Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation

Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation

Dr. Jessica Utts, Professor of Statistics at UC Irvine, provides statistical validation and scientific proof of remote viewing, AKA psychic phenomenon, as a legitimate human capability.

Let it be known that RV is a genuine phenomena. Also statistically proven, even if that is not the easiest thing to do.

Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation

Thanks for posting this. I thought this exchange towards the end was interesting:

Dave Kelly: And I know that you've said that it's time to stop the experiments - or the testing to determine whether it's valid or not. We've been there, we've done that. We need to go forward with this research. And you talked about that a little bit earlier in this programme, but where do you think this research should go and how should it be attacked?

Jessica Utts: I think you're right. The proof is there and now we have to figure out what's going on. And so we talk about proof-oriented versus process-oriented research. We really need to focus on the process-oriented research. I think what we need is a multi-disciplinary team. We need strong funding from some source, and I really think the government should fund it - they're spending billions on medical research. If they were just to spend a couple million on this, I think we could make some progress. But we really need physicists, psychologists, maybe ... cognitive experts, statisticians, to come together and try to see if we can figure out ... put out some theories and try testing them, and see if we can figure out what's going on. Whatever it is, I think it's going to revolutionise the world in various ways, because there's something there that we don't understand, and it could really change all kinds of things in the world.

I wonder if people agree with the idea that there needs to be a shift from trying to prove the existence of psi to trying to understand it. Is it right that most experimental work is currently proof-oriented? Is it clear what different experiments would need to be done to elucidate the processes involved? (And if an experiment provided positive evidence about the processes, how could it not provide proof of existence at the same time?)

I wonder if people agree with the idea that there needs to be a shift from trying to prove the existence of psi to trying to understand it.

I've been of that view for a long time. It does place me somewhere towards the edge of many sceptic-proponent discussions which seem to me akin to trying to run a marathon while keeping one foot placed firmly behind the start line.

Of course each person is rightly entitled to his or her own opinion and there's no obligation for any individual to shift position. But perhaps more involvement collectively in moving beyond that start line and exploring the territory beyond would be my own interest.

It doesn't of course mean I've abandoned scepticism. For example, some of my dreams may be deeply meaningful or precognitive. But others are just a muddle of ideas tumbling around. Distinguishing what is meaningful from what is not is only possible if in the first place one accepts that the phenomena are real.

Similarly, I have an interest in reincarnation, but it doesn't mean I accept every case which is presented, whether from some anonymous individual posting online, or perhaps from some serious researcher. There are plenty of examples that I find at least somewhat doubtful, if not erroneous, but again this is only possible if one accepts that the phenomena is possible in the first place. In terms of reincarnation, it isn't individual cases which absorb my interest so much as the phenomena as a whole, and the patterns and understandings which emerge.

For me, this isn't purely an abstract or intellectual study. It has a direct impact on ordinary daily life right here, right now. There is nothing distant about it.

Whether promoting such things on a larger scale would be desirable is debatable though. I'm not arguing particularly that it would necessarily be a good thing for society. I do think dissemination of knowledge on the whole is a good thing, but that's as far as I would go.

(And if an experiment provided positive evidence about the processes, how could it not provide proof of existence at the same time?)

I know this thread is about remote viewing. But if I might take the liberty of making an analogy with reincarnation, there are examples where an ordinary person in this life may recall details of an ordinary previous life in a different time and place. There is very definitely no possibility of proof in many such cases. But does that render it worthless? I'd say it still contributes to the overall picture and understanding we have of the subject area.

Does anyone know when this video was made ? The sceptic mentioned must be Ray Hyman.

It is easier to prove the reality of RV than to find out how it works. A RV session is only considered successful if it can be verified. But we are at a loss for explaining the actual phenomena involved.

We are also at a risk of having RV hijacked and watered out.

I asked the community what the word "blind" means when used in RV. The result can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/remotevi...497751822/

To me RV-blind should mean not informed in any way shape or form, but obviously it does not mean that at all.

To me RV-blind should mean not informed in any way shape or form, but obviously it does not mean that at all.

I'll admit that this is not a subject which I've studied in depth. But I'm pretty sure I've seen examples where the only information given was, "There is a target" and nothing else.

Does anyone know when this video was made ? The sceptic mentioned must be Ray Hyman.

It looks to me as though it's new. It was posted on YouTube on 26 March, as one of a series of "Talking Points" interviews by Dave Kelly.

It looks to me as though it's new. It was posted on YouTube on 26 March, as one of a series of "Talking Points" interviews by Dave Kelly.

Thanks. I saw that but I think the programme is much earlier unless I'm badly mistaken. The clothes on the presenter (shirt colour etc) initially pointed to that. Alternatively, it could have been made recently and she is merely referring to her historical work.   

The sceptic is Ray Hyman and this discussion between them occurred more than two decades ago. 

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB...doc_57.pdf