# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/101 "2004-01-22T05:16:19Z")
Short on evidence still I see. Oh, well… I’ll just be on my way then until you get ready to debate. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/102 "2004-01-22T05:31:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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”? Theist here. Very skeptical about “paranormal” type claims. Not closed to any and all empirical evidence. Believing in G-d does **not** indicate the willingness to believe _everything_ on faith. Skeptic is the flip side of gullible. I would be _proud_ to call myself a _skeptic_ were it not for that little deity belief of mine.😉 > [@](#): > > Do you know any “skeptics” who _do_ believe in RV–or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as “paranormal”? No. There is currently no proof that any of those things exist. > [@](#): > > 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. I “was” a Baptist for most of my life and yes, I did believe in evolution, later as the evidence became irrefutable. I may have been encouraged to believe a certain way, but was _allowed_ to think as I pleased. You know **Aeschines** , these arguments of yours are almost identical to the ones you used in another thread that comes to mind. In both threads, you have failed to provide one shred of empirical evidence. You continue to miss the fact that in GD, you make a claim and then you prove it with fact or even at least show why it’s extremely likely to be true. Don’t you get tired of continuously failing to prove your points? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/103 "2004-01-22T05:36:15Z")
> [@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. Oh, so the fact that there is no hard evidence has nothing to do with it, then? Oh, wait, you claim to be able to link to a controlled study of remote viewing. Yet you have refrained from doing so. Thus I must conclude that either: You do not, in fact, have a link to any sort of controlled study. or The study you have a link to does not provide favorable results. So which is it? If I’m wrong, all it would take to make me eat my words is a simple link. However, you seem to be more concerned with bashing “Skeptos” than with engaging in an actual debate. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/104 "2004-01-22T05:39:29Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I am not trying to prove that remote viewing is real to a bunch of people who are free to Google the issue and read debunkings and de-debunkings written by persons who are far more knowedgable of the topic than I. This OP, shittily written as it was, was to say that, seeing as how the paranormal is being treated more and more seriously by the media (Crossing Over, Super Special, whathaveyou), you will no longer be able to rest easy as assume the truth will remain in the same dark corner it has been forced to sit in for the past 100 years. OK, let me step in here for a second and try this. You started a thread in Great Debates _not_ to debate the reality or not of remote viewing. But merely to suggest that skeptics can no longer sit comfortably by while the popular culture ignores paranormal phenomena. That is, that skeptics should become worried that paranormals are being given more and more attention in more and more mainstream forums. Did I get that right? If so, then I agree with you. The fact that John Edwards had a second show proves this thesis easily enough. However, you may need to provide some sort of evidence, in the case of your Japanese show, that the phenomena was intended as more than entertainment. It is possible that more and more people are falling for the paranormal sillyness. But it is equally possible that entertainment tastes are becoming sophisticated enough that demonstrations of paranormal activity can be aired without requiring belief. That is, as some have suggested, the demonstration could have been mere entertainment. I thought the analogy to Jerry Springer was pretty apt to this possibility. No one seriously (I most sincerely hope) thinks of Jerry as a sincere guidance councilor. It is possible that the show you mentioned and John Edwards are enjoyed by people in the same way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/105 "2004-01-22T05:43:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. It is extraordinary and we have proof: [http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_mechanics](http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) > [@](#): > > Much of modern technology operates under quantum mechanical principles. Examples include the laser, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics. > > Many of the phenomena studied in condensed matter physics are fully quantum mechanical, and cannot be satisfactorily modeled using classical physics. This includes the electronic properties of solids, such as superconductivity and semiconductivity. The study of semiconductors has led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics. > > Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks with much greater efficiency than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum states over arbitrary distances > [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. Very general information, and not better than random. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. As per the last cite, you are the one who doesn’t know what is talking about. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. Newton was the product of a different era, anyhow, today his mathematics would pass luster even if dated, but not his Alquemy. And by the 20th century, the most famous goofer was Edison, a non-believer. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. The results of experiments and the debunking of great TV frauds like James Hydrick shows that we need experiments that will show us otherwise, experiments others can reproduce; that step is what allows the amazing technology of today, to work reliably; so far, your side can not do this basic next step. > [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t know what you’re babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production. Once again no better than random in controlled experiments, I rather go for a picture phone that will work 90% of the time. > [@Aeschines](#): > > 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. As I do remember all the good it could be there (like finding Spalding Gray) it is irresponsible, and bordering on criminal negligence, that you guys can not figure ways to allow your phenomena to be tested independently. Either that, or they are afraid of ending like James Hydrick. Or Ed Gruberman. 🙂 ---
