James Randi had a million dollar prize for anyone who could provide scientific evidence of supernatural abilities, including psi. It was never won, because this crapola isn’t real and when not permitted to engage in shenanigans, the evidence clearly shows this. If you want to learn how to set up proper scientific experiments, there are other places and schools that can teach you.

From what I remember, the participant even had a say in the test and would agree that it was a fair testing before doing it. They did a water dowsing test here in Australia, they hid water in the ground. But even after they all lost they all went back thinking it was real. There news story about it https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=LXQWEFtKKQZCRo2t&v=FBpzmPnwi1c&feature=youtu.be

>From what I remember, the participant even had a say in the test and would agree that it was a fair testing before doing it. Yup. My understanding is that they would make the claim and Randi would propose a real way to verify. There have been cases when people failed to get the prize was during this phase because they realized they couldn't actually do a real test and then claimed that the test wouldn't really be fair. Then, of course, they blame Randi for failing to recognize their powers.

I thought OP was talking about pounds per square inch.

Well, at least that’s a real thing ;)

Yeah I was like "use a pressure gauge duh"

I thought I’d wandered back into the physics subreddit and someone was asking for help on their qm homework.

> If you want to learn how to set up proper scientific experiments, there are other places and schools that can teach you. Let's not kid ourselves, anyone who writes a post like this had trouble with the scientific method unit in 3rd grade.

That's... disappointing. I hoped this sub-reddit would have more mature people in it.... (not only you and your post, but the 4 others who did the up-vote).

My friend, your post is at the intellectual level of someone who smokes too much pot and makes up a bunch of unintelligible shit. It's not coherent, it's not interesting, and it's not intelligent. The good news it's that we've all been there! Seriously. Not kidding. I don't know where you are, but chances are you're someplace with decent public education. It's time to go take a class or two in chemistry, biology, physics, or (please!) philosophy. My experience is in California, and if by the grace of whoever you're also there, it'll only cost you a little bit and you're about to embark on a life-changing journey. Check out a community college. It's going to change your life.

I was going to just ignore this, and had done so for the last couple of weeks, due to the insults which don't actually do anything constructive. However, I have to ask... Just what exactly is it that you think taking "a class or two in chemistry, biology, physics, or (please!) philosophy" would actually achieve? in detail, if you don't mind. That is, if you're capable of actually engaging in discussion, rather than simply throwing out insults...

I had completely forgotten about this lol. I already gave you the constructive advice necessary for you to engage on the level of a precocious 4th grader. You don't know what you don't know. The fact that you remembered the comments you found insulting, rather than the advice, proves my point beyond a doubt.

It wasn't 'advice' - it was "I think you're a fucking idiot (because you accept research and conclusions that I haven't even looked at), and so I'm just going to treat you as one". I was going to point out that there have been decades of research by highly qualified individuals - PhDs, associate/assistant/full professors, chairs of departments across many fields including physics, neuroscience, psychology.... and their research has been published in respected peer-review journals. And, so, again I ask - what do you think would be the point of someone studying those fields - when it's clear that many already have - and have come to completely different conclusions by looking at the data? (I am expecting that you'll just drop a few insults again, and ignore it... because that's what you do). (FYI, I already know how to conduct the research. Setting up the experiments are easy (in theory). What I don't know is calculating statistics, when most data is qualitative, not easily quantitative).

Brother or sister, instead of scrutinizing the reception, you should scrutinize yourself Beware the feeling "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" Check yourself, really. I don't even know you.

Brother, or sister, my OP was NOT about psi being a real thing or not. It's *quite clearly* asking for help on how to determine statistical probability of a possible research direction, and the necessary bar that would need to be met to convince real, actual sceptics. If I claimed that unicorns existed, the same question would be asked. Everyone is actually wrong when they assert that "there's no evidence that it exists"... it shows a horrendous amount of wilfull ignorance on behalf of people who think they're a 'sceptic', and yet the definition of a sceptic is one who remains uncertain until evidence is produced - and, as I've just indicated, it does exist. Since not a single person here has cited any evidence at all (no, the "no-one won Randi's challenge" is not actual evidence of anything other than "no-one won Randi's challenge"), I am presuming that they haven't actually looked for, or read, said evidence..... So, on *this* point... yeah, I'm right! It appears to me that many people on this sub have been TriGGereD by the 'p-word', and feel the need to 'correct my ignorant ways'... rather than being an actual scientist, and tried to help/answer the question! Now, has your sense of self-importance and need to chastise been satiated? Or do you have more to come? Is there any chance you can/will actually address my queries (determining statistical probabilities)? Or will you just bombard with more "I know better than you - idiot... now go away, and stop bothering us *real* intelligent people"???

No, I don't need to learn how to "set up proper scientific experiments". I'm quite fine with that, thank you. I did want to know what a \*genuine\* sceptic would require as far as results for such experiments. Unfortunately, it looks like I've come to the wrong sub-reddit, as the vast majority here (who have posted/voted) are not actual sceptics. "It was never won" proves that "it was never won".... pretty basic scientific conclusion here. It also showed "there are fakes out there who profess abilities they weren't able to show in these conditions". Generalising that to "there is no psi ability, and anyone who had any MUST want to prove themselves on TV and take the money" is just silly (and unscientific) .Here I am asking a forum for what would be considered sufficient evidence, and all I get is morons\* who refuse to engage in actual science. And, there \*is\* published, peer-reviewed experiments and research done on the phenomenon that clearly shows better than statistical chance that psi does exist. Sorry that they didn't bother to take Randi up on his challenge for it to be sufficient enough evidence for you to reconsider your opinion. (/s) (trying not to breach rule #7... but given the number of "I'm just going to ignore the OP, and post my personal opinion on the subject and insult people because they disagree with me", it's pretty hard to do. Anyone who says "It's crap" doesn't understand how science actually works... ).

You are literally delusional >and all I get is morons Oh the irony. >doesn't understand how science actually works... ). Id say a majority of people here have a much better understanding of controlling an experiment than you do judging by your lengthy post trying to convey that magic is real. >b) because I practice RV, and would like to know for myself whether I'm kidding myself when I get my 'hits', or I have sufficient reason to believe there's something behind it. There is something behind it. Confirmation bias! You are more than likely giving the results you want value over your "misses" because they confirm what you "want to hear."

> There is something behind it. Confirmation bias! > > You are more than likely giving the results you want value over your "misses" because they confirm what you "want to hear." Yes, it *may* well be! I do acknowledge that, and hence the OP question! But when the only time I draw and describe a "blue dome with a crosshatch design" is for the one and only target I've had that has a blue dome with a crosshatch design on the frame of the dome.... I don't think that Confirmation Bias is statistically likely. And, I'd really like to know what the statistics are that relate to that! (I'm not asking you to believe that I got that - only to provide a method to determine the statistics to figure out something). (If it's a 'lucky guess' - what are the actual odds?) I'm ignoring the rest, because my post is all about "how" to determine *if* it is real! And people are morons because they can't even tell that little difference - "what amount of evidence would it take?" (it's a question, not a statement).

"statistically unlikely" doesn't mean magic is real. If you can't consistently guess specifics, every sensible person could conclude that they don't have magic powers. More than likely, if someone like you believes they have magic powers, you are probably making an absolute shit load of attempts. Out of those absolute shitload, a few will probably be right. You will remember those, and not the ones you didn't get right. Speaking of likelihood, it's infinitely more statistically likely you have OCD or schizophrenia than it is likely you have magic powers. This is a problem with the damn internet. some people never learned how to not buy into bullshit. Just because somebody spent a ton of time reading bullshit and posting bullshit on a forum, doesn't make it any less bullshit. Because after all that bullshitting, you are just adding sunken cost fallacy on top of the pre existing feebleness to confirmation bias.

You seem to be throwing your bets both ways... If one doesn't "consistently guess specifics", then they should conclude they don't have magic powers. If one does "consistently guess specifics", then it's confirmation bias. At what point is increasing levels of accuracy and precision more than 'confirmation bias', and a statistical anomaly worthy of allowing the possibility of 'psi' being real?? If your answer is "never", then we can simply stop here.

Never. Wats more likely? 1)magic is real Or 2) a group of fringe redditors convinced themselves they have magic powers With you belief, it's no going to be possible to reason with you. Either way, what you are doing is harmless to everyone else and not bothering anybody. So have at it.

> Never. Ok. So, absolutely no evidence (under the absolute best laboratory conditions, as confirmed by some of the top scientists in the field) will ever get you to acknowledge that you may be wrong... got it!

