The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2001, 01:47 AM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
In the other thread, now in multiple pages I have proposed a test of the phenomenon of Remote Viewing. I intend to participate, and offer my own services as Interim Judge. For this position I must be acceptable to all participants as an honest examiner, and fair executor of an entirely open process for installing the final team of test participants, observers, and jurists. I will also be the implementing authority on the appointment of the three judges.

If there are other prospective Interim Judges, please post here, so you can be considered. (note: the final Judges will be chosen by the two teams of participants, and observers, and the entire testing team must accept the third Judge as an neutral, and honest person.)

After the Judges are selected, I will step down in favor of their authority for the actual conduct of the test. For the test we will also need a group of volunteers willing to continue their participation over an extended period. Those wishing to become members of the Proponant test team must decide for themselves how their teams are organized, and what actions they will take. Those decisions must then be submitted to the Judges for consideration by the entire testing team. The Skeptic test team will have the responsibility of maintaining all copies of information submitted by the Proponent team, in reasonably secure conditions, and strict chain of custody records indicating the exact time when those items came into the Skeptic team's possession. No one but Judges and Jurists may see those documents until after the final judgment has been made, at which time all such documents will be published and placed in the Public Domain.

The skeptic team may submit objects for consideration by the final judges to be included in the target database. Such objects must meet these criteria, and those other criteria later to be decided by the team as a whole committee, before any test procedures begin:

The viewing target must be a person, place or object, or an event of simple momentary duration and singular location. (The Kennedy Assassination, but not the Hundred Years War. The Wedding of Princess Diana, but not the Continental Congress.) If possible, a photo (or other graphic representation of good quality) of the event, or thing should be obtained, and two copies made. The object designation must include a reasonable time designation, such as a date, or possibly a date and time, to the hour, or even to the minute, if such is significant to the event. (One small step for a man . . .) The names of as many people as can be provided, if they are in the picture. The location pictured, as precisely as it can be designated, for instance "the southeast corner of Thirteenth and H streets, NW Washington DC." "My dad's farm" would not be acceptable, unless the address was included. Objects that are not fixed in location should be in pictures cropped to minimize the inclusion of non-target details. (Show the artist's conception of Pioneer Ten; not Pioneer Ten, in the assembly building prior to launch.)

Famous objects, people or events are not required, or excluded, but indistinguishable events or objects are not encouraged. (One traffic jam is much like another, and the precise location is hard to differentiate even with an eye witness view.) Distinctive, but little known events are encouraged, if clear representations are available, but not if only descriptive information reveals the distinction. (The murder of Czar Nicholas cannot be distinctly represented, but the photo of the unnamed young Pashtun woman from Afghanistan who was on the cover of National Geographic is certainly acceptable.)

A rose is a rose is a rose. Hannoverians notwithstanding, we are not going to play varietal horticulture trivia. The Royal Standard of the ruling house of Medieval Saxony is a flag. Calling it a flag is certainly a correct identification. The Judges and the Observers will list an ascending order of identification, by detail. And example would be: A flag. A flower. A lotus blossom. A white lotus blossom against a red background. A drawing of a white lotus blossom against a red background. The flag of Hong Kong.

In other cases the list might look like this. People. A crowd of people. An angry crowd. An angry crowd inside a large building. An angry crowd inside a building, with policemen. A man shoots another man in front of a crowd with policemen inside a large building. Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in the parking garage in front of the Dallas Police. This is an example that would also have a very precise date and time, since that knowledge is easily available from the context.

Do not send your photos in to anyone yet. But do consider them for now, and perhaps obtain good copies for later. A large number of photos in the data pool will provide a much more reliable source of test objects for our experiment. Proponent testers or observers are not eligible to submit photos, and are encouraged not to make specific suggestions as to objects. (Examples of categories of objects that are, or are not suitable are allowed, in this discussion, of course.) Any test object specifically mentioned here is automatically disqualified. Eventually all test objects will be prepared for a double blind test procedure, by participants of the Skeptic test team, under observation by the Judges.

I should stop here, and await responses, in case this is entirely my own pipe dream. Persons interested should designate their position on the subject in their posts, and make clear the limit of their willingness to participate. I am a Skeptical Participant. I shall make no decisions on the final judgment, unless asked to do so as a skeptical Jurist, or the Skeptical Judge. I will make determinations on the stated agreements of the participants until permanent Judges are appointed.

Anyone else want to play?

Tris
------------------------
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-09-2001, 01:53 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
Would e-mailing a picture be allowed?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2001, 01:55 AM
Gaspode Gaspode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I'm in.

I'll play viewer or judge as needed.

(I've already failed Czarcasm's coin test though).

Are you sure this shouldn't be in MPSIMS. I can't really see the debate.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2001, 02:00 AM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Czarcasm: So far, that seems to be within the parameters. I cannot say that the final parameters will include digital storage, but if needed, I can print up a couple of copies for you, and mail them in. Don't send anything yet.

Gaspode: I have serious doubts that this entire test procedure will go forward to a conclusion without a debate or two breaking out. If we can keep it below the level of fisticuffs, I will be satisfied!

Tris
--------------
"Don't let it end this way! Tell them I said something." Poncho Villa's last words.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2001, 02:25 AM
douglips douglips is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I would love to participate, and I may be able to get her interested as well. I've participated in a ganzfeld experiment, which is very similar to the proposed "pool of targets" concept, with the difference that someone is looking at the target trying to 'send' it to the viewer. Remove the 'sender' and you have a remote viewing experiment.

My wife is a student of such phenomena, and is inclined to believe in their validity, while I am inclined to disbelieve. However, both of us demand evidence to form an opinion, so I'd say I'm "skeptical-neutral" and she's "adherent-neutral" on your scale.

I wouldn't mind being a judge, if Lulu participates we could keep each other honest.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2001, 10:31 AM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Link to the other thread.

Note: If you're coming in late, the other thread doesn't have much hard information on remote viewing--it's mainly "I believe! Remote viewing works for me!" witnessing posts by members of the Hawaiian Remote Viewing Guild. Also, it's five pages long.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2001, 12:42 PM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Triskadecamus,

I think there is a serious problem in using a message board as a scientific test. I expect from your posts that you will be a fair Judge. But I don't know you personally, and neither do the remote viewers in Hawaii.

Surely you need to involve a known person or organisation. Somebody with a website, who can be clearly identified. Perhaps a newspaper (the Chicago Reader?) would be interested. It might be newsworthy.

I post from the UK, and can ask a local paper here, if you want.
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-2001, 10:04 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Glee,

I had not supposed that Cecil Adams, or the Chicago Reader were in any way sponsoring this endeavor. It just seemed to me that no one was able to find hard data of any type and that such data would not be that hard to generate. Since no one else wanted to step forward, I did.

Now please note I have appointed myself Interim Judge. It is not my intention to let the validity of this test rest entirely upon my reputation here at the Straight Dope Message Board. That would be unreasonable. But I do have a reputation here, and it is, in my own estimation strong enough to base a beginning upon. I will not appoint Judges, or Jurists. I will facilitate a process where the Proponents and Skeptics themselves will appoint Judges. I will then step aside, and accept the new Judges as authorities.

I will not be the authority by which any decisions are made, except in the case that there is simply insufficient interest in sustaining the effort needed to complete a decent number of trials, and data collections. If even that decision is not felt to be reasonable, I will certainly step aside in favor of those who feel they should continue.

If the Reader, or Ed, or even Cecil himself say "Tris, we are locking the thread, don't try that again." I will certainly not deny their right to do so. The Board is simply a fairly widely read forum in which to discuss the manner in which a test may be conducted. It allows a free exchange of opinions and gripes from all participants, and an open message area inclined to the sort of examination that is proposed.

This endeavor is not going to happen entirely without cost. I will state at the outset that although I will willingly bear some level of cost in communication, and provide some on line storage of data, and even print a few photos from files, it will require true volunteerism from the participants. I will not be willing to engage in collection of funds, transfers of funds, or payments of bills on behalf of others. I will not accept payment for any services, and strongly encourage all participants to consider making that a specific requirement of participation.

Yes, some foundation might do a better job. But they have not. The AAAS, or any other real scientific association are welcome to join in. Anyone is welcome to join in, and each will be accepted as an equal member of the test team, and the team itself will appoint such authority positions it feels are needed. I have proposed Three Judges, and at least Three Jurists. Perhaps more would be better. So far, there are not enough of either for that to be a reasonable consideration to consider.

