# Remote viewing is real--and the truth is being seen by the media... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2004, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916 "2004-01-17T11:04:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/81 "2004-01-21T14:41:26Z")
> [@jharmon](#): > > I don’t understand how you can post a bazillion replies saying that showing us evidence would be a waste of your time. One post with good evidence is all you need to convince us and be done with the matter. Wow, it’s that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/82 "2004-01-21T14:41:33Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’ve read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Cool. So let’s discuss the peer reviews that I linked to. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Basically, I didn’t find it too hard to believe the claims, but one _is_ required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. Not lying, (opposed to “not-lying”), just means that the person belives what they are saying. It in no way precludes that they are mistaken, hence, it is not the same as saying the truth. (“Not-Lying” is just the opposite, where one says what is technically correct without being honest.) > [@Aeschines](#): > > I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn’t a big liar, then RV is right… right? Surprisng that this’d have to explained to someone who holds an MS, but no it doesn’t. It takes something more qualified than that. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don’t concur with that logic, and hence we differ. Here you’ve diverged from a discussion of the available evidence into a discussion of your feelings about people you don’t know. If possible, we should focus on the evidence at hand. How bout you gather your evidence and present it in one post? So far it seems to consist only of: **Aesc** saw a TV show with psychics and the USgov did a study and found the results to be dissappointing and unacceptable. If there’s some more to it, please present it. > [@Aeschines](#): > > This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We’re not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we’re talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time. This proves RV without a doubt. Since you’ve read the studies, you know that these weren’t “big, mind-blowing hits” and the odds of achieving 15% under the conditions used isn’t that remarkable. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Hmm, I understand Cecil’s point, but technically he’s not correct. “Pychic powers” are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who’s trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming. Unless you already believe in it, you won’t be able to see the “proof” of it? That what you’re saying? How long til the SDMB search function works? Anyone know? ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/83 "2004-01-21T14:42:53Z")
**Aeschines** , if you haven’t figured this out yet, it’s custom here for the person who is making the assertion to cite evidence supporting it, rather than tell their opposition to go find it for them. It’s obvious you aren’t getting taken seriously here. One wonders why you continue to make such claims when you know ahead of time that you are only going to get asked for cites, which you refuse to provide. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/84 "2004-01-21T14:44:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Let’s make this simple. A Japanese TV show regularly does remote viewing… > > …but remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects… > [@](#): > > When are you people gonna read what I’ve actually written and respond thereto? I’m not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you! Then I am almost afraid to ask…what the heck is your ‘point’? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/85 "2004-01-21T15:46:22Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Wow, it’s that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that! Er, yes. You should. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/86 "2004-01-21T16:16:57Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Wow, it’s that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that! It certainly would help you make your case if you were to provide, _at least_ “one post with good evidence.” AFACT, it’s pretty much unanimous that you should do this. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Zahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@John\_Zahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Zahn)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/87 "2004-01-21T18:18:10Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. I’ll say it again: “extraordinary” is an emotional qualifier; it’s an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim. Sufficient proof is always sufficient. We have to qualify as to what is sufficient. What you may call sufficient proof, isn’t sufficient to the vast majority of people, and especially for any credible scientist. Centuries ago, David Hume made the argument of why it was important to have that extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. If someone claims to be able to break some well known scientific law, such as being able to levitate at will where gravity no longer applies, that’s an extraordinary claim to the vast majority of people. Remote viewing is another extraordinary claim because it violates well known establish laws of conservation dealing with energy. It’s only fair to ask for some extraordinary proof of this claim, if such a thing has occurred. Hume goes on about how extraordinary stories are everyday occurrence, and people bend facts all of the time (knowingly or not), but when has natures laws ever gone cuckoo? Which is more likely to be true? Without that healthy dose of skepticism, science wouldn’t be were it is today. Skepticism is an important philosophical tool for the scientist and media alike and everyone in general, if they don‘t want to end up looking like a damn credulous fool. Those that don’t understand it, or refuse to apply