Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area ...
Comments
lol
There is a question looming in my mind after I started reading "Entangled" and it is this: With all the shielding you are creating for tests subjects against electromagnetic influence, by isolating them in chamnbers... aren't you working in non natural conditions and creating biased experiments working against your original goal?
Actual PSI pehenomena happen in the open in all kinds of environments with and without a myriad of influences from the physical environment.
I wonder what is the chance that the first Higgs Boson claim will be a fake!
Sometimes the deniers there comes up with new tricks. I'm not good enough mathematician or computer programmer to evaluate this new simulation claiming that presentiment studies can be explained just by mathematical artefacts: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123007
I wonder how thoroughly "Robin" read p. 269-271 in your 2004 study before he created this simulation?
In experiments under my control, no. In demonstrating claims of strong ESP or PK abilities outside of a controlled environment? Yes. Out of the half-dozen claims of reliable macroPK that I've investigated, all were fraudulent.
Sometimes claimants for strong perceptual psi effects are sincere, but they're unaware of conventional explanations for what they do (like implicit learning of subtle cues).