This thread is only a discussion on the proposal. I intend to keep it current with any off-the-board developments. The Chicago Reader, aside from its generous presence alone, has no involvement, and no administrator or employee of the SDMB has made any contribution other than as private individuals expressing an interest in participation.

Tris
-------------------------
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." ~ Hippocrates ~
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-10-2001, 09:58 PM
Rich_rv Rich_rv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
all this stuff about envelopes

Viewing the contents of an envelope is doable, as is the contents of a box, room, etc. Historically, such taskings were not a major part of the military program at least as far as the Stargate program. Operational targets were generally broader but could have led to subsequent taskings of more precise "locations".

Telling exactly where the envelope is theoretically should not make a difference, but I don't think there is any research on that. Personally, I think it could help if the location information does not provide any clues as to the contents or could tend to create a "story-line". If you say the envelope is in Mr Xyz's office at Boeing that could be detrimental.

It's hard not to "create" data from previous data. "red, mechanical, large, powerfull, liquid, noisey..." could immediately create a mental image of a fire truck. If "heat" is my next thought, is that from the mental image or from the target?

---------------------------------------------

As for the experiment, I hope it comes off but as I said before...... like pulling teeth. RV is the only "talent" I know of where demonstrating one's ability is "unprofessional" or somehow to be avoided at all costs.

One student told me recently she felt that if she did a demo that was a failure, then it would convince a skeptic he was right and put a bad light on RV. Professionals apparently don't like being "tested" or putting on dog & pony shows n or do they seem to like any sort of psi "competitions".

Its a whole 'nuther world. Maybe the skeptic and the RVer will never meet. If the handfull of psi researchers don't even test and publish RV experiments why should skeptical science?

Oops...gettin on the soapbox.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-11-2001, 02:31 AM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Rich_rv wrote:
Quote:
. . .Telling exactly where the envelope is theoretically should not make a difference, but I don't think there is any research on that. Personally, I think it could help if the location information does not provide any clues as to the contents or could tend to create a "story-line". If you say the envelope is in Mr Xyz's office at Boeing that could be detrimental. . .
Right, but I'm thinking here about testing. So far, my ideal for a test for RV would be to remotely view the contents of an envelope in, say, a room next to the one the viewer is in. Or, if there's enough security (like a camera taping the room before, during, and after the session), the envelope can be taped to the wall of the very same room the viewer does his/her work in. My desire is to make the "remote" part all of five or ten feet, instead of five or ten thousand miles.

The reason for this is that places many miles away cannot be controlled adequately. For a simple example, a viewer may or may not get images of "crowds of people" when viewing the Indiannapolis Motor Speedway. It would depend on whether or not the session occurs on a big race day. A single photo cannot convey these differences. These "real-world" targets cannot be controlled.

Another, more detailed example: when looking at some of the sessions on the HRVG Web site, there was a picture of a fish with a coral reef in the background. Location was somewhere in the Carribean. At any time other than when the picture was taken, that particular fish wouldn't have been in that particular position near that particular part of the reef. A session done at the time when that particular spot undewater was occupied by sampling equipment from a marine biologist's field trip would yield very different results. Glenn claimed the picture itself is not the target, they just represent the target for the purposes of recording, so the targets themselves are highly variable (and it's no wonder tests come out badly!).

But then we've got to get into the next point: what would the targets be? I don't know if you saw it in the previous thread, Rich, but I was trying to narrow things down. Glenn spoke about the 'gestalts' one gets during a session. My immediate thought was to limit the targets to individual gestalts, if at all possible.

So, in those envelopes, my idea is to stick cards with specialized symbols which respresent unique gestalts, or unique sets of gestalts. If "red" is a gestalt, then one test target could be a blank red card. The only impression a viewer should get from this target would be "red."

Well, wait, there may be gestalts from the containers of the targets. So, we can define all the gestalts about the envelopes themselves, and the cards themselves, and then ignore them if they come up during a session. No target should ever be designed to contain the gestalt "rectangular," for example. That way, if "rectangular" comes up in a session, we ignore it as meaning the card or envelope, not the desired target gestalts.

(Of course, this all depends on one's defintion of 'gestalt', and I'm sure I'm not absolutely certain what it means in reference to remote viewing.)

Do you at least see what I'm getting at, Rich?

Now, to be fair, I've also heard that viewers do best with a target that's got a lot of "bandwidth," or lots of gestalts. If the only measure of success is the viewers' impressions, then I have no doubt this is true. As such, I would argue that for a test to be truly fair, "points" need to be deducted for things that were there, but were missed.

Say an image has 100 'gestalts' in it, and a viewer saw five of them. If you only compare the viewer's work to the image, one way, then it's 100% correct. The viewer saw "red, blue, fish, water, and mouth." All of which are, indeed, present in the target image. But, the viewer missed "coral, pink, yellow, oval, stripes, vertical, etc., etc." To me, this is no more than 5% of what's there, and should be counted as such.

In other words, if the viewers who participate don't feel comfortable trying to view something that's been designed to "evoke" just a few gestalts (a very-stricted-controlled target), then they must face some sort of "penalty" for for not viewing all the gestalts available in a more-complex, less-well-controlled target.

Anyway, these details are all really jumping the gun as far as the OP is concerned (or perhaps not, since Tris jumped the gun as well and has started proposing example targets, too, it seems). The first step, after all, is to get a whole bunch of RVers to agree to be tested. If a set of rules about the test are settled on first, without any "believers" saying yea or nay, there won't be many takers.

It's more important to get the people together first, so that the rules can be created with everyone involved. Statements about what will or won't be acceptable targets won't be seen as "suggestions" by many, but more like "demands," and that will just alienate RVers right from the start (see the responses Czarcasm got over on the HRVG board).
__________________
The Skeptic Friends Network
"My dream is of a day where every SDMB poster will have a quote of mine in their sig." - Arnold Winkelried
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-11-2001, 09:21 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Perhaps my target definition was premature. However, I specifically was avoiding the impression that I wanted anyone to see the picture of the site, or object, or person that was the target. I am much more interested in determining if the target itself is the thing viewed. That may be a personal assumption, and if the putative test team decides that the picture itself is the target, so be it.

To the "viewers" themselves, I make this assurance. I am not trying to control the environment in an attempt to hamper, or interfere with the phenomenon of viewing. I am attempting to find out if there is a recognizable result that can be seen by anyone that the viewer has gained information from the target without any channel of observation as I currently use the term. I don't intend to be hovering over the group of viewers. As I see it, no one needs to be present in the viewing process other than the proponent team.

The big advantage of double blind methodology is that no one has to worry about the appearance of misconduct by the participants. The testers must be very strictly monitored, and controlled. But the participants will not have any information with which to cheat. They cannot be accused of spilling the beans, because the testers will have all the beans locked up, in a city thousands of miles away.

After the test, the participants on the skeptic team will not have to worry about being accused of misjudging their results, because the judgment of those results will not be under their control either. For x number of targets, the viewing team will send x number of results, sealed, to the head Judge. That information will not be available to anyone, until the jury is finished making it's determination. No one can interfere with the information in either direction, since they will never have access to it.

As to the general, or specific nature of the actual targets, I have some specific concerns. I am willing to be convinced that they are unreasonable, but I am also fairly sure that whatever constraints are agreed upon, a list of several dozen targets can be assembled easily. From fifty or so, a random set of a number agreed upon by the participants (probably ten or twenty) should provide a fairly decent set of statistics for the jury. If others feel that ten is too many, or twenty is not enough, that specific fact seems to me to be subject for consideration by the entire team, and a final determination by the judges.

However, without willing subjects to demonstrate the phenomenon, no such is possible. We await news of a willing viewer, preferably, a larger number of viewers.

Tris
-----------------------
"Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2001, 09:26 PM
Rich_rv Rich_rv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
OK, you want to view hidden objects with all of the classes of participants at hand. I believe that is a standard psi test protocol that has been used for "psychic testing" for many years. Swann mentions participating in such tests.


I don't know of any such experiments being run using the hrvg or CRV type methodologies.

As for the Indy example, it could be targeted several ways.
The task should include the time.... present time (time of viewing), time at which feedback photo was taken, specific date and time perhaps specific location within the track, etc.
If a feedback photo or written tasking refers to a time at which cars are racing, crowds, maybe a specific accident..
the data should show that. If it doesn't but otherwise describes the track it is technically a miss but how is the other valid data evaluated? If a viewer was asked to identify the target from a choice of 4 dis-similar photos, he would probably choose correctly if he had track data but nothing on actual racing.

