Talk:Remote viewing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Paranormal  
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Four groups


Fiction presented as "fact"[edit]

Please don't write false information on this page and state it as "fact." I had corrected this following false statement, then someone came back and reverted it to this fiction:

"The term was coined in the 1970s by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, parapsychology researchers at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), to distinguish it from the closely related concept of clairvoyance."

The "source" given for this false claim is Joe Nickell at the Skeptical Inquirer, and he merely states the claim without any foundation at all. This is clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the edits I'm doing now, I cite at least five valid sources proving that Nickell's claim is patently false—including Russell Targ himself, who states flat-out in his cited book, page 23, that: "Ingo coined the term remote viewing." That is not a "primary source," because it's Targ talking about Swann, not Targ talking about Targ. Nickell should be disallowed entirely as a source for writing such blatant falsehoods. I have marked the other cites to his article as "citation needed."

I am now editing the article to correct the fictions to fact. I have also added a link to the only existing contemporaneous record of the 8 December 1971 experiment, with Swann and Janet Mitchell, at the American Society for Psychical Research, for which the term remote viewing was coined by Swann at the time. This is a historic record, on file at the University of West Georgia, and the images of the contemporaneous record that Mitchell made are on a page of a valid book publisher who sent two researchers there to research the papers. There is no rational cause for erasing the availability of this historic record of facts.

I have also linked to documents that the CIA has released to the public, and have cited the CIA's own journal, Studies in Intelligence, where the events documented with the CIA documents are described by the CIA officer who oversaw the events, Kenneth Kress. (A pseudonym, but one approved by the CIA for the agent to use in writing the journal article.)

All of the information I have put into my edits is 100-percent verifiable. It is without bias or "slant." None of it at all is "original research." The CIA is a third party to all the named individual participants, so is a valid secondary source. The information is all 100-percent neutral fact—unlike the very biased Nickell.

Please do not keep writing fiction into these pages and passing it off as "fact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestia Jung (talkcontribs) 21:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Sorry; forgot to sign. Also, the "Arlington Institute Presents" citation was a dead link. I removed it with my edits. Also, under the "Remote viewing" box on the right of the page, where it says "Original" and "Subsequent," this needs to be changed, given that Ingo Swann clearly, inarguably was "original," and Targ and Puthoff were "subsequent proponents." I have further CIA documents that prove that, and I will post them when I have a chance.Celestia Jung (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The sources for the changes you wish to make need to be objective and independent, per our independent sources policy. Jim Marrs is an author of WP:SENSATIONal conspiracy/UFO books, so not a reliable source. And of course anything by Chalet Books is definitely a WP:FRINGE source, as noted by the disclaimer on their site. A publisher that "takes on subjects the mainstream won't touch" is not a reliable source for facts to be written in Wikipedia's voice. Same goes for "official documents" hosted on the Chaletbooks.com site. I've looked over Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program by Paul Smith, however I don't think Smith is quite objective or independent, as he seems to be in the business of selling "remote viewing" learn-at-home instructions. Not sure about Targ's book; it would help if some mainstream sources could back up a claim that differs from our higher quality sources (Sorry, Kendrick Frazier and Joe Nickell are considered excellent sources for mainstream scientific opinion). Although we could probably get away with specific attribution, e.g. something like, "The term was coined in the 1970s by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, parapsychology researchers at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), to distinguish it from the closely related concept of clairvoyance, and according to Targ, Ingo Swann had suggested the term during experiments at the American Society for Psychical Research". - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added a slightly better copyedited version of the above suggestion here, which is consistent per WP:FRIND and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're still writing fiction and passing it off as "fact." You have been given positive proof, in the form of a contemporaneous document that's in the permanent collection of Ingo Swann's papers at the University of West Georgia, collected and presented by responsible researchers, and you refuse to accept it it because it's on the site of a publisher you don't like and so smear with the broad brush of the WP:FRINGE—when it doesn't even apply. That article at Chalet Reports doesn't have a single breath of "fringe" anything in it; it simply reports on papers supplied to it by an accredited and well recognized curator of such collections at an accredited and well recognized university. Even in attempting to smear them you seem to write fiction: LuckyLouie: "A publisher that 'takes on subjects the mainstream won't touch' is not a reliable source for facts to be written in Wikipedia's voice." Please link to where that's said on the Chalet Reports site, or retract the claim.
LuckyLouie: "Kendrick Frazier and Joe Nickell are considered excellent sources." Not by me, and I just proved conclusively—with numerous sources—that Nickell wrote a flat-out lie about who coined the term "remote viewing." You still haven't addressed the matter of Wikipedia:Verifiability in those claims. They can't be verified, because they are fiction. I don't use sources who willfully lie, and at all relevant times Nickell had implied notice and constructive notice that what he wrote was false. If he's so sloppy a researcher that he didn't bother to find out the facts before spouting off, then he is not a reliable source at all. If Frazier just parroted Nickell (or vice versa), two people telling the same baseless lie don't make it true, no matter who they are. I'm about to post further proof that is irrefutable and that can't be twisted to fit a set of biases such as Frazier and Nickell manifest.
LuckyLouie: "I've looked over 'Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program' by Paul Smith, however I don't think Smith is quite objective or independent, as he seems to be in the business of selling 'remote viewing' learn-at-home instructions." I really don't care if he sells hens' teeth; it's irrelevant to his statement about the source of the term "remote viewing." You must have overlooked this part of his bio: "Dr. Paul H. Smith [was] one of the longest-serving remote viewers in the Star Gate military psychic espionage program. Dr. Smith was personally taught controlled remote viewing by the legendary Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D. and Ingo Swann, the originators of remote viewing." That goes to his unique percipient knowledge of the origin of remote viewing and the use of that term for it, and he says unequivocally on page 56 that in the wake of the 8 December 1971 viewing at ASPR, Swann, in discussion with Dr. Karlis Osis, Dr. Gertrude Schmeidler, and Janet Mitchell, came up with the term "remote viewing."
Also, the second paragraph I had posted—supported by CIA documents—goes vitally to the dates on which the CIA first tested Swann, in conjunction with Puthoff, which was before Swann actually joined the SRI program with Puthoff and Targ. It was only months after the August tests that the CIA gave the longer contract on 1 October 1972 to Puthoff, et al. You deleted that wholesale, with no reason given. I make note here that in making your wholesale reversion to my edits, you also wiped out the vital CIA documents that I had cited. I'm going to fix it, and am adding more.