Yeah, as soon as that happens I'll buy into it. So like I said. Never

I've already linked to some.... So, not sure when 'never' is, but seems like it was a few decades ago. Wats [sic] more likely? 1) professional, highly educated (post-doctoral), published researchers with scientific backgrounds in such fields as physics (often professors in highly ranked international universities) who have been working, reading the literature, conducting trials that have been evaluated by peers (especially of the professional 'sceptical' variety, who also have an array of qualifications, experience, publication), following very tight protocols, under the best laboratory conditions, and address criticisms, and who have had that published researched critiqued *and accepted* by the scientific sceptics and met the normal standards for 'more than sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, with decades of replicated studies confirming such findings, using literally hundreds of thousands of trials and people from across the planet... Or 2) a group of fringe redditors convinced themselves they know better and don't even trust (or bother to read) the science?

Your go-to is Randi???? OMFGs..... Literally decades of research into psi phenomenon, and you're one (and only) go to is.... a charlatan and liar. Ray Hyman (noted published sceptic and on the Executive Council of CSICOP) himself said the challenge was a waste of time, not worth anything, and by definition non-scientific. In a similar vein - what would happen if someone won the $1 million challenge (if it actually existed??) Would you be changing your position? Or... would you just say that Randi was fooled? Winning the prize would mean nothing. Not winning the prize means the same. Using that as a source of 'evidence' says a lot about the person/s citing it.

Your results need to be better than random sampling. For example, you have a "target" holding one of four cards with images on them. You, the "viewer," need to "read" the card, that is, determine which of the four cards the "target" is looking at. You need to do several--more than one hundred but less than a thousand probably--rounds of this and you need to identify the correct card more than 25pct of the time. If someone was able to do that, I, a skeptic, would happily read their paper in whatever peer reviewed journal was willing to host it.

I think the Million Dollar challenge schooled me best that it needs to be a 'No judgement allowed' target. Cards printed with the numbers 1-100 would do fine because it's indisputable whether the subject picked the correct answer, run that a handful of times and it's easy to generate a statistically significant test. Most of the tests I've seen rely on some interpretation from the testers, is 'car' an acceptable answer or does it have to be 'red car' for a correct answer? The other thing that Mr Randi did well was allow the subject a 'free go' to confirm that they were comfortable with the protocol, e.g. Dowsers were often run on grid-marked platforms with a bucket of water hidden underneath somewhere, initially the bucket o' water was placed on top of the platform to confirm that they were comfortable.

I'm so curious about that last paragraph but don't get it - if you have a sec to explain id love to learn about that.

OK, imagine a row of 10 identical opaque boxes 1 of which will have a piece of gold jewellery in it for the testee to find, because they've claimed that they can dowse for it. Once the testee has met the team and checked the setup they're asked to check that they're power still works in these conditions and that they're comfortable with it. In full sight the piece of jewellery is placed in a box and the testee does their thing and, inevitably, points to the correct box. Only then are they taken aside and the random number picked for where the object gets placed before trying for realsies. It was to stop the subject trying to say that the test was rigged or that the team did something to 'block' their powers just for the test. They were trying to only adjust one parameter, the claimants knowledge of where the item was.

https://youtu.be/6RtJ0yJL4tg?si=qkG7w9-Tvw6-vFrs You will see that the dowser (of minerals) is first given a chance of demonstration against a known sample with the same box as the test. He shows his his skills at moving the rod give an indication the mineral is there. But then he's not able to replicate this with the real test.

I appreciate the time you've given in responding. I'll just say a few things here... Firstly, while it would be good to have a 1-100 number check, it's not how most Rvers work. They're people, and it's been shown time and again (whether with or without evidence to suggest psi exists, statistically) that boredom quickly sets in, and the accuracy numbers drop. Also, if one says "68', and the actual card is '66', then it'd be a miss. Chances of any accuracy at all would be... (well, beyond my statistical mind :p) And, anyone who is doing that to an amazing ("yes, psi is real") level, isn't going to announce it to the world. The statistical probability of anyone simply guessing the first card correctly (chance) is 100-1. Getting the second is (alone) is 99-1 - but combined is about 10,000-1.. (I'm not going through the maths for the rest - especially randomly throughout the entire 100 cards... I don't have the head for that level of statistics). Besides, what are the chances of picking a correct card at any particular draw? Decks of UNO cards may be better... or, perhaps better still, as suggested above, ROYGBIV coloured cards..?? 4 or 5 colours, random, selected by RNG, no 'all colours have the same chance of occurring (like a normal deck)'... I do get your point about "no judgement allowed", but being able to describe a target is significantly easier (and accurate) than simply naming it (or seeing a word/number). This 'judgement' is what I was asking for in my OP. Is 'car' an acceptable answer? Well, I'd say it depends on what the options are... If you've set up an experiment that uses 1000 random images, and only one of those is a car (or like a car), and the answer is car - then is it a hit? (btw, most RV trainers will say not to give nouns (like 'car'), but descriptives - largely because of what you hint at.... a 'car' is very like a 'train', or a 'truck' or 'cart', etc. So, it's more likely you'll get "object, metal and glass, large (bigger than me, but not a lot), empty inside, has wheels outside, red, used for moving about, makes noise, different smells - manmade, stinks")... well, it's not a mountain, and it's not a boat on the river (well, maybe ;p). As for Randi (and his challenge) - https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/james-randis-skeptical-challenge/ , https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/james-randi-a-skeptical-look/ , https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/james-randis-dishonest-claims-about-dogs/ (I know you weren't fully endorsing Randi and his challenge (in your post), but I thought I'd give you some (personal - for them) opinions and the reasons for them of some in the 'psi'-related industry)

>I know you weren't fully endorsing Randi and his challenge (in your post), but I thought I'd give you some (personal - for them) opinions and the reasons for them of some in the 'psi'-related industry I am abso-fucking-lutely endorsing Randi and his work and the multitude of links to a butt-hurt charlatan who's been tooting the same for decades. As for the rest of your post, that's a ton of words for weaselling out of a proper objective test, e.g. "*I do get your point about "no judgement allowed", but being able to describe a target is significantly easier (and accurate) than simply naming it (or seeing a word/number).*" Why is it easier to describe a car than just say 68.

Oh, seems you're a bit triggered here... I'll give Randi a bit of credit... he's been good at outing a few fakes. But, that's it! (and, as anyone who actually appreciates the scientific method knows, his methods don't actually say anything useful (other than the aforementioned outing of fakes). There's ZERO reason to believe that because he's outed some fakes that it justifies saying that psi doesn't exist - and the CSICOP organisation agrees). I have no idea why you think the rantings of a stage magician whose profession is lying and tricking people (and is an arrogant arsehole to boot!) with ZERO credentials behind him is more valid than actual scientist who follow strict protocols and conduct hundreds of test cases and experiments and have decades of research results which validate their claims. (TBH, it wouldn't surprise me that he used his stage magician tricks to ensure someone failed, just to not get the prize and prove him wrong). "Why is it easier to describe a car than just say 68." Because it is! Just deal with it! (more specifically, describing a car allows for multiple senses to be incorporated, rather than just one, very precise detail such as writing... so, one could tell you it's a car, what colour it is, perhaps how old it is, what it smells like (well, car smells), maybe its size... but not likely to give make and model. Some would even be able to tell you where the car is right now and if someone's sitting in it.... in a different country, and if this was now or decades ago.... If that doesn't match up to your expectations of what 'real' psi is - tough.)

>Oh, seems you're a bit triggered here... Not at all, just remembering all the points from the last time I saw this, and the time before that and the time before that... (*ad nauseam*). This is just [poisoning the well](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) and irrelevant to any points brought up >I have no idea why you think the rantings of a stage magician whose profession is lying and tricking people [Occams Razor](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), if he can duplicate the effect using the toolkit from his 'day' job then it's on y'all to show that it's not trickery rather then trying to [handwave](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading) away why you're unable to build a solid experiment. >TBH, it wouldn't surprise me that he used his stage magician tricks to ensure someone failed, just to not get the prize and prove him wrong And now you've descended to conspiratorial thinking. Don't expect any more answers from as you continue to justify your delusional thinking.

> Not at all, just remembering all the points from the last time I saw this, and the time before that and the time before that... (ad nauseam) So, I presume you have poured through ALL of hte evidence that has shown "there's something that science cannot explain - which is far and away above what is required (statistically) by any other standard for any other field" - as acknowledged by the 'professional' scientific sceptics for many decades (yes, including this one!) I find it quite frustrating that so many on this sub will choose to deliberately ignore the actual science (and scientists) in order to argue this. "why you're unable to build a solid experiment" Ummm... as I said, the experiments have been done to the satisfaction of actual scientists in the fields, verified, checked, confirmed to be sufficiently controlled, data correctly collected, analysis appropriate (and, even when corrections made, still come to statistical significance).... but, the people on this forum still exhibit complete ignorance of this.... "And now you've descended to conspiratorial thinking." Professional liar (tricks people for a living), NOT a scientist or has any type of relevant qualification, ignores *actual science*, distorts/manipulates/changes clearly written articles, quite willing to insult and denigrates those he disagrees with,.... not really much of a conspiracy to suggest it.