This is as you describe for the hrvg fish target. The tasking should state that the target is the fish/location shown in the photo at the time the photo was taken. The time does not have to be known by the tasker. The tasking should specify what is being sought and when. National Geographic is a popular source for students training feedback photos. The photo could be tens of years old and a city may now exist in that pretty desert scene (or vice versa). If the tasking is time of photo the viewer should not come up with city data. IF the tasking is present time, the viewer should come up with city data. With no other information at hand, the session would be considered a miss.

Remember that whatever data is produced depends on the talents of the viewer. A poor viewer may produce equally ambiguous data regardless of the tasking. A highly talented viewer should produce high quality data which, in the above desert/city example could make the miss look even more off target.

-------------

good data vs missing data.

That will always occur, same as if I showed you a photo for a fration of a second and asked you to list everything in the photo. You may recall the church, two people, a car and grass but did you see the dog, the sign and the two trees?

RV is not a video. If the target is a parade as defined by a feedback photo showing a part of the parade having a marching band, an antique car and a Mickey Mouse character with spectators on the side next to a building........

RVers do not claim 100% accuracy nor 100% data transcription. I guess it could depend on what you want to test. Does the data match the target? Can the true target be determined from the data out of a batch of 4? What percent of the objects at the site are described/ not described?

You say:
It's more important to get the people together first, so that the rules can be created with everyone involved. Statements about what will or won't be acceptable targets won't be seen as "suggestions" by many, but more like "demands," and that will just alienate RVers right from the start (see the responses Czarcasm got over on the HRVG board).

Absolutely.......

You could even do a dry run or two to check out the protocol.

I think the first step is to find some willing viewers and ascertain their experience and what methodology they will use.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-12-2001, 12:58 AM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Okay, gotta remember to include the time. Down to the second?

Rich also wrote:
Quote:
Remember that whatever data is produced depends on the talents of the viewer. A poor viewer may produce equally ambiguous data regardless of the tasking. A highly talented viewer should produce high quality data which, in the above desert/city example could make the miss look even more off target.
Yes, but...

Even a "poor" viewer should do better than chance, given enough trials, than someone who just writes down random gestalts.

This gets back to something else I was talking about in the original thread: the ideal test should be designed in such a way that the best viewers should say, "that's as easy as pie!" and believe that they will score as close to 100% as possible. It should also be designed so that "random chance" results would be on the order of single-digit percentages.

In this way, even if the best viewers have a few bad sessions, out of many, they'll still score very high, and there will be no ambiguity in the results. Success for the best of viewers shouldn't be the difference between, say, 10% random chance and a 12% percentage in the viewer's session.

If that's what would be expected today, however, then I'd suggest waiting 50 years or so. Wait for the training methodologies to work their way up to some solid results first, with the youngest of today's viewers.

Quote:
good data vs missing data.

That will always occur, same as if I showed you a photo for a fration of a second and asked you to list everything in the photo. You may recall the church, two people, a car and grass but did you see the dog, the sign and the two trees?
That's exactly my point. Because it will always occur, it's important to take it into account. The misses cannot be ignored just because they happen all the time. They must be measured. True remote viewers should have fewer of these misses than random guesswork. This is another method of measuring whether or not it "works."

Quote:
RVers do not claim 100% accuracy nor 100% data transcription.
I'm well aware of that. The reason for the test is to see if what is claimed is true or not. If RVers claim just 15% accuracy, but random chance would rate 2%, then there's a wide margin which should be easy to measure and verify.

And, as per my comments above, I think there should be ways to increase the margin without significantly increasing what chance alone would do.

Hey, here's an idea (tell me if it would work): Get 5 or 10 viewers to RV the same target. After they've all done their independent sessions, get them together to decide which bits of their data to keep and which to toss. They submit for judgement, as a group, one set of final data, selected by whatever method they choose to use. Since Lyn Buchanan is convinced that different viewers have different talent areas (colors, motion, whatever), this could be a simple way for them to "team up" and produce more-accurate results.

Quote:
I guess it could depend on what you want to test.
I want to test those things that RVers claim. That is, those things that are, indeed, testable. Arnold asked, in the other thread, "what test could disprove RV?" That's the test that should be run.

In fact, every RVer who agrees to be a part of the test should be asked that question: "what test could we run of your personal RV abilities that, if you fail, could prove to you that your abilities do not exist?" Each participant could then be tested in a personal fashion, within reason (the final data for a single viewer, after all, does need to be comparable to others'). Known "trouble areas" could also be avoided, thus improving the margin of success (if a viewer states that she fails 100% of the time if the target has a lot of red in it, for example, then don't give her any such targets, so that her success rate should be higher).

Now, I know you, Rich haven't hopped up and said you'd like to be a part of the testing, and I also know that in the previous thread, you made it clear that your own skill wasn't all that fantastic, but if you'd humor me for a moment: what test of your own abilities could prove to you that they don't exist?

Tris wrote:
Quote:
To the "viewers" themselves, I make this assurance. I am not trying to control the environment in an attempt to hamper, or interfere with the phenomenon of viewing.
As I've written above, I, also, don't want to hamper viewing abilities, I want to help them, so that the "recognizable result" of a test is even more apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-12-2001, 05:14 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Will there be a control group of non-RVers also trying to generate terms/impressions/gestalts that describe the target?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2001, 06:31 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
Tris, I don't think you'll have a shortage of volunteers willing to provide the images you require. The trouble you'll have is finding people willing to be tested for the ability, because they have a mistrust of those who don't already believe. In the interest of fairness, I would suggest you go ahead and make the offer on some of the remote-viewing websites, such as the HRVG bulletin board. If you contact enough of them, you might find one or two open minded enough to take you up on the offer.

I realize that we could use non-believers for the receiving end of the test, but that leaves us wide open for the accusation that the recievers weren't really trying or were deliberately screwing up the project.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2001, 07:16 PM
Saltire Saltire is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,607
This may also be premature, but I have a suggestion about the targets. From the little I've seen, most RV work seems to work on targets that abound with detail. This adds to the number of gestalts available, so that it improves the odds of a hit, even if one is just tossing out random gestalts.

Some have suggested targetting photos rather than targetting the place that was photographed, but some RVer's seem to object. It is too easy for the viewer to 'drift' and end up viewing a location rather than a photo.

How about making the target a room? The room would be bare of all furnishings, and hopefully without windows. In the room, simple objects could be placed, which would represent as few gestalts as possible.

For instance, if the target was a photo of a swimming pool, there could be hits on things relating to deck chairs, sun, clouds, trees, bathing suits, or any number of things. But if the target was an empty room with a kiddie pool in it, only gestalts like water, round, plastic or suchlike would work. The other things would be misses.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-2001, 10:00 PM
Rich_rv Rich_rv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
"Down to the second?"

Not necessarily, I never thought about that precision. Actually a photo feedback "at time of photo" is certainly a precise instant. "Present time" taskings can mean the time that the viewer is doing the session, so the data may vary depending if its day or night..... or that tornado is passing by.

Looking back, I think the term has been frequently used more generically to represent "now-a-days", not 1776 or 2054.

-----------------------------------
Even a "poor" viewer should do better than chance, given enough trials, than someone who just
writes down random gestalts.

Well maybe, but how are the total number of objects to be determined? The larger the number of items, the longer the viewer would have to remain viewing and would probably need a monitor to keep going looking for more objects. This would probably work better for well defined targets with a limited number of objects. A session may run 30 to 90 minutes. Typically, a viewer working alone reaches a point where there seems to be nothing more to "see" and ends the session. Trying to go on can lead to imagination and story building. I think I would put that kind of test into the "advanced" catagory.

I think something on the order of Saltire's idea would be OK. I don't think you need a specially created room. Find targets that have limited gestalts/ objects. Many swimming pools are pretty basic. library.... a gym..... sauna room

---------------------------------------

"that's as easy as pie!"

LOL, that's a new one on me. I have never heard that said about any aspect of RV. The closest thing would be using highly focused targets like "the sun" or a specific ice cube or a specific marble, etc.

--------------------------------------
"In this way, even if the best viewers have a few bad sessions, out of many, they'll still score very high, and there will be no ambiguity in the results. Success for the best of viewers shouldn't be
the difference between, say, 10% random chance and a 12% percentage in the viewer's session."

