of remote viewing has ever been successful in a controlled environment" entered by ScienceApologist. As far as I am aware the Theory of Evolution, Hawking radiation and a vast panoply of other matters have not "ever been successful in a controlled environment" either. Real science (as well as real scientists for that matter) is somewhat greater and more flexible than the "schoolboy level" of "you've got to do it in a laboratory by set methods". Besides there is enough evidence of remote viewing for Richard Wiseman to move the goalposts, it seems [10]. RichardKingCEng (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• We have credible evidecne to suggest that the theory of evolution is supported by 99.9% of scientists. Would you like to cite some evidence to show that the level of support for paranormal phenomena is of the same order of magnitude? I won't quibble about the decimal point. Any recent paper in Nature or a mainstream journal of equivalent impact demonstrating a paranormal phenomenon under controlled laboratory conditions will also be acceptable. We are not here to pretend, Richard, we are here to document facts, and the fact is that there are currently no experimental validations of this technique by non-believers. As a chartered engineer, would you stake your professional reputation on a safety monitoring system based on remote viewing? Guy (Help!) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Break, section too long

Hi Xavexgoem (:

There are a couple of things. First, we need an adult. Most everyone who comes and edits this article gets driven out. There is an issue of ownership, which prevents fixes- even minor ones [11]. The two current content issues are the word purported, which could be replaced by other words, such as my suggestion of "apparent," or PhilKnight's suggestion of "paranormal" -or just write around the issue entirly perhaps ("purported" is intrinsically POV, as it decides things from the start; as JzG/Guy says, the word is intended to "make clear from the very outset that this *is not objectively real*" [12]). The second one is ATT, as you see in this diff and it's summary: [13]. In most articles this could be solved by editors, but not here. I have to go now, will be back tomorrow (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of ownership just because cruft fails to make it into the article. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm 20, although for the record I've met some very nice 15 year olds ;-)

Humm... I think paranormal works, since it works for "both sides", so to speak (paranormal the phenomenon & paranormal the haha whatever; I myself don't have a solid perspective, since I like a simple universe, but I'm incredibly nervous that it isn't ;-)

What say you all? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember what Remote Viewing is, and it will not be such an Act of Congress to describe it, assuming he who shall not be mentioned can eventually contain himself. Here it is in a nutshell. Some very smart people were thinking out of the box, and willing to spend some tax money to check out even silly things on the basis that if they panned out, the payback would be more than to justify all the failures.

One of the experiement attempts, took something most definitely known as paranormal, as in from the legend world of the occult, clairvoyance, and wondered if there was any truth to it, and could it be put to practical use in the intellegence community.

The very rational process of trying to validate a very special most likely to succeed aspect of clairvoyance was then engaged. There was some success, although not to the level of proving it to the world of science. This is what became known as Remote Viewing as documented in many many government documents and a number of books.

See? It is not all that difficult to describe. The Wiki article does not have to say it was real and worked, the Wiki article does not have to declare it bunk and nutty. The Wiki article just has to accurately describe and reference the history of this thing that is known as Remote Viewing.

Then, enter he who shall not be named .....

Bptdude (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, actually. And the wikipedia article does that right now, pretty well, for the most part. I know Martinphi has a religious objection to the word "purported", but I chose it with great care. It is deprecated in certain circumstances (e.g. X purported to prove that he was innocent), but it is a properly neutral way of describing an "ability" which is claimed by some, disputed by others, lacks any objectively provable existence, and is not supported by mainstream scientific thinking. You can't say it's the ability to do foo, because as far as most people are concerned it is not, it is hokum. You can't say it's defined by believers as the ability to do foo, because there are a few non-believers who would still call it that and because it's a weasel phrase. You can't say this article is about a paranormal topic and then use in-universe descriptions, any more than you can for any other fictional topic. A purported ability is an ability whihc is claimed, making no judgment as to the validity of the claim. I did think very hard about that wording. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point about paranormal. However, the next paragraph of the lead does go on about its validity. How about "paranormal belief", could that strike a semantic middle ground? I don't wander into the non-mainstream very often, so I'm a little new at this myself... Xavexgoem (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Your choice of Theory of Evolution was both a bad choice, and good. To you, it may seem obvious and rational as the leading explanation of how we got here. But you do realize that in America, there is a deep division among the population, which is closer to 50/50 than 99 percent, about how we got here. I am guessing at the percentage, OK, but don't quibble, you know what I mean. This long battle in Remote Viewing closely parrallels that debate.

So many of the proponents of evolution think the religious conservative Christians are just brainwashed puppets of an outdated culture and need to be re-educated. That the bible as explained by conservative Christian groups saying we just kinda POOF, got here all at once not so long ago, is insane. Could such a proponet of evolution ever convince one of these Christians out of their religion? Let us assume, Guy/JzG falls into this group, and harsly edits out any of the explanation of the Christians.

It is possiblel he is removing things that are documented ancient beliefs that may hold more truth than the Christian writers even know themselves? It that a proper role for a Wiki editor? Should not the seemingly silly statements of this bible book at least be included in the Wiki article, since this is part of the national debate?