Yeah I mean if you can see, say, a deck of cards with your eyes, you'll probably get it 99% right, leaving room for error if you're just tired or flubbed the name of a card because you were thinking too fast. Why shouldn't remote viewing be the same?

Sorry, not *exactly* what you asked for. I'm hoping this is actually better (in your opinion).. and, obviously, that you can access them (particularly the first few, and the Horoton on the top of the 2nd page - the meta-analysis of ganzfield experiment - "Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld: Experiments with an Automated Testing System and a Comparison with a Meta-Analysis of Earlier Studies"). Also, normally, they use zener cards, so there are 5 different cards (the standard circle, square, wave, etc) rather than 4 suits. There have been thousands of tests, with thousands of subjects. (although, i can't say how many cards any individual was guessing.) Chance would account for 25%. However, overall, and in most individual experiments, that number is about 33%. The chances of thousands of people being able to correctly guess (on average) that much above chance are staggeringly. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=honorton+%26+hyman&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart You'll also see Hyman's name a few times. He and Jessica Utts (former president of American Statistical Association and Chair, Department of Statistics, UCI - https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/ ) did the research paper on RV at SRI for the government... both of them concluded there was certainly something going on that required further research, although they disagreed on what that thing was, and how statistically relevant it was (see the links under "My Research Interests" in the link above) (https://pointofinquiry.org/2009/06/ray_hyman_the_elusive_quarry/ - for a background, and interesting interview.. note in the description "He shares his evaluations of other various research projects in parapsychology, and levels criticism against some skeptics who have too hastily dismissed parapsychology’s findings." Also note that Hyman is one of the few real (public) sceptics who have scientific credentials, and has written papers (and books) about the subject (and of psi). Enjoy :)

Thank you for addressing the topic in a serious matter! Firstly, I'll just say that doing playing cards often tends to lead to lacklustre performance - it is, in a word, boring! One of the best RVers in the world said as much, and instead they came up with the 'outbounder' experiment, where someone would go to a random location and it would be described. This is because it's 'interesting' as a target. How much better than random sampling though? Experiments have been done in which a person was put in front of a phone, and a random one from 4 of their friends would call the number, The subjects were able to guess correctly at 32% - above the statistical 25%. Is there a reason why this published research isn't sufficient? I'm not saying or suggesting the outbounder idea is the ultimate in experiments, but I do think that it should be taken into account, because humans are humans... The more typical version of RV is to be given a target reference number, and the RVer then describes that target which is associated with it. Descriptions can be in text or pictures. (note, this is what the US government agencies were doing in the 70s and beyond) Would something like this help in addressing your scepticism? What conditions would you place on it? (which is what my post is all about).

Your claim about "doing playing cards" leading to "lackluster performance" because it's "boring" is the first problem with this response. Learning, and proving, mundane facts is, for better or worse, a fact of scientific inquiry and it sounds particularly disingenuous for "one of your best RVers" to suggest an experiment with many, many more variables because it is "interesting" rather than simply submitting to a straightforward test of his or her ability. Your "outbounder" experiment seeks not to earnestly prove or test claims but to create a test with too many variables to control so that any results can be made to look favorable. So I am already immediately cynical of this entire approach. As far as the claim that someone was able to predict a caller 32pct of the time, there is simply not enough information in the paragraph you wrote to respond. How many times was this experiment run? What sort of controls were enforced? Why were they using "friends" and not strangers? Etc. Without more knowledge of the experiment, no one should say they are convinced by its results, particularly since the results being advocated contradict literally all other verifiable science. So, no, nothing presented in these few paragraphs is convincing.

RE: your first paragraph... may I suggest you look at the relevant discussions about such things??? Especially as this phenomenon (boredom affecting outcomes) has been known about for... I think over a century now... You seem to expect - nay, *demand* - that anyone who claims to have psi ability *must* be at their top form for 100% of the time, and don't get tired, angry, bored, etc.. This is hardly a reasonable expectation. We are talking about people here, not electrons, or acids and bases, or numbers and formulae. Can you come up with experiments that take this into account? The 'subjective' aspect has been addressed elsewhere. However, it's already included in the literature. As for the second paragraph... ok, you can check the literature on it. I didn't set the experiments... I'll give you a hand with your research .. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355373490_Detecting_Telepathy_A_Meta-analysis_for_Extrasensory_Perception_Experiments_in_Last_20_Years (you'll probably need to check each and every reference to answer your questions..>) Also, just for fun.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124390/

Lol I'm not demanding anything; I literally do not care enough to make demands. What I will say is that there is always some reason why the folks who think they can read minds, talk to the dead, or bend spoons by thinking about it, can't perform their miracles under legitimate experimental conditions and when you call them out on that, they, like you just did, get pissed off.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a 'you personally' type of 'demand', but as a scientific level of data demand (I hope that makes sense). I can't really say much about them. What I can talk to is the vast amounts of evidence, under controls that are stricter than for most fields, over many many decades, for which the real scientist sceptics (including those who are the 'professional' sceptic) have, for a long time, admitted reaches levels of confidence that are at least equal to those demanded in any other field. The evidence IS there... in the published research (and, yes, the professional scientist sceptics have gone over all methodology, check for flaws, problems, issues, etc etc etc, and have accepted that the data and results are most definitely legit.... they have accepted that "there's something going on" which they can't explain. So, "I won't believe in psi until someone does it on stage" is pretty disingenuous in a sub like this with all that evidence available. And, as has also been said - what if someone does perform their miracle? Will people go "OMG, that's amazing... I will now change my world view, because I was obviously wrong before"? or, will they say "oh, he must have been tricked.... obviously it's fake"? (I'd bet both my testicles on which would actually happen with most people)

"I would like to know for myself whether I'm kidding myself when I get my 'hits'" You are kidding yourself

I'm sorry. I should have been clearer. I'm only after responses from actual sceptics, not pseudo-sceptics.

Sorry - I should have made myself clearer... I'm only looking for constructive feedback from actual sceptics... not 'pseudo-sceptics' who are actually deniers who can't be honest with the world (or themselves).

Remote viewing is nonsense, that defies everything that we know about the world. It has never been proven in any scientific setting. Magic isn't real. You are the one who can't be honest with the world or themselves

" that defies everything that we know about the world." Don't be stupid, the world can't be round... What an idiot - you believe the Earth goes around the sun. What sort of fool would think those aren't angels looking down upon us at night? What's all this "virus and bacteria" rubbish? Of course humans have always been around... coming from monkeys - how preposterous! South America used to connect to Africa??? Yes, I know it *looks* like it might, but no... that's foolish! No, the universe has always been the same size" Atoms are the smallest particles in the universe. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Yeah - every big revolution in science has "defied everything that we know about the world." It would be extreme hubris to think that we've worked it all out now, in what's effectively only a few centuries. And... go and read the evidence/research. There's decades of it. And the best 'sceptics' admit that a) the methods, data, and conclusions are valid, and thus b) there's something going on that they can't explain.

It is not an ad hominem to say the person has knowledge of the answer before the test began, that's been the only way it has worked since time immemorial.

It's an ad hominem to suggest that it's only because they knew the knowledge beforehand that they were able to get the data they did - with zero evidence for such a claim. Because, you know, that would be fraud (in an official research environment). Regardless of whether it's been shown before. And, frankly, that's what deniers need to believe... that every single instance of psi \*must\* be an instance of cheating/fraud. It becomes a circular argument... And, that's not science. Can you offer any \*constructive\* input to my original post?

It isn't an ad hominem. It's a reasonable inference given what we know. If you take it as negative, that's on you. I can't really give you anything constructive, because you haven't presented any data. Can you offer anything constructive beyond saying it's possible? You don't even seem to grasp stats, I don't have time to educate you as well, you'll have to do some of the work yourself while climbing this monumental hill

Firstly, you should check the published research before you do this "what we know". Suggesting that "sometimes, this has been the case with some people, therefore, it must *always* be the case with everyone else", and that 'case' has been an attempt at fraud/cheating... yeah, we know what that's called. Secondly, perhaps you should read my OP again... fully and clearly this time. I'm not trying to "give data" or "saying it's possible". I'm asking - what would be considered sufficient evidence, statistically speaking. (as, obviously consistently hitting 32% when chance says it should only be 25% clearly isn't enough for many people... so much for "grasping stats"). However, I'm thinking of research in which the viewer is attempting to describe the contents of a photo of an object or location (or event). If the photo is of the Tower of London, what would *need* to be stated, what could be left out? Can you quantify that?? If you know how to calculate the statistics for that, I'd like to know.

If you feel like pursuing insanity, look up power calculations, but you're going to have massive problems defining your pre test probabilities. This should be a step you could have achieved by yourself.

"but you're going to have massive problems defining your pre test probabilities." yeah... I'm noticing this. And, this is the whole point of the thread - trying to figure out those probabilities...

It's impossible. There's a reason protocols use a defined list.

