Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation

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

Towards the end, she seems to be recommending the books by Edwin May on the Stargate Programmr, which were published last year.

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.

I think Jessica Utts was talking about psi phenomena in general (not just remote viewing), but also about the best way forward for the experimental investigation of psi.

I would just question whether (1) currently experimental studies are directed primarily at proving the existence of psi and (2) there are obvious experimental routes to the elucidation of the processes of psi that aren't being pursued because people are too busy trying to prove the existence of psi.

No doubt there are some studies directed at proving the existence of psi - or at least identifying a more robust protocol for its manifestation. But I think that, where people have ideas that could help to elucidate how psi works, they are also pursuing those ideas experimentally. At least, I'm not aware of any "killer idea" for such research that is languishing untested for want of resources.

So I think it is at least arguable that the lack of ideas is as big a problem as the lack of resources. And if so, might wider acceptance of the existence of psi not result in both more ideas and more resources?

Towards the end, she seems to be recommending the books by Edwin May on the Stargate Programmr, which were published last year.

I didn't get that far. In my view, remote viewing is a fact but how it is accomplished, no one knows. As Peter Fenwick says, the mind seems to extend. In a few decades it will probably be more generally accepted particularly if Parnia gets the experimental data required to finally settle the NDE debate.

So I think it is at least arguable that the lack of ideas is as big a problem as the lack of resources. And if so, might wider acceptance of the existence of psi not result in both more ideas and more resources?

There are protocols in parapsychology that I think have the potential to gain wider acceptance (Radin's presentiment experiements and Bem's precognitive habituation) and neither strike me as being terribly resource-heavy. And a wider variety of voices in parapsychology is essential because the way that many debunkers work is by insinuation (ie, "Radin once wrote about making chocolate taste nice by praying for it, therefore his other work must be bunk"). If there's a larger number of people working on these kind of experiments, then hopefully all but the most devout debunker will run out of vitriol and all that'll be left is to look at the results. This may not solve the controversy but it will, I hope, move the argument on past the very divided situation we have now.

In the video, Utts said something very interesting. The interviewer asked how skeptics explain away such results (this was during the bit where they were discussing Deep Quest) and she replied "They don't." And this is true; most skeptics don't look at the data from Project Star Gate. But, in my experience, neither do the proponents. The skeptics won't in case they find something that proves psi and proponents won't for exactly the opposite reason.

Which makes me wonder, if parapsychology is to gain wider acceptance, some of the weaker theories are going to end up being left behind. I think Project Stargate will be one of those. The documentation tells us that a lot of the "operational" sessions were not blind, the claims of success were exaggerated, or even invented completely, or relied on a very generous interpretation of the session notes. I don't think this is the kind of work that will break down the barriers around parapsychology any time soon. 

Utts may be right about the next steps parapsychology needs to take, but she's wrong in supporting a body of research that will only hold it back.

It’s hard to argue against Radin on this subject, and he seems to think all psi is precog. Investigating the non linear nature of time might prove to be the most productive direction to explore.

Interestingly, the vibe I get from most skeptics is that RV was a 1970s fad that was put to bed years ago. Like prog-rock.

It’s hard to argue against Radin on this subject, and he seems to think all psi is precog.

Does Radin think that, or are you thinking of Edwin May?

That’s what I get from listening to him. He even explains ndes with precognition.

That’s what I get from listening to him. He even explains ndes with precognition.

Radin seems to straddle the philosophical landscape. He seems to be very uncomfortable with the idea of an afterlife so, unless I'm reading him wrong, prefers a super-psi explanation. Then again, how does he explain his own spoon-bending feat with precognotion? He's an engineer by training and will naturally look for mechanisms but a mechanistic worldview is not always enough. The title of Radin's book, The Conscious Universe, shows that he is open to a philosophical view but I sometimes wonder whether he allows himself to "go the whole hog".

I'm also a little wary of the overlap between debunking and scepticism. It rankles with me that experimental data may be routinely discarded if the slightest flaw in procedure can be shown. "If this bit is sloppy, then the whole thing is worthless". That might be the correct approach in scientific research terms but I fear that a lot of genuine effects have beed ignored merely by being part of a series of experiments discredited due to a lack of diligence in some - but not all - areas.

I'm also a little wary of the overlap between debunking and scepticism. It rankles with me that experimental data may be routinely discarded if the slightest flaw in procedure can be shown. "If this bit is sloppy, then the whole thing is worthless". That might be the correct approach in scientific research terms but I fear that a lot of genuine effects have beed ignored merely by being part of a series of experiments discredited due to a lack of diligence in some - but not all - areas.

I don't think it is the correct approach in scientific terms - unless the flaw is capable of explaining the observations. 

But I think some people do treat scepticism as a game, in which you're entitled to discount a study on the basis of even a technical flaw that couldn't produce the measured results.

The skeptic's behaviour can appear like a game, but there is also genuine fear involved. Fear of the unknown perhaps. Or fear of being ridiculed for supporting non politically correct opinions.

Fear is a stronger phenomena than rational logic. And to ridicule your opponent is quite effective, even if it is meant as your own defence.