Well, here's another problem. It'll be hard enough to get anyone to do one target let alone several or many. I think that before too much more time is spent discussing the experiment, you should find some RV participants.

-------------------------------------------
"If that's what would be expected today, however, then I'd suggest waiting 50 years or so. Wait for the training methodologies to work their way up to some solid results first, with the youngest of today's viewers."

Joe McMoneagle believes that RV talent cannot be improved beyond anyones individual ability,similar to any other talent. The 220 hitter will never bat 300 although he may have a hot streak or two. Some paople reach their peak level quickly, others need a whole lot of coaching and praqctice, but they only get as good as they get.

--------------------------------------------
"That's exactly my point. Because it will always occur, it's important to take it into account. The misses cannot be ignored just because they happen all the time. They must be measured. True remote viewers should have fewer of these misses than random guesswork. This is another method of measuring whether or not it "works."

I think this is more a measure of quality of data or usefullness for operational work. A "good" viewer will provide quantity as well as quality. Most of the rest will barely be able to find the right neighborhood.

-------------------------------------
" Since Lyn Buchanan is convinced that different viewers have different talent areas (colors, motion, whatever), this could be a simple way for them to "team up" and produce more-accurate results."

Most viewers, including me, don't take the time to create a data base as Lyn suggests (this opinion is based on my personal conversations with other RVers). Other than that, I don't know. I have to pass to someone with more experience.

--------------------------------------
"Now, I know you, Rich haven't hopped up and said you'd like to be a part of the testing, and I also know that in the previous thread, you made it clear that your own skill wasn't all that fantastic, but if you'd humor me for a moment: what test of your own abilities could prove to you that they don't exist?"

I would try to participate if I thought there were enough
"good" viewers. It has been my experience that most participants in informal public exchanges of targets are those who say "I'm not that good". There is a definate trend that the better one gets (or beleives themselves to be) the more reluctant they are to get on stage. Witness that there are extremely few examples available from anyone who teaches RV or has been an RVer in the military or has professionally used or studied RV.

What would convince me it doesn't work? Not any one session..... or series of sessions. I suppose its kinda like seeing a UFO and being asked what it would take to convince you it didnt happen. If it was as simple as demonstrating how a magic trick works ...... yeah. And maybe it really is but the arguement presented earlier don't convince me. I did at times give a lot of thought to whether my "good" sessions were just a collection of lucky matches but couldnt convince myself. Right now I am not convinced that RV can or has ever produced a large amount of really usefull real world data. Any compendium of such public documanted data (raw data without the drama and BS) would create real thin book.

Now that I think of it, maybe that's why demonstrations are derided by many as "parlor tricks". There is more entertainment than beef.

But that's not to say there aren't any "amazing" examples of RV. If describing whats in the box is a real talent, who's to say its less valuable than trying to hit a ball into a hole in the grass?

----------------------------------------
Wevets asks:
"Will there be a control group of non-RVers also trying to generate terms/impressions/gestalts that describe the target?"

That would be cool.

------------------------------------------
Czarcasm sez:
" I would suggest you go ahead and make the offer on some of the remote-viewing websites, such as the HRVG bulletin
board. If you contact enough of them, you might find one or two open minded enough to take you up on the offer."


I think that is the next step. Try contacting the various instructors asking for their help in setting up an experiment. It could be time consuming especially going beyond one trial per viewer, so you may get that as a reason for not participating. I will try to participate in some capacity. If they refer you to the Stargate e-mail group, be aware that most of the members have no formal RV training so it would be important to specify that only trained RVers participate. (There are also several levels of training which could be documented.)

----------------------------------------------

This link will give you a good list of RV groups. One or two are often, er,... grouchy. And there are the various "alliances".

http://www.largeruniverse.com/links.html


Rich
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-12-2001, 10:23 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by wevets
Will there be a control group of non-RVers also trying to generate terms/impressions/gestalts that describe the target?
Good point. I had thought about simply creating a master word list, and a random number generator, and making the lists up that way. By using the mechanical methods, a fairly close approximation of random could be provided, as a baseline for comparison. I suppose non believer viewers could also be a control group, although, if the phenomenon works as has been presented, those viewers might well be equally successful.
Quote:
Originally posted by Czarcasm
I would suggest you go ahead and make the offer on some of the remote-viewing websites, such as the HRVG bulletin board. If you contact enough of them, you might find one or two open minded enough to take you up on the offer.

I realize that we could use non-believers for the receiving end of the test, but that leaves us wide open for the accusation that the receivers weren't really trying or were deliberately screwing up the project.
Once I get the skeptics a bit more organized, if I still haven't heard from the proponents, I will certainly go to those web sites to ask if they are interested, or not. If not, I will try to find the nature of the objections, and see if those can be overcome. One holiday weekend is not enough time to assume an absence of interest from the various viewer groups.
Quote:
Originally posted by Saltire
How about making the target a room? The room would be bare of all furnishings, and hopefully without windows. In the room, simple objects could be placed, which would represent as few gestalts as possible.
Logistical considerations make this a bit harder to do. We can lock a stack of photos up in a Lawyers Office, and get a fairly cheap secure data storage for pretty low cost. Encrypted image files stored on the Internet would be even cheaper. Then remote viewers can spend a day, week, or month, or whatever time they desire on each target. Doing that with a room for each target, and providing security, and still leaving the remote viewers with time enough to live ordinary lives during the testing period presents a problem, primarily of cost. When do we put the object into the room? How long is it there? Do we use the same room for different objects? Do we try for different rooms for each object? That's a lot of rooms, and a lot of security considerations.

If there is a person trusted by everyone, who has an empty room, and is willing to perform the chore of manipulating the objects according to the plan, it might be doable. But to be really secure, they would have to have at least locks, with keys held by another party, and a third party who selects and places the objects, so that no possible data leak can exist. I don't see that happening.

Tris
------------------------
"It was a woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her." ~ W.C. Fields ~
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-13-2001, 07:33 PM
Patty O'Furniture Patty O'Furniture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Triskadecamus:

Now please note I have appointed myself Interim Judge.
I second the appointment based on the stringent scientific principle that the Judge should look as much like James Randi as possible.



I'll participate if you need extras.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-14-2001, 07:47 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
Tris, I have noted the difficulties you have had over at the HRVG bulletin board, and I have a simple request to make. Ask them if they would promise to take the test if you would reveal your name to them, just to see what the answer would be. I'm afraid, though, that you still wouldn't qualify as a "Competant Authority", which they translate to someone who already believes in RV and claims to have it.
As I've said before, RV groups claim that Remote Viewing is a proven fact, and thus any test to actually prove its veracity is an attempt by outsiders to undermine it.

Testing to see how good you are at Remote Viewing=Good
Testing veracity of Remote Viewing=Bad

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-14-2001, 10:44 AM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Actually, Czarcasm, I will reveal my name to them without any promises. I always use my name in Real Life exchanges, and since part of any real test will include personal contacts among various people, that will happen quite ordinarily.

I have responded again to the HRVG, and also on the one other site that I could find with an open forum. If anyone else finds an open forum that they think would be willing to accept my offer, let me know.

I am still considering this offer opened, and pending acceptance. I will continue to post at HRVG, and try to overcome their reluctance. My desire is not to prove anything to them, about RV, or about their own group. I wish only to get cooperation.

My qualifications have been questioned. I am at a loss to provide them, since interest in RV, and scrupulous Double Blind examination are the extent of my qualifications, and those are the qualities that elicited the demand for qualifications. Perhaps someone here has a degree, and is willing to let me wave it around. (I doubt my high school diploma is gonna impress anyone. It certainly never impressed me.)

Tris
---------------------
"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." ~ Carl Jung ~
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-14-2001, 10:04 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
Maybe one of these sites?
http://www.remote-viewing.com
http://www.irva.org
http://www.crviewer.com
http://www.remoteviewers.com
http://www.probablefuture.com
http://www.king.dom-reg.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-15-2001, 09:10 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Well, I have posted a few general forum messages, referencing the thread, sent a few emails, and made my willingness to be an intermediary for anyone who finds the SDMB . . . unfelicitous.

I have only recieved two responses indicating any level of interest in the project at all, and one of those is pretty much not interested other than as an observer.

I would like to let a bit of time pass before exploring the methods by which an examination can be made without any voluntary participation by proponents. Let's say, a week from today, unless someone steps up.

Tris
--------------------
"Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-15-2001, 09:26 PM
ChuckieR ChuckieR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
This is my first posting, so please let me know if I violate any etiquette.