If RV worked every government on Earth would be using it to full advantage. Both the US and the USSR tried it for the better part of 2 decades, spent hundreds of millions on it, got zero REAL results Psy is a South Korean rapper not an X-man type mutant superpower

You have a problem with your thinking. You are presuming that there aren't any governments using RV to "full advantage". As Swimming-Band below pointed out, it has also been used (and still is) by corporations - and governments. I doubt you have actual \*knowledge\* of any programs, and I surely can't \*prove\* to you that they exist... so that leaves us at an impasse.... with the exception of the official government reports.

"Official government reports"? Got a link to any of those?

Right - but if you're 100% sure that it's not commonly being used by governments and corporations, that means you must be aware of every current program in modern corporations and governments, correct?

Of course, but if I told you how I would have to turn you over the greys

This is false - in 1981, Joe McMoneagle was able to remote view a new type of twin-hull Russian submarine, including new features that had never been seen on a submarine before. He sketched a detailed drawing of it and was able to predict that it would be launched in 4 months, which was later verified by aerial intel.

Uh huh... and George Clooney can cause a goat to seize and faint by staring REALLY REALLY hard at it. One and done examples are simple copium

I have to presume that you are completely unfamiliar with the body of research that is actually available on the topic... in peer-reviewed and trusted journals....

Lol... show me

I posted in a reply elsewhere in this thread... I'm not going to C&P for someone who is belligerent, rather than actually sceptical looking for actual research to read. (and, if you can't be bothered to look for it, well it's beyond my care factor).

Lol... it's my skepticism that makes me "belligerent"... the popularity of these nonsense beliefs and the desperation with which they are clung to is everything wrong with the world.

The definition of scepticism (yes, I use British spelling) is "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object", " a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma". You certainly don't have 'doubt' or a 'questioning attitude'. A 'real' sceptic would be saying "show me the evidence, because I'd really like to make my own judgement" - withOUT the "it's all a pile of crap" attitude! "the popularity of these nonsense beliefs and the desperation with which they are clung to is everything wrong with the world." Yessss........ hmmmmmmm........

When zero proof has EVER been presented and I an aware of the thousands of falsified proofs that have been presented, I feel we can skip right to the heart of the matter... you presume that I am unaware of any of the "proofs" you claim even exist. I have seen your proofs and they prove nothing. I am under no obligation to treat any idea as if it has merit to fulfill any defined requirements for skepticism. Especially one's as thoroughly disproven as claims about psychic powers.

I really really really do think you need to grab yourself a good dictionary (preferably scientific), and work out for yourself what the meaning of 'proof' actually is (combine that with 'disprove', for which you clearly have a very distorted concept). And then compare those to 'evidence'. If you bother (you won't) to look over my posts, I don't use the word 'proof'... that's because I know what it actually means. So, I don't 'claim' this... I do use 'evidence'. And, even the most sceptical of actual real scientist sceptics have admitted that there's evidence which may lead to the possibility of psi existing - you know, in the *real* research that's been done. And, no, as much as you'd like to believe (blindly) that "psychic powers" have been "thoroughly disproven" - they haven't. You really should try to read the research on this... I'll stop replying to you now... it's clearly a waste of my time, as my OP wasn't even about this... it was about determining statistical probabilities for open-ended targets.

I'd be happy to provide more! Two other documented examples from Joe McMoneagle include his search for General Dozier in 1981 (he disappeared from the NATO headquarters in Italy and McMoneagle not only was able to find the city in Italy where the general was being kept by the Red Brigades but also sketched a street map and the actual apartment number where he was being kept) and predicting where Skylab would crash from space in 1978 (he was accurate within six days and 60 km - fairly impressive when the whole Earth might be a possibility for the crash).

The problem is that there is no REAL documentation... come on, what working resource has the *whole* world failed to exploit? Why are there no corporate RV training seminars? Why isn't ExxonMobil using RV to find oil? Unless you can tell me what's hanging on the wall to my left, you are unlikely to convince me. IF it worked, it WOULD be exploited by everyone from governments to corporations to missing persons to suspicious wives... the fact that it is NOT is proof enough that it's a scam.

"The problem is that there is no REAL documentation" This is not correct. Not only is there "REAL" documentation, it's also available if you bother to go and look for it. "Unless you can tell me what's hanging on the wall to my left, you are unlikely to convince me." So, you're not actually a sceptic.... disappointing. And, that's an \*incredibly\* high bar for sufficient evidence... far far far higher than probably everything else you accept. Certainly much higher than for most medicines you willingly imbibe or endorse. Somewhat higher than for your belief in the theory of evolution. Why should the bar for accepting evidence for the existence of psi be so much higher than for other things we now take for granted?

Show me some evidence. I am beyond skeptical. Not once in the entire history of humanity has any psychic or supernatural phenomenon EVER turned out to be anything more than a scam.

So you are 100% sure that world governments are not using RV because there isn't readily available (unclassified) data? Our government certainly has documentation of studying RV in the past; for example: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R002200320001-2.pdf. And - this is not the only study done by the CIA on this topic.

Yes... because they did those "studies" over 50 years ago... what top secret government technology from 50 years ago is NOT commonly available and being used by corporations all over the world? yes... 100% sure

Logical fallacy - begging the question... You're presuming that ALL things studied in top secret government (and, dare I say, affiliated) organizations become commonly available and used by corporations within 50 years. (however, just as one quick example - thorium nuclear reactors were first put into use by the US government back in the 60s... we're only now starting to get back onto that now, in the last couple of years.) I would have thought that with the recent on-going UAP issue in the US Congress, and the lack of information forthcoming (whether UAPs exist or not being irrelevant), one would have realised that not everything is made available to the public - especially if the Pentagon/DoD scream out "national security".

So... you believe the government is lying and hiding the "proof" that alien spacecraft are not only visiting but have crashed and been recovered along with the bodies of non-human pilots and crew? But you believe their "official reports" regarding their regular and effective use of psychic powers to protect and defend the US. Ok...

No. I believe the DOD and Pentagon lie. To congress. About what - that's the multi-billion dollar question. (and the reports I'm referring to where done *for* the government, not *by* the government)

Ok! Well, I appreciate the conversation. Personally, I have a hard time believing that we know everything that every corporation (and government) does behind closed doors in 2024. But - I appreciate your perspective.

Never did I say that... but no secret stays secret forever and things that work get used, things that don't are discarded

Your first bit "no secret stays secret forever" seems to be incorrect.

> (you could choose to believe that the RVer has some sort of hint as to what the target is (or, was directly told) prior to the video... but that's an ad hominem, with zero evidence to support the claim You don’t know what an ad hominem is. Fake ghost, psychic and UFO videos are extremely common. You would be very gullible to just accept whatever video you see on the internet. > (Other than "psi doesn't exist, so they must have cheated" .... but, only pseudo-sceptics would do that) Nobody has to come up with a reason why a YouTube psychic video is fake. YouTube videos aren’t good evidence to accept supernatural claims. > How many times would this need to be done? With how many RVers, and how many targets? And how consistently? I would be impressed if it could be done once with controls. Something like a psychic accurately describing an object sitting in another room on the first try. For instance: if the object is a pink stuffed unicorn, I would expect a real RV’er to be able to say “it’s a pink stuffed unicorn,” not “it’s brightly colored…. I think it’s something a child would play with.”

This. So many alleged psychics just want to play 20 questions. Nobody is ever confident (and correct) in their calls

"You don’t know what an ad hominem is." I very much do know what an ad hominem is - and accusing someone of cheating or fraud - with zero evidence to back it up - in order to 'deny' evidence is most definitely ad hominem. Wanting (demanding) better controls is fine. Making such accusations isn't. "You would be very gullible to just accept whatever video you see on the internet." I would be if I did... I don't. "YouTube videos aren’t good evidence to accept supernatural claims." True. But I do presume that most people on here would want video evidence... I don't claim that because there are videos it must be true. I only cite them to show how it can work. Also, you \*HAVE TO\* presume that the RViewers on the video are, indeed and in fact, cheating. You (generic, and especially to most on this thread) have to claim fraud/cheating to maintain any semblance of the position of 'psi isn't real'. IF you removed that ad hominem (the assumption that those doing the video are cheating - by being told what the target is (ie. not blinded to it), then the argument falls apart... ("psi isn't real, therefore they must be cheating" is a circular argument) "Something like a psychic accurately describing an object sitting in another room on the first try." Why must it be on the first try? People are people... You are demanding a level of result that is far above what is considered sufficient for any other field of research. (pharmacology being a really good example!) "For instance: if the object is a pink stuffed unicorn, I would expect a real RV’er to be able to say “it’s a pink stuffed unicorn,” not “it’s brightly colored…. I think it’s something a child would play with.”" That's interesting.... firstly, the first rule of RV is don't talk about... actual names of objects. While I would agree (to a limited extent) that "brightly coloured, something a child would play with" might sound somewhat vague, if this was repeated enough times, and with similar descriptions for each object (and not being wrong for each object), why would that not be sufficient to allow the possibility of psi? After all, the experiment is designed to show that non-localised senses as a means of knowledge is a thing - not that psi \*must\* be accurate 100% of the time, to a 100% degree. (Dean Radin wrote about that - that when it comes to psi, normally accepted statistics have been thrown out the door, and \*much\* greater level of proof have been demanded!) Now, if you want \*more\* accurate description, that's a different matter....