**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, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/106 "2004-01-22T05:45:46Z")
This is just the pantywaist response that I expected: “Skeptics” all agree because all their positions (A is untrue, B is untrue) just happen to be correct! O, brilliant. You’re missing the point, people. People just as committed to the scientific method and “correct” ways of thinking choose _not_ to self-identify as skeptics precisely **because** they have come to different conclusions about the same set of positions. But if anyone should happen to disagree with any element of that set, he’s labeled a credulous fool and mocked without mercy. Nice social approach. I can just imagine you people sitting in a circle, muching on Cheetos, and feeling superior to the 99.99% of people out there who care fuck all about whether they’re worthy of the “skeptic” label. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/107 "2004-01-22T06:00:51Z")
If the case of James Hydrick doesn’t make you reflect about the quality of evidence entertainment shows swallow, your conclusions are to be suspected, we need those psychics to give us something to begin, to make phenomena they are proposing, as almost automatic as other technologies, the field of entertainment is the worst place to look for new discoveries. If they have a foolproof way to replicate their phenomenon, it is irresponsible and inhumane that they do not seek a more scientific approach to find what, by this time, should the obvious new discoveries. ---
**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, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/108 "2004-01-22T06:05:17Z")
**Aeschines** , you are making an incorrect assumption that skeptics don’t want to believe in the “paranormal” or “supernatural.” I am a scientist, and I would be fascinated and delighted if I could find evidence for aliens visiting the earth, or talking with the dead, or this “remote viewing.” There’s nothing more exciting for a scientist than a chance to shatter our current understanding of the universe. Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to find experimental or observational results that disprove Relativity or QM. If you have a Master’s in science you should know this. You should also know that none of the evidence you provided come anywhere close to being convincing anyone. ---
**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, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/109 "2004-01-22T06:13:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Very general information, and not better than random. Now you’re just staing your own belief re RV, not a fact. > [@](#): > > As per the last cite, you are the one who doesn’t know what is talking about. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don’t match is well known. The fact that _you_ don’t know it casts doubt on your whole approach to this argument. Here’s your cite + a quote from the source. [http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node75.html](http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node75.html) **There is no theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum mechanics the greater the accuracy of a measurement of location the more uncertainty there is a in the measurement of energy. The uncertainty principle applies not just to particles but also to empty space. Over very short intervals phantom or virtual particles can appear. The shorter the time the more massive the particles can be. At very short intervals virtual particles will be massive enough to form black holes. One cannot extrapolate simultaneously both quantum mechanics and general relativity to minute distances. The theories explode or diverge.** I readily recognize that quantum mechanics is true. Whether it’s extraordinary or not is, again, just a matter of opinion. > [@](#): > > Newton was the product of a different era, anyhow, today his mathematics would pass luster even if dated, but not his Alquemy. Oh dear. The phrase is “pass muster.” And it’s spelled “alchemy.” A different era, huh? Many scientists today believe in God. Here is an article by a magician who knows that psi is real: [http://66.221.71.68/content/research/cox.htm](http://66.221.71.68/content/research/cox.htm) > [@](#): > > The results of experiments and the debunking of great TV frauds like James Hydrick shows that we need experiments that will show us otherwise, experiments others can reproduce; that step is what allows the amazing technology of today, to work reliably; so far, your side can not do this basic next step. First, I’m not on a “side,” but since you adhere to one side so much yourself, I can understand why you should assume so. Two, many hardcore experiments have veriried psi. Oh, here’s a link to website full of them: [http://www.boundary.org/experiments.htm](http://www.boundary.org/experiments.htm) > [@](#): > > Once again no better than random in controlled experiments, I rather go for a picture phone that will work 90% of the time. We’re talking about an aspect of the human mind, not a machine created for a specific purpose. > [@](#): > > As I do remember all the good it could be there (like finding Spalding Gray) it is irresponsible, and bordering on criminal negligence, that