In the spirit of the JREF (and of DaveW's posts which mention knowing the odds in advance), any test should be designed so that no judges are required (I think this is a requirement for the big JREF million dollar prize). I think someone mentioned on the original thread that it could be done as a matching problem. One person views 10 different targets (each associated with a unique random number) and then tries to match the numbers to the pictures afterwards. Rich_rv mentioned that each viewing might be a LOT of work, so maybe it could instead be 10 people viewing 10 images (with each person assigned one particular image), and then they try to match them up afterwards (i.e., afterwards, each person would see all 10 pictures, w/out knowing the random numbers, and would have to choose the one they think they viewed - each picture would have to be assigned to one person). They can even be given the 10 pictures (without the numbers attached, of course) and debate about them together and help each other as long as they want. But in the end, each person must pick one of the pictures. The chance of one person guessing correctly is 1/10; two people is 1/100, etc. So the odds of getting all 10 matched correctly is 1/10,000,000,000 (actually, it's 1/10! (that's 10 "factorial", not 10 "enthusiastically" ) if you take into account that each picture must be assigned to exactly one person).

The beauty of it is that the RVers can be in control of just about everything, and set up conditions any way they want. They can even choose the targets... in fact, I think they could even know what the 10 targets are ahead of time, so they can pick some of their favorites. The chances of getting the match correct are still VERY low. The only requirement is that no participant can know the number-to-picture correspondance until it is completely over and the viewers have ALL selected which picture they think they viewed.

Then, as is the JREF requirement, the results will be obvious to all. No judging is required.

I think any test that has everyone viewing one picture, then "judging" the hits afterwards will degenerate into a big shouting match. With the above protocol, there is no room for this.

Does this make sense? Does it seem like something that might fly? I can work out the math (or maybe someone who is better at this can help out) to see how many correct hits would be expected by chance.

I'm curious what any RVers might think, and to get their input to change this protocol in any way that they see as necessary - I just threw this out as a first attempt at it. As DaveW said, the RVers must be very happy with the protocol, and agree that the protocol itself will not hamper their abilities. The only "monitoring" will be to make sure that no one cheats and gets advance knowledge of the number-to-picture mapping.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-15-2001, 11:13 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
The problem so far is that the Remote Viewers don't wish to be part of any test that might cause them to doubt the very existence of RV. They have devised a test that tells them what they want to believe, and seem to be hostile to any suggestion that someone other than a "true believer" test them. The term used on one of the boards for one is, if I remember correctly, "Competent Authority".

Again, unless people who believe they might have this ability are willing to take part in the experiment, it cannot work. The only people left would be the "control" group, and the people who don't believe but take the test anyway. The second group will automatically be accused of fudging the data to make RV look bad, guaranteed.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-16-2001, 12:01 AM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
ChuckieR wrote:
Quote:
Does this make sense? Does it seem like something that might fly?
It makes plenty of sense, but I'm afraid it probably won't fly. That appears, as Czarcasm points out, to be the nature of this beast (at least where HRVG is concerned - I don't have a lot of experience with other RV groups).

Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this "frontloading," and it's very bad. They won't touch a "frontloaded" test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that's vehemently not the case.

Oh, and thanks for bringing up the calculations again, because I'd forgotten about wevets' question about a control group. If things work out right, no control group should be needed, since the probabilities should be calculatable. Control groups are necessary in experiments for which you cannot calculate (beforehand) the chance of success. With a test of RV, the claim is basically "we can do better than guessing," and we should be able to calculate what results "guessing" would get without actually measuring it. By analogy, we can calculate the long-term odds of rolling snake-eyes without actually performing a bazillion rolls of the dice, so if someone claims to be able to telekinetically change the odds, no "control group" is needed to verify that the claimant should roll a two something other than 1 time in every 36.

Another thing about this methodology (the "matching problem," which is, in RV lingo, a "target pool") is that according to what I read in Jessica Utts' report, the folks at either SRI or SAIC determined that a pool with 100 targets was optimally-sized. If more or fewer targets were in the pool, the viewers didn't do as well. So, if a pool of targets is the methodology eventually adopted, remember "100".

And welcome to the SDMB! As long as you keep putting my name in the same sentence with JREF you'll get along great here! (Actually, I'm not affiliated with JREF in any way, I'm just hoping to gain some prestige through proximity. )
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-16-2001, 07:51 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
More bad news, Tris.
Mr. Glenn Wheaton of the HRVG is now telling his flock not to participate in your experiment. It seems that we don't have the proper attitude, and we won't all reveal our true names to him. He had other not-so-nice comments, but they were the same tired "Gather up, True Believers!, Circle the wagons and insert the Holy Earplugs of Truth" missives that we've seen before.

Perhaps one of the other websites I've found will pan out. If not, I'll find more.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-16-2001, 09:50 AM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
[sigh] This has to be one of the saddest things I have ever read.

http://hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hot....pl?read=13008

Blinders--check!
Earplugs--check!
Gag--check!

Toe the line--ready--march!



Rich_rv--if you're still with us--I'd like to commend you for your extremely civilized and intelligent participation in this entire discussion, and I'd also like to let you know that I detect, under your RV posts, maybe just a tiny spark of the Light of Skepticism. Anybody who actually goes out and looks on the Web for information on RV methodology, instead of merely taking someone's word for it, would fit right in here at the SDMB. I'm saying that I think you have the makings of a Doper, Rich, (and that's a compliment, in case you didn't know ) and I think we'd all be pleased if you spent more time here at the SDMB. We do have other forums, you know, and there are so many other things to talk about under the sun, besides remote viewing.

We promise not to tell Glenn.

And, if you're seriously worried about him checking up on you and finding out that you're posting here at the Evil Straight Dope, you could come in through the back door, in disguise. You could e-mail an administrator, like TubaDiva, and ask her to de-register your user name of Rich_rv and then re-register under a different name. If you just ask for a name change, your "Rich_RV" posts would still be here but with the new user name on them, and he would know who you are.

Anyway, Glenn never needs to know that you're posting here, and maybe asking some--dangerous--questions.

But note--do not do this "name change" by yourself. In other words, don't simply re-register with a second user name, because that's against the rules. E-mail Tuba and talk to her about it, she's a nice lady.

tubadiva@aol.com


ah, another brand pulled from the burning
[exits singing]
rescue the perishing, care for the dying,
snatch them in pity from sin and the grave...


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-16-2001, 12:05 PM
FortMarcy FortMarcy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
[sigh] This has to be one of the saddest things I have ever read.

http://hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hot....pl?read=13008

Blinders--check!
Earplugs--check!
Gag--check!

Toe the line--ready--march!

Hmmm...okay I read the link. I was expecting some totally delusional response considering DDG called it "the saddest thing I have ever read." Instead I find a list of seemingly valid issues:
a) Those conducting the study will not reveal their identities beforehand.
b) The only organizational affiliation the conductors have is that they post on the same message board.
c) The discussions prior to the study have not always been respectful and open-minded.
d) The results of the study would carry no weight in the broader scientific community.

The objections all seem valid to me. Are they just obstructionist tactics? Perhaps. But trying to tar-and-feather someone for stating those objections is a bit much.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-16-2001, 01:10 PM
seawitch seawitch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Well, if you still plan to try this, even if the RV groups won't participate, I'll play. I know next to nothing about remote viewing, so if I'm assigned the role of "viewer" you should keep that in mind. I promise to maintain a neutral position - I have no investment (emotional or otherwise) in the success or failure of the experiment.

Given the lack of pro-RV participants so far, I don't expect a universally acceptable definitive answer, but the test proposed would be both fun and interesting. I don't see the harm in trying.

Maybe I can finally see the famous Moderator Underoos.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-16-2001, 01:13 PM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
FortMarcy wrote:
Quote:
a) Those conducting the study will not reveal their identities beforehand.
The study would be conducted in such a way that the identities of those involved don't matter. An offer of identity revealation has already been made. Not that it matters, since Glenn cannot prove to us that his name is actually Glenn. What's the difference between an obvious alias and an alias that sounds like a real name? Is one more trustworthy than another? But this is irrelevant to whether or not proper science can be done.
Quote:
b) The only organizational affiliation the conductors have is that they post on the same message board.
Also irrelevant to whether or not proper science can be conducted.
Quote:
c) The discussions prior to the study have not always been respectful and open-minded.
Also irrelevant, but at least I can understand an objection based on bitterness. Note, however, that the disrespect has gone both ways.
Quote:
d) The results of the study would carry no weight in the broader scientific community.
When an 11-year-old can do a science project that is now widely cited by the scientific community as disproof of Therapeutic Touch, this last objection is shown to be the silliest of them all.