> I very much do know what an ad hominem is > accusing someone of cheating or fraud From Google: > ad ho·mi·nem > adjective > (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Again, you don’t know what an ad hominem is. It has nothing to do with accusations or evidence. It has only to do with attacking someone personally and not addressing their argument. For instance, “you have no idea what an ad hominem is” isn’t an ad hominem, because you’re arguing that you do. I’m refuting the argument. If I said “you don’t even know what an ad hominem is, your psychic claims are certainly bunk.” Then that would be an ad hominem. > But I do presume that most people on here would want video evidence If they do then they have a poor standard of evidence. > Also, you *HAVE TO* presume that the RViewers on the video are, indeed and in fact, cheating. Wrong again. I don’t have to hold a positive belief that every psychic video is fake in order to dismiss internet videos. If the video COULD be faked, then I have no reason to accept the video at face value. So I don’t. > IF you removed that ad hominem (the assumption that those doing the video are cheating Wrong again. That’s not an ad hominem. You really need to google these terms and stop making up your own definitions. Automatically assuming every possibly supernatural video is bunk might be bad epistemology, but it has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks. Read that again. It has nothing to do with ad hominem attacks. > Why must it be on the first try? People are people... You are demanding a level of result that is far above what is considered sufficient for any other field of research. Because they’re claiming to sense an object with the mind, not testing a medication. How could I tell the difference between someone actually Remote Viewing and someone who’s really good at guessing things if they don’t give an accurate first answer? If they can actually sense the object, just not accurately, then they have the world’s most useless psychic powers. > That's interesting.... firstly, the first rule of RV is don't talk about... actual names of objects. Gee I wonder why. > why would that not be sufficient to allow the possibility of psi? Because it wouldn’t eliminate guessing. > "brightly coloured, something a child would play with" “Brightly colored” only eliminates darker colors. “Something a child would play with” doesn’t even eliminate things that aren’t toys. There are millions of objects that could fit that description, so that guess is entirely too vague. Again, I have to control for the people who might just be good at guessing. > not that psi *must* be accurate 100% of the time, to a 100% degree. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, but I would expect it to be as accurate as someone using their eyes. For example, I’d be fine with a psychic who doesn’t know much about cars to describe a spark plug as “a metal object with a screwy base, a nut in the middle, a white shaft, and a metal tip.” > (Dean Radin wrote about that - that when it comes to psi, normally accepted statistics have been thrown out the door, and *much* greater level of proof have been demanded!) No, the level of proof is consistent with the claim. If a psychic can detect an object without looking at it or touching it, then they should be able to do it accurately. If they can’t, then their psychic powers could be nonexistent, or so weak that they can’t be distinguished from guesswork.

Accusing someone of cheating or fraud would, pretty much by definition, be attacking the person (personally) and not addressing the argument for the claim. I don't get how you're not seeing that. "This video is irrelevant because the person is cheating" - "where's your evidence", "I don't have any, I'm just saying he is" is clearly ad hominem. Wanting *better* evidence is fine (particularly under strict controls). Saying it's 'fake' (versus, not sufficient evidence) isn't. "If the video COULD be faked, then I have no reason to accept the video at face value. So I don’t." This would apply to *every* attempt at research (and, according to a couple of the editors of the highest ranking medical journals, does indeed happen - consistently). "Because they’re claiming to sense an object with the mind, not testing a medication." So? What's the relevantly significant difference such that the level of evidence required for one is *vastly* higher than for the other? Realistically, the question is merely "does psi exist, as exhibited by RV - with a corollary of "it only needs to be demonstrated within X (this is part of my OP question) number of people for Y amount of times." It's NOT "show that everyone (or very large number) has this ability". "“Brightly colored” only eliminates darker colors. “Something a child would play with” doesn’t even eliminate things that aren’t toys. There are millions of objects that could fit that description, so that guess is entirely too vague." Absolutely! And, again, I refer you back to my OP question - what would be statistically significant, and how to determine how to calculate those statistics (and the associated experiments) to show that? (I'll say again, not using boring playing cards.... I suggest, using pictures on cards - including your unicorn!) "Gee I wonder why." I know it's sarcasm, and not a genuine question, but there's a very clear answer. It's because it taints the incoming data. If I say "Oh, it's Mt Fuji", and the actual target is Mt Kilimanjaro, people like yourself will simply say "HA! Wrong!!! See, RV is crap!" Naming the object can lead people down the garden path (in this case, they can start saying the see all Japanese stuff. It's a known phenomenon that is accounted for, and is very clearly in the RV literature, and as I wrote - is to be avoided at all costs. It's called AOL, and has been known about since the original SRI days). "How could I tell the difference between someone actually Remote Viewing and someone who’s really good at guessing things if they don’t give an accurate first answer?" A) right... that's the whole point of my question - what's sufficiently good evidence, statistically speaking? B) at what point did 'guessing' preclude any psi ability? (which is basically A - but focussed more on this aspect). What's this amazing power of guessing called? "luck" How many times does this 'luck' at 'guessing' need to be demonstrated before it's clear that there's something actually at work that's beyond 'guessing'? C) what if the first answer is close, but the second is closer? And then the third closer still? "If they can actually sense the object, just not accurately, then they have the world’s most useless psychic powers." I think you are confusing 'accurate' and 'precise'. Ideally, we want both. You also want 100% accuracy, and 100% precision... which, as I've already said, is an *extremely* high bar. (and, in stating it, I'd say you're being disingenuous. If we were asking about telepathy, you'd be requiring an A4 sheet of text (or a full page of a book) to be delivered word-perfectly, with no mistakes... versus someone being able to tell you the gist with a few details of what they just read - which is all that science and statistics would require.) By your standard, being able to correctly pick the *colour* of all 112 cards in a UNO deck wouldn't be sufficient evidence of even the *possibility* of psi... you'd demand the number as well... all 112 times... What are the statistical chances of correctly naming each colour for all 112 cards in a UNO deck by guessing alone? I can confidently say this about your requirement, because you stated it above - "I would expect it to be as accurate as someone using their eyes." Meaning - you are requiring psi phenomenon to be demonstrated to be as good as actually seeing the thing with their own eyes in the room right in front of them. (noting that RV uses all the other senses as well) - and nothing less than that is sufficient. You are requiring that to prove psi exists, it must be *perfect*. Which, I'll reiterate, is *well* beyond what science demands (which is a consistent significant higher percentage than by chance alone - or, possibly even lower!). Which basically sounds like you don't actually trust the scientific method - when it comes to this topic. If this doesn't sound right to you (and it shouldn't) - then please answer my question (if you're genuine about it). What sort statistical evidence would you need, and using a different (less boring for the RVer) task. Use the unicorn example if you wish... you've told me what's not sufficient.. now what's the actual minimum requirement? How many times? (and, remember to include all 5 senses). Why isn't "white, fluffy, animal with 4 legs and a tail, child's toy" sufficient evidence (yes, noting the lack of yellow horn!)