Hi Luckylouie, Before I go to the trouble of editing this wiki, do you consider a retired deputy director of the KGB to be objective and independent source? Otherwise I just won't bother with the edit with this update. (i ask first, as we have Nobel Laureates on here arguing with people who so strongly object to anything which threatens there worldview?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesisevangelion (talkcontribs) 21:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't even arguable. Any reasonable person can see that the vast weight of relevant sources attribute the term "remote viewing" to Swann's creation at ASPR—including both Targ and Puthoff! (See my new edits and citations.) I may be wrong—and I hope I am—but what you keep doing here with this matter militates toward a conclusion that you have some kind of vested interest in keeping patently false statements by a handful of people alive as a myth, while suppressing well-documted facts. At the very least, it seems that you are uninformed about the genesis of remote viewing and important documented historical facts about it. I invite you to inspect your own motives in this matter, and consider recusing yourself from further edits on this topic until you become better informed and more impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestia Jung (talkcontribs) 05:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have explained the relevance of the encyclopedia's editorial policies regarding sourcing, and offered an in-text attribution to Targ's crediting the term "remote viewing" to Swann, which you have apparently rejected. Please note that the topic of the article falls under WP:FRINGE guidelines, which is why your attempts to showcase (in the article lead section) various laudatory claims about the effectiveness of remote viewing from a document written by Targ and Putoff to the CIA gives WP:UNDUE weight to fringe views. I'm sorry that you don't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but edit warring is not a practical solution here. We operate by WP:CONSENSUS rather than argumentation, and continued disruption of the article and the Talk page could result in sanctions. Additionally, an Arbitration Committee decision enables discretionary sanctions regarding fringe science and pseudoscience to be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Remote viewing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

David Marks Exposed, The original Targ-Puthoff outbounder experiments are legitimate.[edit]

https://singularityquest.com/so-you-asked-for-proof-of-psychic-abilities/

The sensory cues that were last discovered by Marks were irrelevant as they pertain to the psychic's location, not the demarcation team. Although this allows you to order the transcripts to some degree, this provides no discernible advantage when the list of target sites were randomized. Therefore the original Targ-Puthoff experiment is valid and should be considered scientific evidence. More importantly than the cues. A basic empirical analysis would clearly show those with common sense psychic functioning took place. Price said "Hoover Tower" for Hoover Tower.

This finding wipes out probably at least half the testimonies against Remote Viewing listed here. I look forward to debunking the next goalpost provided.