Glenn's objections are all based on an Appeal to Authority: we aren't, in his words, a "competent authority," so therefore it is impossible for us to do proper or meaningful science. That is not valid logic.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-16-2001, 04:38 PM
ChuckieR ChuckieR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
[Czarcasm] The problem so far is that the Remote Viewers don't wish to be part of any test that might cause them to doubt the very existence of RV.
...
The term used on one of the boards for one is, if I remember correctly, "Competent Authority".
Agreed. But I think it is still useful to debate a test protocol, to make it as simple and obvious as possible. Maybe it will give pause to would-be remote viewers if even the most straightforward protocol is not acceptable to the RV establishment. The RVers can work out most of the protocol to their liking (it should be as close as possible to a "normal" remote viewing session), and no authority is needed as a judge. The only requirement is that one or more people have to assign the target ID to the image and make sure that the viewers don't see this (at least not physically ) until it is all over. This could be done, for instance, in a room with both "skeptics" and RVer representitives present, as long as no one can communicate the ID/Image mapping to the viewers. Otherwise, almost anything goes.

Quote:
The second group will automatically be accused of fudging the data to make RV look bad, guaranteed.
It is important to devise a protocol where no data judging/fudging is possible. I think the one I put forward is in this category. Everyone must agree that the protocol is fair BEFORE it starts, then the results are obvious to all once it is over, with NO JUDGING required, and no fudging possible.

Quote:
[DaveW] It makes plenty of sense, but I'm afraid it probably won't fly.
...
Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand.
...
Another thing about this methodology (the "matching problem," which is, in RV lingo, a "target pool") is that according to what I read in Jessica Utts' report, the folks at either SRI or SAIC determined that a pool with 100 targets was optimally-sized. If more or fewer targets were in the pool, the viewers didn't do as well.
You're right. It is important the the RVers themselves shape the protocol to their liking. There is no requirement that they look at the pictures, but they can if they want to. There is a lot of flexibility here. They can choose the pictures, others can choose the pictures; there can be 10 of them, or 100, or 1000. 1 person can do the viewing, or 10, or 100... you get the point. The only task is to match the target IDs with the pictures afterwards. Almost anything else is up for debate.

Quote:
Glenn's objections are all based on an Appeal to Authority: we aren't, in his words, a "competent authority," so therefore it is impossible for us to do proper or meaningful science. That is not valid logic.
I couldn't agree more. The RVers would be the authority with this protocol. It would only require a neutral observer to make sure the ID/Image mapping is kept secret until the viewing is over. NO JUDGING REQUIRED!! I think what he is probably trying to say is that he wants a more prestigious organization to "validate" remote viewing. We can't do that. But if they can do well with whatever protocol this humble group comes up with, then that could generate interest from others.

But as Czarcasm points out, maybe they are just happy to do their remote-viewing in private, for their own enjoyment, and not trying to convince anyone else that there is anything to it.

Quote:
And welcome to the SDMB! As long as you keep putting my name in the same sentence with JREF you'll get along great here! (Actually, I'm not affiliated with JREF in any way, I'm just hoping to gain some prestige through proximity.)
Thanks! It's a fun place to be. I got drawn into this whole remote viewing thing when looking at a completely unrealted thread. I hope I can contribute something useful here.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-16-2001, 05:16 PM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
I did suggest near the beginning of the thread that you involve a known person or organisation e.g. a newspaper as a neutral judge.

The big weakness of the test under discussion is the selection of the images. If a 'fraudulent skeptic'* or a 'cheating viewer'* is in charge, they can bias the results, or communicate to their fellows.

*this description is for illustrative purposes only.

Since Randi has been mentioned, has anyone asked Glenn why his group don't collect the $1,000,000?
__________________
Arnold Winkelried:
'glee, I take my hat off to you.... at first I thought you were kidding with your cite but I looked it up and it was indeed accurate. (Still in awe at the magnificent answer)'
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-16-2001, 07:42 PM
FortMarcy FortMarcy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveW
Glenn's objections are all based on an Appeal to Authority: we aren't, in his words, a "competent authority," so therefore it is impossible for us to do proper or meaningful science. That is not valid logic.
Only after the study has been conducted and reviewed can it be known how meaningful the science is. The current effort is to locate remote viewers volunteers. They can not be expected to participate just because others would like them to. Part of their decision making process is to consider who is doing the asking.

Which of the following studies would you more likely participate in?
a) A study where the scientists told you who they were up front.
b) A study where the scientists would be identified after you agreed to volunteer.

a) A study conducted by scientists trained in the field who work at the same research institute.
b) A study conducted by various people who discuss things on a message board.

a) A study destined to be published in a scientific journal after peer review.
b) A study destined to be published on a message board.


It's one thing to trust yourself. It's quite another thing to get others to trust you.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-16-2001, 10:01 PM
Freedom Freedom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
When an 11-year-old can do a science project that is now widely cited by the scientific community as disproof of Therapeutic Touch, this last objection is shown to be the silliest of them all.


Hey, could I get a link to that? I think it could come in handy this holiday season when I see some of my kooky relatives
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-16-2001, 11:19 PM
Rich_rv Rich_rv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
ChuckieR:

One of the simpler protocols mentioned earlier is to RV a target via the reference number then display a set of photos, four is typical.

The viewer and anyone else looking at his data can then rank the photos according to what they think is the best match, or just pick out the one they think matches.

Everyone can judge. The photos should be substantially different from each other so that an arguement can't develop whether the data refers to "Boat #1 or Boat #2". I wouldn't even put a boat and a plane or a car in the same set. This is a common experiment and was tried at the 2001 RV Conference as suggested by Russel Targ.

Chance calculations are also straightforeward. The more pictures in the set the fewer experiments would be required to get a warm fuzzy feeling one way or the other.

Some people do not like this because they have an issue on whether to try to RV the actual photo, describing what it depicts or RV the actual site where the photo was taken.
I will try to get some comments from some of the former Stargate folk.

Another simple method is to just have a target viewed and present the data. It may be the most ambiguous method but its possible for everyone to go away feeling their particular viewpoint was confirmed.

-------------------------------------------------------
DaveW
said:
"Especially the part about the viewers getting to see the targets beforehand. The HRVG crowd calls this frontloading," and it's very bad. They won't touch a "frontloaded" test with a ten-foot pole. I would have thought it would make it easier, but apparently that's vehemently not the case"


Front loading is strongly avoided, especially by beginners.
Some claim that it can be used by those with lots of experience and ability, but it still causes a problem.
It only taskes a few key words to set your mind to thinking you know which photo is the target.

One way you may understand it is to select a batch of photos, then have someone else give you a few words that match two or more of the photos. Use adjectives not nouns.
Is "tall, circular, hard" the center of focus water tower in photo #1 or is it the telephone pole in the distant background of photo #2? Your conscious mind will try to tell you.

There is another form of "acceptable" front loading. The viewer can be told that the taget is an "object", or an "event", or a "person", or a "location", etc. I don't particularly like that either.

Any experiment for the purposes such as discussed here inherently requiires a blind target.
----------------------------------------------------

DDG:

Well, I have been almost banished from more than one RV discussion board and once banished from one, but that was more of an honor. I could have made a fortune selling "Banned From....." T-Shirts.

I would have used my regular handle of Rich, but it was already taken.

I am also a member of the Triad Area Skeptic Club (now known as Carolina Skeptics) out of Greensboro. They have done some tests from time to time with people who have made extroardinary claims.

http://www.wfu.edu/~ecarlson/tasc/

On the other hand, I did take an in-person RV course from Paul Smith and some on-line lessons from hrvg and attended two RV conferences.

I also confess to visiting the Rhine Research Center and the A.R.E in Virginia Beach.

I've met Glenn, Dick, Valtra and others from hrvg and have been haunting their BB since it was formed. I've met and talked to and e-mailed & BBed with most of the people listed at the RV Conference website since the Hale-Bopp days.
Heck...I've even gotten through to Art Bell once.


http://www.rvconference.org/cgi-bin/...shtml&cart_id=

My main "sparks of skepticism" lie in two facets of RV, and I am defining RV as remote viewing done by a formal methodology such as hrvg or CRV, not some free form psychic data gathering or altered state on consciousness such as ERV. One can use a crystal ball I suppose to "remote view".
Personally, I focus on the formal written methodologies and at this time prefer CRV to hrvg.