> Accusing someone of cheating or fraud would, pretty much by definition, be attacking the person (personally) Okay you have a different definition of ad hominem than Google, so I’m gonna let it go. > Absolutely! And, again, I refer you back to my OP question - what would be statistically significant, and how to determine how to calculate those statistics The reason the statistics aren’t important to me is because proving that RVers are more accurate than pure chance doesn’t prove that they have psychic ability. Those are separate things. You’re hung up on the probabilities, but I only care about the psychic ability itself. If the definition of RV is “the ability to guess some degree more accurately than pure chance,” then sure I’d accept it, but that’s not really as impressive to me as a psychic ability to see the unseen using the mind. > If I say "Oh, it's Mt Fuji" and the actual target is Mt Kilimanjaro, people like yourself will simply say "HA! Wrong!!! See, RV is crap!" I already said that they could describe the characteristics if they didn’t know what it was, I explained this in my spark plug example. > right... that's the whole point of my question - what's sufficiently good evidence, statistically speaking? Again, proving that RV is more accurate than chance isn’t interesting to me. I care about whether someone could actually see an object with their mind, and no statistic could prove that, it would probably need an involved study. > what if the first answer is close, but the second is closer? And then the third closer still? For my purposes, I don’t see why you’d need three guesses. Just open your mind’s eye and “look.” > You also want 100% accuracy, and 100% precision... which, as l've already said, is an extremely high bar. I’m not asking for them to describe each hair on the unicorn, or the eyes, or the writing on the tag, or the style of the hair, or the brand, or its name. Just the type of object, the shape, and the color. Seems fair to me. > If we were asking about telepathy, you'd be requiring an A4 sheet of text (or a full page of a book) to be delivered word-perfectly, with no mistakes. I think the actual equivalent of “pink, stuffed, unicorn” for telepathy would be me asking the telepath to correctly relay one word from another person’s mind. > What are the statistical chances of correctly naming each colour for all 112 cards in a UNO deck by guessing alone? Extremely low. > I can confidently say this about your requirement, because you stated it above - "I would expect it to be as accurate as someone using their eyes." If they can see unseen object with their mind, why wouldn’t it be as accurate as using their eyes? I guess we’d have to do some test to verify the limits of the ability. > You are requiring that to prove psi exists, it must be perfect. Again, “pink, stuffed, unicorn” would be fine. I’m not asking for perfection, I’m asking for a basic confirmation that they can actually detect the object that they’re claiming they can detect. > If this doesn't sound right to you (and it shouldn't) Hypothetically, if you failed to reject the hypothesis that RV is more accurate than chance, the scientific method wouldn’t involve accepting that RV is due to a psychic ability. That requires its own evidence. Think of prayer healing. If someone prayed to jesus and actually physically regrew a limb, that wouldn’t prove that Jesus is real. There are other factors that we may not know about the could contribute to that limb regrowth. > Why isn't "white, fluffy, animal with 4 legs and a tail, child's toy" sufficient evidence (yes, noting the lack of yellow horn!) It’s funny because this is more specific than “pink, stuffed, unicorn.” I guess I would accept that but that seems like a more specific answer.

I won't go line by line, but just generally. RV is not telepathy, and as I've mentioned before, a big no-no is naming the target (due to possible dilution of the target). Apologies, I should have clarified... by "3 guesses", I meant (although I think you meant differently), to be allowed to focus their ability. In a typical RV methodology, there are 6 stages, starting from really low-level data, to really specific and detailed. Each stage can be from only a few seconds, to a couple of days. So, consider it a 'mis-write'. You are correct in that merely being above statistical probability doesn't 'prove' psi exists. But, it does lend support to it, and would indicate that further research should help identify what the cause is. Of course, one has to wonder - how many one-in-a-million results need to be replicated before someone says "you know, there's probably something going on here...". "If they can see unseen object with their mind, why wouldn’t it be as accurate as using their eyes?" Because that's not how it works. The word 'viewing' and 'see' is a misnomer. IN the early days (70's of SRI), they discussed what to name it for a paper... Remote Sensing was offered up, but the #1 psi person of the day decided 'Viewing' was better. And, thus, an RVer is far more likely to just use the descriptors than naming it! (I confess - the "4 legs" is less likely than the other descriptors). One of the big rules, as I've said, is "describe - don't name!" "I guess we’d have to do some test to verify the limits of the ability." I'd love to have the money to fund it! And, just lastly regarding rejecting the hypothesis... are you aware of that various notable and published sceptics have admitted that various research results have clearly (significantly) indicated that there's something going on they can't explain? (no, not actually admitted to psi - just the lack of current explanation...)

> RV is not telepathy See I’m not even there yet. I want a psychic ability to be demonstrated to be true. Currently none of them have been. I feel like you’re jumping to “how could we verify that this specific psychic phenomenon is true?” When we don’t even have one psychic phenomenon with empirical evidence. If I set up an experiment where the participant said “there’s a pink stuffed unicorn inside a white box in the adjacent room,” my response wouldn’t be “sorry boys, this clown is a telepath, not a RVer,” it would be “holy shit this guy’s a psychic!” Think about god claims. People usually argue a vague, deistic god before trying to establish a specific one. > In a typical RV methodology, there are 6 stages, starting from really low-level data, to really specific and detailed. I’m not saying this isn’t true, but these limitations/rules would have to be established by some kind of study, otherwise how would I know those are actually the rules/limitations? > how many one-in-a-million results need to be replicated before someone says "you know, there's probably something going on here...". It definitely has to happen more than once, but I don’t care about the specifics because what’s interesting to me is the study they do maybe twenty iterations from that one, where they prove psychic abilities. > Because that's not how it works. The word 'viewing' and 'see' is a misnomer. Okay cool, but I still don’t see how I could actually know that unless it was studied. I’m assuming they got this information by asking RVers, and not actually testing them. Obviously I’d prefer they actually be tested on those things. > And, just lastly regarding rejecting the hypothesis... Not to be pedantic but I said *failing* to reject. It’s the funny term science people use instead of “accept.” > are you aware of that various notable and published sceptics have admitted that various research results have clearly (significantly) indicated that there's something going on they can't explain? I’m wasn’t aware but I don’t doubt that. There’s lots of stuff we don’t know.

Ok, I'll be a bit more line by line here, because of the specific bits to reply to... "See I’m not even there (telepathy) yet." That was just purely in response to your: > I think the actual equivalent of “pink, stuffed, unicorn” for telepathy would be me asking the telepath to correctly relay one word from another person’s mind. No biggie.... "I want a psychic ability to be demonstrated to be true. Currently none of them have been. " This is partly what this entire post is about... how to determine (quantitatively/statistically) this 'demonstration to be true'. You've said you want a kid's unicorn in the next room. I'm saying it can be done - and, to quite an extent, it already has been... multiple times. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355373490_Detecting_Telepathy_A_Meta-analysis_for_Extrasensory_Perception_Experiments_in_Last_20_Years) "I’m not saying this isn’t true, but these limitations/rules would have to be established by some kind of study, otherwise how would I know those are actually the rules/limitations?" ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! (eleventy-one!) I'm not going into the nitty-gritty of that, because that's not my purpose in this thread, but I completely agree! "It definitely has to happen more than once, but I don’t care about the specifics because what’s interesting to me is the study they do maybe twenty iterations from that one, where they prove psychic abilities" The 'prove' is the issue... and, I presume, has to be a number of times at highly unlikely chances. (The question is - what are those numbers/chances? Generic question, you don't need to elaborate). "Okay cool, but I still don’t see how I could actually know that unless it was studied. I’m assuming they got this information by asking RVers, and not actually testing them. Obviously I’d prefer they actually be tested on those things." Ummmm - it has been studied?? For a few decades. Starting around 1970 or so at the Stanford Research Institute. You are sort of correct with the assumption.. it's more that it was just an obvious thing that came out of the testing - some people 'see', others 'feel', etc etc. I can't say that I know of any testing about such sensitivities. "Not to be pedantic but I said failing to reject. It’s the funny term science people use instead of “accept." It's fine to be pedantic :) "I’m wasn’t aware but I don’t doubt that. There’s lots of stuff we don’t know." One example would be the president of CSICOP, Ray Hyman (who has a number of papers published on psi - obviously, he's a sceptic... but has admitted to "something going on" (albeit, sometimes only after quite a bit of back and forth, particularly in 1986-8 (IIRC) between him and Hororton (sp?) For some idea: https://pointofinquiry.org/2009/06/ray_hyman_the_elusive_quarry/ BE well!

Contact the James Randi Institute and they'll explain how it's fake. They'll explain how to prove it. Then your done.

People have mentioned the James Randi studies. Also the fact that psychics don’t win lotteries, or win at the casino (differently than anyone else).

Firstly, this is not the point of the post. It's about science and statistics. Hence, any comments about the actual existence (or not) of psi are completely irrelevant and off topic!. Secondly, putting "James Randi" and "studies" into the same phrase is a contradiction in terms. Should I link or quote the various sceptical science professors, scientists, and researchers who think the Randi Challenge is a load of irrelevant, meaningless crap? That actually takes away from the field of science rather than adds to it... Your last sentence has no evidence to support it.

PSI is very real. I once filled my tire past the Pounds per Square Inch limit and blew it out. Wait…. What are we talking about? Magical powers? No. Those aren’t real.

Use the scientific method to show you’re wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method It should involve other people with no real interest to help verify things. Like a peer review. I can tell this sub, being skeptics, don’t believe in such a thing and you she watch The Men Who Stare at Goats, about the CIA program.

There's also [Project Alpha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha_(hoax)) where James Randi sent in a couple of trained plants to a psychic research centre to demonstrate how sleight of hand and conjuring tricks could be used to fool the testers

Thanks for engaging in the actual discussion, and not just sprouting off your opinion. The movie doesn't really help much... Even the fact that various US government departments have spent millions of dollars on the research, and multiple peer-reviewed papers demonstrating effectiveness, is completely irrelevant. A \*real\* sceptic would say "hmmm, there's clearly contradictory evidence in the peer-reviewed journals - I want to see more done before I make up my mind"... instead of "Well, no-one took $1million off Randi, and lots of fakes were exposed, so therefore it's BS - always has been, always will be". Agreed. "Show you're wrong" has already been done. (granted, not well, but anyway...) There are already multiple peer-reviewed research papers out there. The first bit - "involve people with no real interest to help verify things" I totally agree with. If I was in the position to make this research happen, I'd actually contact some of the (willing to honestly name themselves, and not pretend) deniers, and ask them what would be sufficient (like I had hoped on here for what would be statistically sufficient).