We should begin heavily editing the cues section and correcting history. As it stands, this entire page looks like one massive hit piece using solely the opinions of those that have no idea how, or even at times, what remote viewing is. MIND-REACH isn't even listed for further reading. What even is this page.--Addidy (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand you want us to read the arguments in singularityquest.com as a basis for removing reliably sourced critique of Remote Viewing by James Randi, and perhaps all others. However singularityquest.com is a blog and not a WP:RS (or in this case, a WP:FRIND source). Wikipedia has a number of editorial policies you may not be familiar with, so you may want to review them. One relevant policy guideline is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine, don't read the blog, read the argument I made here. It makes sense doesn't it? You can agree this is grounds for heavily editing the cues section. You don't need to look at the blog you can just compare the 1974 Nature article on the original Targ-Puthoff experiment with the 1986 "Remote Viewing Exposed" article by David Marks and the 1980 nature article from Charles Tart to see he randomized the target locations in the rejudging. based on those resources (all included and explained in great detail in the blog) should suffice I take it? The blog isn't the source, The Nature article references are. I take it this should be satisfactory to you?Addidy (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we'd need a third party source that passes WP:RS to make those conclusions for us. What you are suggesting is WP:OR (basically, changing the text because you personally have come to conclusions that disagree with a source). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The Nature science journal, as far as I am concerned MUST be a WP:RS. As for the rest, this is a contested opinion between two parties to come to a conclusion. We can use our brains to identify that David Marks purposely skewed the dataset by omitting 44% of the original dataset to come to a conclusion that completely ignores basic empirical evidence and tries to use the same logical fallacy to discredit the research that he did in 1981 which was was corrected by Targ in the same year... all in a reliable published WP:RS all explained in explicit details in that blog with actual quotes from the WP:RS. We have to use our brains to select the conclusion that was correct. It is quite obvious Marks either acted in bad faith to make such a flawed investigation or he just simply messed up quite a few times. From the evidence it is clear that the original outbounder experiments are still scientifically valid based on Tart's rejudging. Tart is having his name dragged through the mud because the misinformation published on wikipedia. Only we can correct history. This isn't WP:OR, it is merely correcting a mistake from the past. The blog is an explanation. The sources are all Nature science journal publications, you can compare them side by side and you will come to the same conclusion. It's all in there. Please, this is vitally important we clear someone's name and correct history.Addidy (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. We can't do side by side comparisons of sources, then insert our own analysis into the article that concludes one source is wrong and another is right. We can only summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject. Regarding your request to "clear someone's name and correct history", see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for being patient. This isn't 'inserting our own analysis', it's common sense based on the information provided. Look at the state of this article... I know I have to play nice but I have to be blunt... it's complete trash. The whole thing reads like something designed to falsify RV as quickly as possible. There are at best 2 sentences that teach you what RV is and even those are skeptically sourced. Do you have any idea how much pain this article brings to the people who have had enough sense to at least try it before coming to conclusions? You guys don't think Targ could've been the one to source the definition?... or maybe have any information on whether there is scientific evidence sourced from the original proponents? It took me 12 hours to start seeing evidence this worked and I look at this garbage to remind myself every day that this world is ruled by dogmatists who don't know any better but drive the narrative anyway. How is anyone supposed to know to try RV with an article like this? Doesn't everything here pretty much violate WP:NPOV. Why aren't the people who actually know what the RV methodologies and protocols are writing this article instead of skeptics that don't know anything but assumptions? It's quite clear the Marks-Kammann investigation was flawed. I knew it would be from the start and I knew that my anecdotal wasn't worth anything. But that's why I wrote that blog. TO PROVE the marks-kammann investigation was a flawed hit piece rife with idiocy. This wikipedia article is a stain on humanity and it's a poison to scientific progress. Everything in that blog is verifiable by trusted sources. I wrote it for the people here so that maybe they could understand: the debunking of RV is a lot shakier than you think, based on a lot less than you might assume.2A01:4B00:8070:E400:139:5EF3:437F:1C40 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe too late, but: the remote viewing experiments had the chance to provide CIA with actionable intelligence, but failed to do so. The proof is in the pudding. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about having a quote from Targ[edit]

Hello all - I was approached by Addidy on Twitter to ask if I have been the one to thwart their attempts to the edits they were making on the remote viewing page. Let's just set aside that Addidy approached me off Wikipedia - seriously I'm okay with that, I'm public and I'm happy to answer questions when I can. After I explained in many tweets what I saw was the problem with Addidy's editing style and lack of edit history, Addidy asked why we can't have a quote from Targ on the remote viewing page that says something like "Targ does not think remote viewing is pseudoscience" and then sum up why he does not think it is pseudoscience and cite this article http://www.espresearch.com/russell/russell-targ-response-to-wikipedia.shtml. I explained to Addidy that User:LuckyLouie has been trying to explain why Addidy's edits aren't sticking and I suggested that Addidy spend a quantity of time reading the talk page and learning how to edit Wikipedia correctly starting with grammar and spelling on a page they don't have an agenda on. But besides all that, I said I would make a talk page discussion to ask if others would be okay with us stating Targ saying he does not think the word pseudoscience fits remote viewing and briefly why. I await your discussion of the matter. Sgerbic (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sgerbic, I got your notification ping. Why we can't cite fringe/self published sources such as Targ's website has been discussed to WP:EXHAUSTION on this Talk page. That "Targ does not think remote viewing is pseudoscience" is a given. Every pseudoscience advocate strenuously objects to their avocation being called pseudoscience, it's an expected denial (see WP:MANDY). However unless these objections are notable in WP:FRIND sources, they don't belong in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you - just wanted to make sure I asked and got a clear answer for Addity. I'm going to state one more time for Addity's sake - if you want to become a serious Wikipedia editor then learn the rules, read though this talk page - all of it. Make a user page for yourself so that we know that you are here to stay awhile. And start with pages that you don't have an agenda. As Louie says it would be odd to write that Targ does not agree, because that is implied in the article. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
And thank you for that article on MANDY that's the first I've heard of that. Years I've been here and still have a lot to learn. Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I've added it to WP:FLAT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
And another one I've never heard of. Sgerbic (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Remote viewing in cinema[edit]

There is a great movie, Suspect 0, which shows remote viewing in action. Ben Kingsley gives an excellent performance as the remote viewer. Whether you believe remote viewing is real or not, it's still a very good movie.2001:56A:F83F:AD00:9DFF:85CF:6850:EE09 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)