Spark #1: The claims made for "formal" RV far surpass any publicly available documentation. Most of the public WOW stories from Stargate were not done using formal CRV type methodologies. There is even less documentation on usefull information derived from RV. The Alexandria Project (archeology) which is very interesting rv/psi wise did not employ hrvg or CRV. The many experiments run using procedures such as the target pool discussed above did not use CRV or hrvg. Someone at hrvg suggested that you-all may be interested in RV no matter how it is produced, but as I say, my interest lies in the formally structured methods.

Spark #2: RV is unequivically and inseparatively intertwined with the UFO/ET phenomenon. Certain RVers and RV groups downplay it or have very little or no association with it but allmost all.........
have played with it. The most outrageous are Ed Dames and Courtney Brown. Others claim to have been abducted, physically seen or been regularly tasked to RV UFO/ETs.
All military RVers have "been to the mountain"..... the Galactic Federation. All this stuff is unique to the RV section of psi. Prior to RV/Stargate no other psychics or psychic groups focused on UFOs and ETs. The otherworldly happenings were always spiritual entities, the dead and the reincarnated.

----------------------------------------------
FortMarcy;

I can relate to those arguements from Glenn but this topic came up on the Stargete e-group some time ago. My view was that RV/psi is always on the defensive and ought to go offense for a change. Set up a protocol and open the door to those interested and create an ongoing data base of knowledge, open to the public, good, bad or ugly.

Unfortunately, those who apparently have the most talent are the least likely to participate. And that aspect alone IMHO gives a cultish undertone to the whole field.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-16-2001, 11:25 PM
Rich_rv Rich_rv is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Target Sets

Paul Smith suggests the following:

The tasker selects the target set, but selects the actual target out of that set randomly. It could even be better to select several target sets, then randomly select _both_ the final target set _and_ then the actual target within it. This removes the tasker even further from being able in
anyway to prejudice the results.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-16-2001, 11:26 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
I am not a scientist. I don't even play one on TV.

I have a high school education. While in high school, all those many years ago, I was taught the concept of double blind testing. The most interesting thing about it to me was that it did not require any authority to be valid. You design a test that eliminates all the variables, and ways of cheating, and you have only people who don't know the right answers examine the results.

Now dishonesty is a possible problem, in any test.

I am not a crook. But, hey, we have heard that one before.

But, whatever the qualification that I might have, or lack, it was never my intention to be the authority, in this test. You see, I am a professional at one thing. I teach people how to do things. Not difficult things, but very simple things. And there is one thing I do know for sure about doing things. It starts with stand up. Amazingly enough, that is the single biggest problem with most human effort. You see, you can't even take the first step, until you stand up. So, I stood up.

Now, some things take more than one person. So, I asked if anyone else wanted to stand up. A few have. Thanks. Unfortunately, everyone seems to standing on one side, so far.

We can proceed without the cooperation, or even permission of RV groups, using their published data, and random scrambling a control group of their trials, to see if that changes the rates of hits for the entire sample. If it does consistently change it, there is a data exchange between viewer and object. Unfortunately, that test does not eliminate the possibility of deliberate fraud. Since I did not intend to leave unproved suspicion as a possible result, I asked if anyone wanted to participate in a test that could eliminate fraud.

I am not sure why that is perceived as a threat. The use of cyber handles seems a silly thing to be concerned about, especially from someone who purports to be able to observe me directly from half a world away! I did think of one thing that makes me a bigger threat, though. (OK, so not really, but someone at work pointed it out.) You see, having a University, with dozens of PhD's and Professors find out your hobby is based on wishful thinking is one thing. But being debunked by a high school graduate from his living room? Now that's embarrassing!

So, let's see if we can line up a few big guns, to cut down on the risk factor, OK? I will just sit back in the background and sort buttons.

Tris
---------------------
"The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards." ~ Alexander Jablokov ~
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-16-2001, 11:45 PM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
[hijack]

For Freedom: It was a nine-year-old, actually.

http://skepdic.com/tt.html
Quote:
In conclusion, we should note that 9-year old Emily Rosa tested 21 TT practitioners to see if they could even feel energy when they could not see its source. The test was very simple and seems to clearly indicate that the subjects could not detect the energy of the little girl's hands when placed near theirs.
Enjoy the holidays! All the best to the kooky relatives...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-16-2001, 11:50 PM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
FortMArcy wrote:
Quote:
Only after the study has been conducted and reviewed can it be known how meaningful the science is.
That's true, which is what makes Glenn's objections even more ridiculous when stated beforehand. I'd have more respect for Glenn if he had simply said, "I don't want to be tested by you" instead of making those silly objections.

Quote:
The current effort is to locate remote viewers volunteers. They can not be expected to participate just because others would like them to. Part of their decision making process is to consider who is doing the asking.
A decent reader ought to be able to figure out that the people doing the asking are a group of random people who share an ideal of eliminating ignorance, who've been fair, overall, in the discussion to date, and who are bending over backwards trying to come up with a test protocol acceptable to the RVers (whoever they may be). No, they can't be expected to participate just because they're asked. However, a certain few have made claims that RV is a scientifically testable ability, and have proposed tests themselves. When someone actually made the suggestion that the test be carried out, we hear balking based on "competent authority" nonsense.

Quote:
Which of the following studies would you more likely participate in?
a) A study where the scientists told you who they were up front.
b) A study where the scientists would be identified after you agreed to volunteer.
Considering my volunteering does not mean I am obligated to see the experiment through to completion, why does it matter? Considering the test should be designed so that it doesn't matter who suggested it, why should anyone care? What would one of these anonymous people do, whip off their 'mask' and go "AHA! It's me!" So what? What possible harm could it do if the test is fair? If the test is agreed to be fair before it even begins?

Quote:
a) A study conducted by scientists trained in the field who work at the same research institute.
b) A study conducted by various people who discuss things on a message board.
Scientists trained in RV? They are few and far-between. They've already run some tests, and claimed positive results. Other scientists, not trained in RV, dispute those results, leading to the current state of affairs. More testing, properly done (regardless of who does it), is needed to confirm or deny the claims. In other words, it doesn't matter, if the test is designed well.

Quote:
a) A study destined to be published in a scientific journal after peer review.
b) A study destined to be published on a message board.
Why wouldn't the study done here be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? No matter what the result, I, for one, would push for wide publication of the results of a well-designed study. I don't hide my belief that RV will fail, but if it doesn't - especially if it doesn't - I'd want it published. Hard evidence that RV actually works would be fantastic. I might even move to Hawaii if it's true, and beg Glenn's forgiveness in order to train at the feet of a master.

Quote:
It's one thing to trust yourself. It's quite another thing to get others to trust you.
A test which is designed in public, here on this message board, to be acceptable to all parties and immune to cheating by all parties, makes trust irrelevant. ChuckieR has brought up JREF and the million-dollar challenge. It's a good model to follow, but we can't offer up the big bucks. And the HRVG rejects James Randi ("We've dealt with Randi before"), so I'm not surprised they'd reject any test we offered, either. Don't know why, though.

Freedom asked:
Quote:
Hey, could I get a link to that? I think it could come in handy this holiday season when I see some of my kooky relatives
Oh, shoot. Sorry. And my mistake, Emily Rosa was only 9 years old.

glee wrote:
Quote:
The big weakness of the test under discussion is the selection of the images. If a 'fraudulent skeptic'* or a 'cheating viewer'* is in charge, they can bias the results, or communicate to their fellows.
That's fairly easy to overcome, actually. Say the "target pool" is 100 images.

A group of an equal number of skeptics and believers (none of whom will be involved in later stages of testing) sit down in a room with a stack of National Geographics (an HRVG favorite), and cut out, say, a thousand photos, which would be immediately sealed in envelopes as they're snipped. As soon as they're sealed, the envelopes are tossed into a big bag. Once all the photos have been cut out, the group will clean up all trash and magazines, pour the contents of the bad onto a table, and leave the room with nothing but the big bag and the pile in it.

A second group of people come in, again an equal number of skeptics and believers, and bring with them a shredder. 100 envelopes are randomly drawn from the pile and placed in the bag again. The bag will then be sealed. The 900 envelopes still on the table will then be thrown into the shredder immediately. Once all the extra photos are shredded, the confetti and the shredder will get shoved out the door.