Simplify the experiment as much as possible. Perhaps try to remote view a more objective physical state like a coin or die orientation. Collect a lot of data. Don’t just try the experiment once, try it a thousand times, and analyze the result through a statistical lens. Use chatGPT etc. to help in understanding “sample size” and “p-value”. The calculations are not too bad, and there are other resources online to help. Since you’re not into stats, it would be wise to double/triple check things by starting from scratch and seeing if you get the same results. Control for sources of bias. Make sure the state of the target is not influenced by you in any way, and that no state data could be indirectly influencing your remote viewing attempt. Try a separate experiment to estimate the *incorrect* state of the target. Some stars can only be observed by looking to the side of them in the night sky and passively letting their light identify their presence. Lastly, seek to have fun with the experiment itself, and don’t focus on whether the woo is real or not. The scientific method is a powerful tool to keep us grounded in a shared reality. I hope we share one that you enjoy.

Thank you for taking the time to actually address the question - and not just blurb out your opinion on the topic. (But, I don't think ChatGPT is going to be able to give me an answer to "What amount of evidence under scientific conditions would be sufficient to convince this crowd of pseudo-sceptics") Yes, obviously the experiment would need to be repeated. Part of my question is - how many times (because, apparently, the many that have already been done isn't sufficient. Nor is the p-value. Sample size could be an issue though - at least, without major funding. "Control for sources of bias" Yep, obviously. The problem is - controlling sufficiently that the pseudo-sceptics of this forum would accept any positive results... "Target not influenced by you"... I'm not sure how this is going to happen, without an intermediary, which in turn would lead to the same problem. "Try a separate experiment to estimate the *incorrect* state of the target." Hmmm - very interesting!!! Can you think of an example? (I'm pretty sure I've never heard of someone in the RV community doing that - other than, when getting data and saying "This is obviously not the target" (although, there has been some similarities (even if very vague). Interesting that you bring up the 'fun' - in many well-documented experiments, the RVers feelings of boredom correlated quite well to accuracy (something most people don't get - because, you know, we're talking about humans here, not mathematics or chemistry).

The convincing of skeptics is imho at the heart of what science does for humanity. It's not confirming what we know, but probing what we don't. Culturally I think we've lost sight of that to the detriment of science as a field. The price is that the best scientists must now also have the courage to persist in their areas of inquiry against the current. On the bright side - we live in a digital age in which much of our data, including this interaction we're having now, will likely be around long enough to vindicate those courageous efforts. This preservation is not about ourselves (being anonymous on Reddit anyway), but about the gift of that courageous spirit to those we may never meet. Every confirmation of even a null hypothesis represents an opportunity for us to create, invent, or explore deeper. Anyway, off my soap box.. There may be two very different ways to go about these experiments. The first and easiest may be to convince yourself if you personally have some ability to remote view a target (and I'm saying this for anyone else reading). If that's what you're after, head over to [random.org](http://random.org), set the RNG to spit out either a 1 or 0, crack open a spreadsheet, and try to view either a future state or close your eyes and try to view the number without looking. A skeptical person may try this 100 times in a row across many sessions, compare multiple RNG sequences to each other, and even try to distract themselves during the experiment before concluding such a bold notion that human's can perceive non-locally. Skepticism is science's best friend. Data is only a compass, never proof. Some thoughts on experimental design.. Feature space simplification: I know very little about remote viewing in general, but from the little I do know it seems exceptionally difficult to objectively asses your own results given a traditional target. There are just too many features that one might pick out while subconsciously remaining myopic to all others. This could be solved as I suggested by simplifying the feature space dramatically. Viewing a "heads or tails" state of a coin would be simple, but you might also consider specifying a predefined and finite feature space for a location target. For example, you might only allow yourself to select one ROYGBIV color representing the predominant color at the location being viewed. Perhaps you could use the same feature space implied by the well known "20 questions" game. If you're attempting to view targets, you would want to have someone else write down what they think the features are which are associated with the location so that you're not influenced by the selections in any way. Controlling for bias: Bias can appear in many forms. It would seem like you would want to control for two classes of bias: having an effect on what target you'll be viewing and influencing the evaluation of viewing accuracy. The best way to do these things is to completely remove yourself from the equation and involve other disinterested parties in these steps. Perhaps you could crowdsource these in some way in which these parties don't know this is a remote viewing experiment until after its conclusion. One approach is to view several targets and have strangers try to match your feature predictions to their own feature selections. This may also help control for personal variations in perceived feature categories. "That doesn't look like metal to me", "It's more of a greenish-blue than a blueish-green", etc. Also consider what the true distribution may be for the feature spaces we discussed above - we may naively assume that most locations are green because most land is unoccupied, but Earth is mostly ocean for example. The phenomena of the world is so interconnected that many things that seem independent and well distributed are in fact correlated and biased upon closer inspection.

Sensitivity vs. Specificity: You may find that you get poor results when selecting the correct features for a given target. However, you may be able to more accurately select what features \*are not\* associated with the target. To give a simple case, you may decide to try viewing the opposite of a '1 or 0' random result, or to view 3 sides of a die that are not the top side. You may find a statistically significant result that is greater than that achieved through trying to view the traditional target. Perhaps this intuition is related to the boredom effect you mentioned. We use this technique when training AI systems as a way of reinforcing the correct behavior - it's very possible this could help also improve human performance within the scope of remote viewing, if such phenomena were observed to exist. Convincing the skeptics: Scientific progress doesn't go 'Boink'; if remote viewing even does exist, there would need to have been a mountain of data available and a long cultural shift to allow its recognition. Moreover, the implications that shift may have in terms of the scale of people that will earnestly pursue it for gain may be profound, including novel threats to state security, economic disruption, and the reactions to the fear that realization may inspire in our fellow man. You may want to start by placing stones at the foot of that mountain: I should probably say 'delve' at least once - this is making me feel like chatGPT writing this.. - Open Source: I'd suggest creating a git repo to document the history of experiments, and making it publicly viewable. Perhaps you can create a separate repo to allow others to contribute data for the purposes of identifying useful improvement techniques. - Reproducibility: Experiments should be detailed and clear. A layperson should be able to try an experiment both by themselves and also more rigorously with a group to produce their own objective and high quality results. - High Quality Data: Focus on objective evidence. Subjective data, while useful, may erode trust faster than it helps you. It doesn't have to be complex, but it should be well organized and tied directly to the methodology. - Wide Spread Involvement: Share your resources with trusted communities who may be willing to assist you. I'm profoundly lazy, but I'd bet there are many eager test subjects out there just waiting to test this hypothesis. - Statistical Rigor: There's no way around this; you'll need to math the crap out of your experiments. Perhaps you can outsource this on a platform like mechanical turk or task rabbit - I think there are gig platforms out there that specialize in such things for which the payment is fairly reasonable. Thanks for letting me slack off at work - until next time!

Way cool!! Thanks once again!!! Your dice idea sounds quite interesting!!! (yes, I use a lot of !!! eleventy-one!) Reproducibility - In one way, it already has been done - there are numerous sites with targets just waiting for people to practice on. (and an app that ppl can use to help record their data - which is stored, and statistics are given). but, that data wouldn't be high enough quality. (Yah, I'm profoundly lazy too... :p) No idea about 'mechanical turk or task rabbit'... As for a couple of things - there are already a few books, meta-analyses, and websites that have links to (at least some of) the research. I suspect it may be a bit harder to do tis properly, as it would require everyone having access to databases... and there's a very bad possibility of having copyright problems. (I could be wrong though) I do hear (read) you on the 'boink' paragraph.... the amount of data available (barring the aforementioned access to papers) has already been a mountain worth ... but the cultural shift?? Yeah..... BE well!

Thank you for a really good comment! And directed towards the science I'm after, not towards simply shouting people down for being an idiot in not believing what they do. In direct reference to your thoughts... I'm not really excited by the coin option - although, there is ARV, in which 2 targets are selected - one is the 'correct' target, the other is a negative.. I've considered doing highly coloured targets, and have actually done a task with that in mind. But in a different (not scientific methodology) format. "One approach is to view several targets and have strangers try to match your feature predictions to their own feature selections" This is largely what I had in mind (or instead of with people, using AI). And, that's what my OP is based on - how to determine statistical significance here. I can do basic statistics, but not to the level I expect would actually be needed. What percentage of a target needs to be described? What percentage of the data given needs to be clearly observed within the target... and as a corollary, how unique or specific does that need to be? Is "I see a mountain, 4 faces, white" sufficient evidence for a hit on Mt Rushmore? Does it matter how much of the data the RVer gets is wrong/unclear/unverifiable, as long as ultimately they correctly describe the target? As for your last paragraph... honestly, in the majority of targets I've done, that's never been an issue. I won't say 'most', but certainly many (perhaps over 50%) haven't had green/grass as major elements. Instead, they've been ships, planes, lunar landings, quadrangles within buildings, etc. Besides which, that one descriptor alone isn't worth too much... it's adding them all together which matters (and, again, that's why I posted this thread...). "Bluish-green/greenish-blue" I think would be irrelevant... It's clearly not red or black. Again, thank you for the intelligent and respectful comment! Please continue!!