it, end up looking rather silly. Yet, you mock skepticism at every chance you get. Remote viewing doesn’t fit well with physicists. You never proposed what interaction was occurring with remote viewing. Physicists can show why conservation of energy holds true for these fundamental interactions. You evidently don’t acknowledge just how accurate these modern instruments are in detecting these interactions between particles. You would have to be proposing some new kind of energy altogether that has gone undetected entirely. You might as well take seriously perpetual motion claims as well. Would like to comment further on this, if you’ll start concentrating on the scientific aspects. I’ll put my money on the laws of conservation of energy not being violated, before I put it on you or some TV show. JZ ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/88 "2004-01-21T18:19:33Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > This is clearly a personal insult, which is not allowed in GD. Apparently no one chooses to obey this rule except myself, which puts me at a disadvantage. That cross looks really heavy on your poor shoulder. > [@](#): > > Now get up, punk, and hit me with your best shot! No need. You have so far proven utterly unable to defend yourself against even my most basic offensive maneuver: “cite?”. > [@](#): > > **2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.** > > I already said I was insulted by this question. Do you really not understand how pathetic this looks? You’re _insulted_ by a simple and relevant question of whether you speak Japanese? What conclusions can a reasonable person draw from this? > [@](#): > > **3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.** > > Yes. Then what are you waiting for? Do it. But no, of course you’re not here to do that. This thread is about debating whether some media corporations accept remote viewing. Yeah, that’s interesting. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/89 "2004-01-21T18:34:01Z")
**Aeschines** Hey, I like the way you think. I have been previously unable to make any headway at all with these “skeptics”, proving G-d’s existence. But you’ve given me a way. I’d like to cite Joan of Arcadia. She talks to G-d in person every week. This alone would not be completely impressive, but following on the heels of Touched by an Angel is irrefutable evidence. Since two different competing networks are involved, this just adds more evidence that it is not a hoax. There are also over 5 million hits on the google search when you enter G-d. So hey skeptics “Got G-d?” Oh, I have information about a talking horse too, if anyone wants it.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/90 "2004-01-21T19:53:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It’s not an experiment; it’s a demonstration of the phenomena. And if it’s not a hoax, then it was, in fact, a good demonstration. And if it was a hoax, it could still have been a good demonstration. Magicians can perform very well without using any paranormal powers. They do it all the time. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/91 "2004-01-21T21:52:42Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > **Aeschines** , if you haven’t figured this out yet, it’s custom here for the person who is making the assertion to cite evidence supporting it, rather than tell their opposition to go find it for them. Not just here, but in the scentific/skeptical/rational thought arena as well. However, as you insist on us googling for you, [here](http://www.rviewer.com/) is the first link that popped up when I googled on “remote viewing.” Shall we take this link as your stated evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/92 "2004-01-22T02:06:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Great logic. You’re a certified skeptic. Your certified J. W. Randi skeptical supporter will be sent to you when you send your jock size, address, and check for $19.95 to 222 Burberry St., Pasadena OH. That would be my bra size. 😉 BTW, word to the wise: preview your posts and make sure other posters’ remarks are contained within the quote boxes. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/93 "2004-01-22T03:53:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We’re not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we’re talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time. How many sigmas is “mega-high”? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/94 "2004-01-22T04:20:47Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you! Seconding **Brutus** –“Huh?” Then why **are** you here? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/95 "2004-01-22T04:27:48Z")
> [@John Zahn](#): > > What you may call sufficient proof, isn’t sufficient to the vast majority of people, and especially for any credible scientist. Really? I thought the “vast majority” of people believed all manner of things without any proof or standard of proof whatsoever. “Credible” scientist means, I assume, scientists who adhere to the Skepto worldview. > [@](#): > > If someone claims to be able to break some well known scientific law, such as being able to levitate at will where gravity no longer applies, that’s an extraordinary claim to the vast majority of people. And their emotional state as regards the claim, including their feeling of “extraordinariness,” is completely irrelevent to the issue of what manner of evidence is required to proove the claim. I could just as well say that I find some of the claims of relativity and quantum mechanics “extraordinary.” I could say that 50 years of research and whatnot just doesn’t do it for me, because the proof wasn’t “extraordinary.” And you’d laugh–justifiably so. > [@](#): > > Remote viewing is another extraordinary claim because it violates well known establish laws of conservation dealing with energy. As can be said of any phenomenon, if it’s real, then it doesn’t violate any laws. At any rate, I don’t see how it violates any laws whatsoever. Information is being obtained, just as through the eyes and other sense organs. > [@](#): > > Hume goes on about how extraordinary stories are everyday occurrence, and people bend facts all of the time (knowingly or not), but when has natures laws ever gone cuckoo? There are plenty of unexplained phenomena. E.g., certain claims of relativity and quantum mechanics don’t match up. Whether you feel that’s nature “going cuckoo” is matter merely of your emotional reaction to the data, nothing more. > [@](#): > > Without that healthy dose of skepticism, science wouldn’t be were it is today. This is balderdash. 