you guys can not figure ways to allow your phenomena to be tested independently. Either that, or they are afraid of ending like James Hydrick. I’m not one of “you guys,” and it is not “my phenomenon.” Your rhetoric is getting more and more frazzled. BTW, I have no idea who either Gray or Hydrick are. ---
**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, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/110 "2004-01-22T06:20:53Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > **Aeschines** , you are making an incorrect assumption that skeptics don’t want to believe in the “paranormal” or “supernatural.” How rich. First, it’s an observation, not an assumption. Second, “skeptics” as a group take pride in not believing in what “credulous fools” believe, and form their social identity thereby. > [@](#): > > I am a scientist, and I would be fascinated and delighted if I could find evidence for aliens visiting the earth, or talking with the dead, or this “remote viewing.” I certainly don’t put all these phenomena in one box, and I think anyone who does is already revealing his or her agenda. I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved–all three beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ll argue for these three things and not necessarily for any others. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing more exciting for a scientist than a chance to shatter our current understanding of the universe. Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to find experimental or observational results that disprove Relativity or QM. I’m certainly not out to disprove relativity or QM–they require mutual integration in some areas, but they are basically good. The funny thing is that the three phenomena I say I believe in would hardly “shatter” our current understanding of the universe, as most people already “understand” that they are true. > [@](#): > > If you have a Master’s in science you should know this. You should also know that none of the evidence you provided come anywhere close to being convincing anyone. I also know a lot about human psychology, which goes a long way toward explaining the Skepto approach. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/111 "2004-01-22T06:32:51Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved–all three beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ll argue for these three things and not necessarily for any others. You didn’t provide any proof when you “argued” your “ghost belief”. No one received anything that proved them beyond a resonable doubt. I am relieved to know that there is now proof of an “afterlife”, though. Maybe you can start another thread and prove that to us, also.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/112 "2004-01-22T06:33:03Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m not one of “you guys,” and it is not “my phenomenon.” Your rhetoric is getting more and more frazzled. BTW, I have no idea who either Gray or Hydrick are. :rolleyes: Specially because I already linked to the thread that had this: [http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams\_auras\_astral\_projection/psi.html](http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html) > [@](#): > > While Hydrick was fooling the gullible he was not fooling > magician and psychic investigator James Randi. As Randi recounted > the incident in the The Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1981), “What > of the pencil and page tricks? Well, my jaundiced eye recognized > these as rather tired old tricks…Hydrick was simply blowing the > page over, and he spun the pencil around by the same means. Not > immediately evident are these facts, however: First, the blast of > air from a half-open mouth takes time to get to the props, and > Hydrick made sure he turned his head away from the pencil and the > page after giving a sharp puff of air, so that he was facing away > when the action occurred. Second, one blows not directly at the > prop but at the table surface.” > Randi immediately offered Hydrick his prize of $10,000 for > proof of one paranormal demonstration under proper conditions of > observations. Hydrick accepted Randi’s offer and agreed to be > tested on the TV show “That’s My Line.” During a rehearsal > practice session with Hydrick the day before the actual taping > Randi had the session, unknown to Hydrick, videotaped, with a > highly sensitive microphone aimed and focused at Hydrick’s mouth, > and with the amplifier turned up far beyond normal voice level. > Randi’s microphone recorded monumental blasts of air every time > the page moved or the pencil turned. > For the actual taped show Hydrick was allowed to perform each > trick once without any controls; then he was required to submit > to a controlled test designed by Randi. John Palmer, a member of > the Parapsychological Association and two UCLA scientists were > called in as judges of Hydrick’s abilities. The prize check was > held by “That’s My Line” host Bob Barker, and was to be > surrendered to the proper person at the close of the test. > Randi’s simple but controlled test involved emptying a small > can of styrofoam particles around the open book. In this way, any > blowing would show up as a massive movement of the particles. In > case Hydrick claimed that his power could not differentiate > between the pages of the book and the styrofoam particles, Randi > was prepared to place a simple germ-mask on his face, which would > in no way interfere with his breathing or his psychic functions > but would prevent one thing-blowing. Not only did Hydrick fail to > perform with the styrofoam particles in place, but he refused > altogether to use the face mask. Hydrick spent ninety minutes > trying to move the page of the telephone book without success. > The judges were polled, and all agreed absolutely that Hydrick > had failed to show them anything paranormal. What was Hydrick’s > reply? “This isn’t a magician’s trick. I just can’t come up - > bang