This second group of people would then randomly create a target ID (agreed to as acceptable by the entire group), and write that ID on the first envelope, and on a piece of paper. Repeat for the second envelope, third, etc.. Once all 100 envelopes have been IDed, and the list of IDs is complete, the group will seal all of the envelopes in the bag again, and deliver it to a safety deposit box or other trusted security together as a group. For the utmost in security, this second group should then not participate in any of the later stages of testing, after they hand over several identical copies of the list of IDs to those who will be participating in those later stages.

Target selection is now complete.

So, even if the first group consists of only two people (one skeptic, one believer), each will be able to remember only 500 photos (yeah, right). But, only 50 or so of those images will be targets. If the test were designed so that "random chance" worked out to also be 10%, then cheating cannot work any better than random guessing.

Actually, it'd be best if the first group of skeptics/believers grabbed a bunch of people off the street to actually snip the photos and stuff them in envelopes. The group would do little but supervise and keep an eye on each other, making sure that the others weren't looking too closely at issue or page numbers. Oh, and the whole stack of magazines, cut and uncut extras, needs to be destroyed as soon as the original batch of 1,000 photos have been snipped. The first group can take them out and burn them together, along with any other trash from cutting, as soon as they leave the room.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-17-2001, 12:09 AM
FortMarcy FortMarcy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich_rv
I can relate to those arguements from Glenn but this topic came up on the Stargete e-group some time ago. My view was that RV/psi is always on the defensive and ought to go offense for a change. Set up a protocol and open the door to those interested and create an ongoing data base of knowledge, open to the public, good, bad or ugly.
I agree with your sentiments, but bashing people makes them more defensive. When Triskadecamus started this thread I was sure the greatest obstacle would be getting RVers to participate. Using the thread to take potshots at Glenn Wheaton or HRVG doesn't help. Saying "I don't think they're interested" or "They have some issues, but we'll try to work them out" is much better. As far as I can tell HRVG participation is not required.

Hopefully some RVers will still participate. It may be wise at this juncture, instead of asking them to be subjects, ask if they would help define the protocol. They risk nothing in doing that. Once the protocol is complete, it may be easier to find subjects when the protocol has been approved by fellow RVers.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-17-2001, 12:39 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
FortMarcy, the potshots are not exactly flowing in one direction. Mr. Wheaton and Company are not above name-calling and aspersion-casting themselves, on both this message board and their own. They have indicated that any questioning of their "ability" will be considered an insult, and that any testing by an outsider will not be tolerated.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-19-2001, 12:47 AM
FortMarcy FortMarcy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
That being the case, the participation of anyone in HRVG is highly unlikely. But they haven't fired a single salvo on this thread, yet they have been denigrated here. How does this help achieve the objective of the thread? After reading this thread, would a remote viewer be more or less likely to volunteer? It just seems to me that the discussions here should be about the study, and the sideshow should be relegated to more appropriate forums.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-19-2001, 01:12 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
If you could find a remote viewing group that would be willing to participate in an experiment by an outside group to determine the veracity of remote viewing itself, please help us out. We have people willing to come up with target photographs and/or drawings-what we need are people willing to try to "recieve" said pictures, and the conditions they would be willing to work under.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-19-2001, 08:47 AM
Freedom Freedom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Duck Duck Goose and DaveW

Thanks. I have been trying to get my relatives who believe in Healing Touch to do this same test. I have run into the same problems this thread is having with the Remote Viewing crowd.

I once let a couple of them do an "analysis" of my body. I know full well the problems I have had, and was curious if they could pick up on ANY of them.

After missing all the major things wrong(past and present), and telling me they got strong feelings from my right knee, I tried to tell them my history and let them know that I had never had ANY problem with that particular body part.


They just told me that this confirmed how good Healing Touch was, since they were telling me something I didn't even KNOW was wrong.

In my head, all I could hear was....

"And for three easy payments of $19.95 we can solve that problem....."



Thanks for the link. Have a good holiday.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-20-2001, 12:57 AM
DaveW DaveW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
FortMarcy wrote:
Quote:
That being the case, the participation of anyone in HRVG is highly unlikely. But they haven't fired a single salvo on this thread, yet they have been denigrated here.
No, the HRVG group fired their salvos in the previous threads here, and over on their own message board. The participation of anyone from HRVG has always been highly unlikely, given the obvious prejudice of Glenn and others.
Quote:
How does this help achieve the objective of the thread? After reading this thread, would a remote viewer be more or less likely to volunteer?
I'm sure these comments don't help, but I'm also fairly sure they don't hurt, either. It's been obvious that anyone of the "I don't have to prove anything to you" ilk (toward whom most of the denigration has been directed) wouldn't be participating in the first place, and anyone who would like to prove it to us ought to see that people here are still attempting to devise a fair test, especially after reading this thread.
Quote:
It just seems to me that the discussions here should be about the study, and the sideshow should be relegated to more appropriate forums.
I'm actually surprised nobody started a Pit thread about things in the previous two threads (unless I missed it). Heck, I've started Pit threads over less insulting responses than what I got from Glenn Wheaton. It didn't seem worth the trouble, though, and I laughed most of it off, instead. Perhaps others who participated in the earlier discussions felt the same way.

It also occurs to me that most of what appears to be denigration here is, really, the pointing-out of ignorance (of proper scientific testing, of logic, etc.). That's what this message board is supposed to combat. While it's not appropriate to bring up unrelated ignorance in a thread (for example, I could post to this thread about a friend getting recently suckered in by a naturopath, but I won't), Glenn's mistaken ideas about a "competent authority" are directly related to the subject at hand: the testing of Remote Viewing. Perhaps I, for one, could use different words than "silly" or "ridiculous" to describe Glenn's statements, but I'd be stuck with transparent synonyms, anyway. Would calling Glenn's objections "logically-challenged" really be any better?

Freedom, you're quite welcome. Good luck with making you relatives "see the light" even with this new information. I predict the first objection will be along the lines of "what does a nine-year-old know?"
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-20-2001, 10:26 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Hey, I did write a pit response! But, I figured, "Hey, why inflict it on everyone?"

So I printed out a copy, and put it away in a dark closet.

Tris.
--------------------
no, really.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-21-2001, 10:03 AM
Duck Duck Goose Duck Duck Goose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Well, I haven't generated even any imaginary Pit responses, mainly because it's so abundantly obvious that the HRVG people are totally serious about this, and it would be supremely tactless, pushy, and obnoxious of me to drag them to the Pit and flame them for what they truly believe. It would be like dragging Great-Aunt Betty to the Pit and reaming her out for crocheting all those baby afghans. Hey, it's her hobby, leave her alone...

Only total assholes deserve Pit threads in their honor, and IMO nobody at the HRVG even comes close. The same way that one swallow doth not a summer make, a few snippy remarks do not a Pit thread make.

Sorry, guys. You'll have to try harder to inflame the Evil Straight Dope's ire.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-26-2001, 12:14 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 39,674
Tris, I've been doing some checking on the history of Remote Viewing, and there seems to be quite a few links between SRI(the institute responsible for promoting RV to the U.S. Government) and the Church of Scientology. Please be very careful giving out your real name and/or address to any groups that have ties to either SRI or the government-run programs, o.k.?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-26-2001, 10:50 PM
Triskadecamus Triskadecamus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Quote:
Please be very careful giving out your real name and/or address to any groups that have ties to either SRI or the government-run programs, o.k.?
But, . . . But, . . .

Well, the cat's out of the bag now, I signed that pit response I mentioned, and it has been just sitting there in a dark closet all this time. Not much chance in staying hidden from the forces of RV now, eh?

Thanks for the heads up, Czar, but no one is after me. I am the least worthwhile target for identity crime in the world. I already have no credit, I don't own anything, and the CIA already has my name. They got bored with me decades ago, as did the FBI. I turned myself in to the IRS again last year, as I do every year, and demanded that they audit my Short Form return. They refused, again.

The Mormon Church has Evangelist missionaries in a group apartment in the same building with me, and they won't even talk to me. I haven't seen a Seventh Day Adventist in years. The only telemarketers who call here are looking for the guy who had the number seven years ago. I don't even get offers for credit cards. Just because there is a conspiracy, doesn't mean that there is anything for them to find out. Some people are just so damned dull that even a peeping tom won't spy on them.

Tris
----------------------------
"Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty." ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.