90% of modern technology is based upon applied science (i.e., fooling around with stuff), and not on theory. If anything, the theory usually has to bend to what people just goofing around have discovered. If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you’ll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers. Newton would be the prime example. > [@](#): > > Skepticism is an important philosophical tool for the scientist and media alike and everyone in general, if they don‘t want to end up looking like a damn credulous fool. Here you’re right, but look at the point you’ve made: skepticism is about peer pressure, not about truth. > [@](#): > > Those that don’t understand it, or refuse to apply it, end up looking rather silly. Sure, to those in your group, perhaps. And if you don’t believe in Creationism, you’d be mighty uncomfortable among the Fundamentalists. > [@](#): > > Yet, you mock skepticism at every chance you get. Right now it’s about the most hypocritical and counter-productive worldview out there. Self-deception at its best, in which those in the group pretend to have an open-minded cognitive approach, yet toe the party line better than any political or religious sycophant ever did. > [@](#): > > You never proposed what interaction was occurring with remote viewing. I haven’t assumed that task. > [@](#): > > Physicists can show why conservation of energy holds true for these fundamental interactions. You evidently don’t acknowledge just how accurate these modern instruments are in detecting these interactions between particles. I don’t know what you’re babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production. > [@](#): > > You would have to be proposing some new kind of energy altogether that has gone undetected entirely. You might as well take seriously perpetual motion claims as well. Would like to comment further on this, if you’ll start concentrating on the scientific aspects. I’ll put my money on the laws of conservation of energy not being violated, before I put it on you or some TV show. Hell if I know what you’re talking about. Phenomena precede theory. You’re saying it can’t be true in theory–well, new stuff’s discovered all the time, theory be damned. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/96 "2004-01-22T04:39:25Z")
> [@IWLN](#): > > **Aeschines** > Oh, I have information about a talking horse too, if anyone wants it.:rolleyes: Hay! I have it on good authority that he was a zebra! ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/97 "2004-01-22T04:46:52Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you’ll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers. It doesn’t matter. **Science** , as a system, is based on skepticism. It doesn’t mean every scientist needs to be skeptical. The system of independent verifications and peer review makes sure that one person’s beliefs are not blindly accepted as truth by the entire community/world. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/98 "2004-01-22T04:53:01Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > “Wild assertions.” This is insulting rhetoric inappropriate for GD. The next thing you know, you will be flashing me the Putz! smiley, which is also illegal. Why, I´d be glad to comply. :wally: If I had the time I´d give you a well deserved pitting. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/99 "2004-01-22T04:59:35Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > It doesn’t matter. **Science** , as a system, is based on skepticism. It doesn’t mean every scientist needs to be skeptical. The system of independent verifications and peer review makes sure that one person’s beliefs are not blindly accepted as truth by the entire community/world. Grr, equivocation and sophistry. Science is NOT based on “skepticism”; it is based on a loosely formulated portfolio of standards of proof, experimental methods, and philosophy. Nor is science a unified edifice: the standards of proof for the social sciences and physical sciences vary widely, etc. The equivocation lies here: self-identifying skeptics _claim_ to adhere to a particular cognitive approach, while at the same time also adhering to a particular interpretation of reality: reductionist materialism. So, the skeptics define themselves as one thing, but are in fact another. I mean, do you know any theist who is proud to call him/herself a “skeptic”? Do you know any “skeptics” who _do_ believe in RV–or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as “paranormal”? Of course not, just as you won’t find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/100 "2004-01-22T05:14:49Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Do you know any “skeptics” who _do_ believe in RV–or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as “paranormal”? > > Of course not, just as you won’t find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence. How many times do we have to say this? No skeptic believes RV because nobody has given us any proof! And by proof I mean a controlled experiment whose results can be verified and independently reproduced. Quantum mechanics and relativity are based on many types of experimental results, all of which are reproduced in laboratories all over the world by independent groups. _That_ is what we mean by “extraordinary proof.” If you want us to believe in RV or whatever, the burden is yours to provide such proof. If not, admit you have insufficient evidence to convince anyone. I ask again, when you claim “mega high hit rate” in one of the supposed experiments, what is the statistical significance of this hit rate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=6)