bang - and its over. I have to be where I can work with > something small than big to build up my own self. It isn’t a > trick. It has to be done…It’s mental power.” > A few months later Hydrick again agreed to undergo testing of > his psychic abilities. This time proper controls were used and he > failed to exhibit any psychic powers. Hydrick giving in to a lost > cause confessed to magician Danny Korem. Korem was part of the > team testing Hydrick. Also present was Hugh Ainsworth, a former > bureau chief for Newsweek. Hydrick began his confession by > talking of his fascination with magicians at the age of nine. BTW, Hydrick became famous earlier, when one of the most popular shows on TV, “That’s Incredible!” claimed him to be the real deal! ---
**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, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/113 "2004-01-22T06:46:45Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I also know a lot about human psychology, which goes a long way toward explaining the Skepto approach. And you know NOTHING about the scientific approach, which goes even farther towards explaining YOUR approach. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/114 "2004-01-22T06:47:04Z")
As for Spalding Gray, a simple Google search would be enough for you :dubious:, that is a perfect case for RV, but the track record of RV researches is the pits. If you had look at other posts in this thread, you would already have found about the lack of effectiveness of RV. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/115 "2004-01-22T07:24:12Z")
BTW **Aeschines** from that link on Hydrick: > [@](#): > > A scientist and electrical engineer from the University of > Utah after much testing also concluded that Hydrick’s psychic > powers were indeed authentic. The proponents of paranormal phenomena can indeed fool scientists. Not knowing about the Hydrick affair? For one that supposedly knows lots about the truth about psychic phenomena, not knowing about him, is like a physicist that doesn’t know about how Einstein got QM wrong! ---
**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, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/116 "2004-01-22T07:36:08Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > And you know NOTHING about the scientific approach, which goes even farther towards explaining YOUR approach. Nothing, eh? My, how confident you seem. Lame rejoinder. Please work on that. Cheers. ---
**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, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/117 "2004-01-22T07:37:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Specially because I already linked to the thread that had this: > [http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams\_auras\_astral\_projection/psi.html](http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html) > BTW, Hydrick became famous earlier, when one of the most popular shows on TV, “That’s Incredible!” claimed him to be the real deal! If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I’m glad he got caught. ---
**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, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/118 "2004-01-22T07:39:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW **Aeschines** from that link on Hydrick: > > The proponents of paranormal phenomena can indeed fool scientists. > > Not knowing about the Hydrick affair? For one that supposedly knows lots about the truth about psychic phenomena, not knowing about him, is like a physicist that doesn’t know about how Einstein got QM wrong! Actually, I don’t know “lots” about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread? I have my belief set and my command of logic and the English language. The latter two are enough to beat most people here to a rhetorical pulp. ---
**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, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/119 "2004-01-22T07:48:07Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > How rich. First, it’s an observation, not an assumption. Fine. It’s an incorrect _observation_. > [@](#): > > Second, “skeptics” as a group take pride in not believing in what “credulous fools” believe, and form their social identity thereby. And proponents of paranormal phenomena, as a group, take pride in not believing in what “the scientific community” believe, and form their social identity thereby. Both statements are equally true (and qually false). Doesn’t get you anywhere in this discussion. > [@](#): > > I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved… The funny thing is that the three phenomena I say I believe in would hardly “shatter” our current understanding of the universe, as most people already “understand” that they are true. No, people do not “understand” they are true. People have fantasies about them being true. Unless you want to insist that “intuition” is a valid proof. I agree with **samclem** , you have not demonstrated any familiarity with the scientific approach. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2004, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916/120 "2004-01-22T08:03:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Actually, I don’t know “lots” about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread? > > I have my belief set and my command of logic and the English language. The latter two are enough to beat most people here to a rhetorical pulp. Actually, I have acknowledged before that I have problems with English, but I know enough to beat you into conceding what an ignorant you are in this matter. Hydrick is a good lesson, learn from it grasshopper. > [@Aeschines](#): > > If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I’m glad he got caught… “ **If** he was a fraud”? Excuse me: what did you said about logic? So much to learn, so much to learn… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/remote-viewing-is-real-and-the-truth-is-being-seen-by-the-media/224916.md?page=7)