What if somebody substituted "steps" for "days" and looked at the sequence. A near infinite burst of pure light began it all, at a place in space you could point your finger at, but such location is not taught to children. That then the light was seperated into light and matter, some of the matter became worlds, the worlds changed to be stable with oceans/weather/land/complete biosystems, then there was plant life for the longest time, then simple life of critters, then more complex life came from the simple over time, until finally a life form emerged whose biocomputer was not quite on fully automatic that took over one special planet.

What if in seeing the old story was a near accurate sequence, something was perceived that regular science has overlooked, something still needing to be verfied, but still, damn amazing. Something I will not release to Wiki.

Would I use Remote Viewing to make a life and death decision making process for a safety system? No, no sane person would. Is that question showing a person being niave? What if Remote Viewing could pick the lady more than the tiger, when there was nothing else to go on, more often right than wrong? Would I still open the door carefully? YES Would I do my homework on Remote Viewing even if I did not have an explanation? YES

Enough.. I am going back into lurking... another time my friends.

Spam? LOL I want him to say what it really was!

)

Bptdude (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink thing

Although we should ideally write the same article whether we believe it or not, does anyone want to remote-view with me as I read this computer monitor? What is the pink thing underneath? What is the blue thing at the lower left corner? In other words, does the emperor wear any clothes? Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is positively the strangest post I've seen....(: 0= What are you talking about?? I use Mozilla. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The pink thing is underneath my monitor, on the shelf, hence neither your browser nor mine is relevant. Some participants here claim to be able to perform remote viewing, so here's a simple chance to settle that issue one way or the other. Can they see my pink thing or can't they? Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the relationship would be to the article. Nor who claims that. What's your point? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not making sense, I must be missing something very simple. The article's first sentence says, "Remote viewing (RV) is the purported ability for a person to gather information on a remote target that is hidden from the physical perception of the viewer and typically separated from the viewer at some distance..." My computer monitor and its surroundings are an example of something "hidden from the physical perception" of the rest of you, and "separated from the viewer at some distance". Thus, "Remote viewing (RV) is the purported ability for a person to gather information on" the pink thing under my monitor, for instance. So can Mr. Smith or Steve B110, for instance, remotely view my monitor and its surroundings, and describe them? If not, then what does remote viewing mean if it doesn't mean viewing that's remote? Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, I pretty well got that. But what does it have to do with editing the article? I mean, we aren't here to judge. I don't know that much about RV- very little. If CSI member Richard Wiseman says it has been proven to the standards of other sciences, I just have to take his word, and the sometimes less positive views of the other sources. What are you trying to do besides WP:OR? Nice experiment, but as far as the article, could it matter? Even if I told you that you had a pink birdy on your shelf, and you did, would you accept RV? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think anyone wants to see your pink thing under your monitor. Could you perhaps ask for something above the belt? Especially if "the emperor" isn't wearing any clothes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's OR - the first half of the first sentence of this section admits that, although this isn't the first comment on this page on how seriously we should take this stuff. It isn't a birdy. Would I accept RV if it were? If you identified about ten comparable items around the room, I guess I'd have to. RV sounds more plausible than you spying through my second-story window just to prove it. Of course I would quickly devise a tighter experiment to apply for my million bucks. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pink Thing! This young writer is interesting, in that he is typical of mainstream people who pull their own litmus test of is this wierd mindreading kinda sounding thing real or not. If nobody can pop a quick answer to what he pulled out of a hat, based maybe of what he saw in movies or TV, then he assumes it is not real. And, by his own words, even if somebody made the correct guesses, he would just find another test.

To the young writer, please do not take offence. But, look at things like this more objectively. Find the source material of those who claim it to be true. Find the ones who will just tell you how it was done, with no BS or razzle dazzle. Try it yourself, or at least ask people to repeat what suppposedly worked. At least then, you would sound more rational a critic.

There is a detailed step-by-step instruction on how to try Remote Viewing in a book by the most famous of scientists who got paid for years to do the work. "The Mind Race", by Russel Targ.

Good luck.

If you read what I just wrote a couple of times, what you will really take home is how to be able to objectively edit the article!

• smiles*

Bptdude (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You could rouse me from my unawareness more effectively if you had perfected remote viewing yourself. Try remotely viewing my face more closely this time. (The answer to my real age is on my user page). Art LaPella (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• grins*

now, do tell.... what is the pink thing, the object in question?

Bptdude (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pink thing? Computer screen? Obviously it's Spam. That was too easy, you have to be wary of giving too many clues... Guy (Help!) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a dry pink washcloth, for wiping dust off the screen. You knew that all the time, right? But I'd rather not name the blue thing; doesn't it matter if anyone can really do this stuff? Art LaPella (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No- it doesn't matter. Let's assume that RV is 100% bullshit. Ok. Now, we still have to attribute. We still have to write the article:

with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially. [14]

You see? No, it does not matter at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated a little, but I've often made the same argument myself. Remember I thought I was contributing 4 sentences. Art LaPella (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)