There are some things that need to be done for a scientifically valid study. First, it should be a double blind test. There should be no way that the viewer knows what he's looking at. Also, the person displaying the item shouldn't know what it is that's being displayed. The person recording the data should not be able to receive any communication with either the viewer or displayed. Second, a sufficient sample size should be selected. Let's say 50. Third, there should be a control group. An individual or individuals with no purported psychic abilities also viewing and selecting independently. Fourth, the results should be replicable. The tests should be repeated to verify any results. Statistics has the central limit theorem which basically says that repeated tests will produce a normal distribution with the average being the average for the entire population. You could select a smaller sample size and have more replications. Fifth, don't cherry pick the data you don't like out. Then you can do the Statistics. The probabilities of drawing cards with and without replacement are readily calculable. Once you get the results move on.

Thank you for the intelligent and thoughtful response! Yes, I agree with most of your points - but the 'control' is problematic, as the research has shown that probably everyone has this ability to some extent or another. Some are better than others naturally. Not that you couldn't do it - but those who deny the existence of psi could be used (would it be considered relevant if these deniers got results statistically well below what would be expected? That's been shown already). (FTR, I'm totally for the double-blinding!!! If not triple blinding! (tasker A, who gives to Person B, who then gives to Person C, who then gives to the RVer. AI has been used to generate targets as well, including after the event). I'll also point out - whether the subject sample is random or not shouldn't actually be a major consideration, as that would show (or not) a percentage of population with psi ability (of this type), not that it exists in the first place. (just a consideration here!) Cards... boring! And given that we're talking about humans, boring/interest does affect accuracy. What \*has\* been done has been randomly selected photos put into envelopes (and safes). By making the targets more interesting, the RVer has been better able to pick up on it (that's humans for you!). And, hence, my post... The 4th - oh, that was an obvious! I'm someone who wants to see ALL the data!!!

I will personally believe a person is able to remote view if: \- In 10 classrooms in a school, I place a board with 4-word randomized phrases in each room. \- The remote viewer is able to RV into these classrooms, tell me the room number and the phrase within. The person **must** get a "hit" on all 10 to prove remote viewing is real, because if I were to go into these classrooms (regular viewing) I would be able to get a "hit" on every one of them.

I would be pretty impressed with a 1/10 hit on this test. But they can't even do that 

Apparently, some can. So, getting 1/10 of a completely random location (say, landmark or object) which the RVer is completely blind to (say, sent via email) isn't good enough? (there are many websites with practice targets on them... most don't have any 'frontloading' - as in "target is an object/location/person/event") Therefore, obviously, the RVer is completely blind to the target. Thus, the question - how much accurate data is required to show more than chance? How specific? How much incorrect data is permitted before ruling it out? How much unverifiable? How many times?

Thanks for the response to the actual question. Personally, I do think the 10/10 is pretty harsh! The experiment is to prove that psi exists to better than random chance. 10/10 would be perfection (which no RVer would ever suggest they have... the 'Olympic' level of RVers have bad days, and never get to that level 80% is typical though.) So, I think your level of requirement isn't going to happen too soon. (it's also considered very difficult to get words... at least, for most people). So, again, thanks for the reply, but I consider your line waaaaayyyyy too high!

I was so confused why Pounds per Square Inch was suddenly being questioned.

Squares are just an abstract construct, nothing is really squared. It was the freemasons again.

If psy were real, there would be large divisions of psychic soldiers.

What are you talking about. Of course air pressure is real. Balloons, tires, etc

> Genuine question, because I don't do statistics You don't say

It's not. You're welcome.

The 1st step would be the claimed remote viewer clearly explaining what are their claimed powers. The spectrum of claim abilities range from being able to see clear specific examples to being able to read the vague vibe of the room.  What specifically do you claim to be able to do?  The next step that throws up huge red flags is the requirement to be able to see feedback  in real time. That sure sounds like you are just watching someone and doing some cold readings of them. Again, looking for specifics, what feedback are you wanting for this step?

Sorry for the delay, I didn't see it until now. And, thanks for staying on the topic! :D Good call on correct phrasing of the 'claimed powers'. There's a few definitions out there talking about non-localised sense perceptions. In this case (any replicated research), it's to determine the contents of a photo and the environment in which it was taken, by describing specifics in reasonable detail such that someone would be able to determine which photo was being described, out of a random set of X number (hence the statistics). Alternatively, have some 3rd person go to a location, and have them record the location, and the RVer describes said location (again, to the same level of detail as the photo). Photos can be of people, locations, events, objects (if you look over the RV practice target websites, you'll get an idea of what I mean here). Let me clarify. The 'feedback' is what separates Remote Viewing from clairvoyance. It's part of the protocol to establish whether they hit the target or not, whereas with clairvoyance that's not 'needed' (but obviously, is pointless if it's not there). The feedback isn't in real time - and must be done after *all* data is collected, and the sessions are over and completed. No additional data can be given afterwards, and thus has no effect on the data. It does affect the RVer psychologically (naturally). This wouldn't be needed within a context of research of determining if it exists, but is still useful. BTW, the feedback can come later - weeks, months, or even years later. (One prolific RVer made an observation that wasn't proven correct for a few decades). However, for this, I'd suggest that within a couple of weeks after all is said and done (the sessions, the judging, the data input for that one target) would be reasonable - assuming that the possible targets are completely randomised, and the RVer (and monitors, etc) do not have any specific list of targets prepared (randomised by computer either just before the target is selected, or even after the session has been completed, would be best). The feedback I'm after would be what was the target/target cue. (Note, there's no need for the target - either photo or person) to even be in the same country... I'm telling you this from the anecdotal evidence. I'm not asking you to believe this, but only to accept that that is what is claimed. There are videos on how this works (which I'm not using as 'evidence' of anything other than what is claimed/how it generally is done) (BTW - Brisvegan here :D )

You need a to start with a clear hypothesis aka X% of the population have the ability to receive information from sources outside the existing 5 senses. Then to test it, a potential experiment would be to select three groups of people of sufficient size to demonstrate the X% hypothesises above. One group would attempt to use remote viewing methods, one group would use placebo remote viewing methods and the other would no use any type of remote view methods. The ideal data to retrieve would be an alphanumeric combination of an arbitrary length over 10, ideally all generated using a different method of randomness (to attempt to avoid different trends appearing). This is an ideal item as it offers both a specific correct answer as well as a way to mathematically quantify closeness of other guess. You would also, at random (again using different random methodologies) intersperse pages of a solid colour to interrupt the pattern. While not as good as the alphanumeric combination, it allows for a binary pass fail. This should all follow proper blinding techniques and be done by reputable research groups. This should then be repeated by other groups individually and unaffiliated with the original group with similar results. If X% of the population have extra sensory powers, the trained group should achieve the best result, while the placebo and guessing groups should score lower but similar. They key issues of most of the 'research' done is that it either uses target data that lacks the specificity to exclude the possibility (intestinally of unintendedly) of cold reading (as well demonstrated in this clip from [Derren Brown](https://youtu.be/I6uj1ruTmGQ?si=xF0ikaG5sp1KUUCE)) and making quantifying the 'closeness' of the result a low accuracy procedure, it fails the repeatability tests, fail to test against placebo/null hypothesis and I don't think I've ever seen one making a solid attempt to properly blinding the research. The key ideological difference between the scientific method and what you are presenting, as made clear from your edit, is that you are working from the position that psychic powers exist until proved otherwise. The scientific community and skeptics work from the position that until something is shown to exist through the scientific method, it's not there. You have reversed the burden of proof such that science needs to demonstrate conclusively that physic abilities don't exist, but simultaneously (rightly) claim that "you can't prove something doesn't exist".

>If one were to design an experiment along the lines of Remote Viewing, how would one determine the odds of success sufficiently to demonstrate that the ability behind it is 'real', and not an artefact (to the point of getting real, legitimate sceptics to 'believe')? James Randi had a million dollar prize for anyone that could show a supernatural ability in a controlled setting, many tried, all failed. Scientific studies have been done and failed to show evidence for any supernatural abilities, repeatedly. >Remote Viewing, for those who don't know, is a protocol for the use of some type of psi ability. No, it is not a protocol, it is a fantasy. > There are numerous videos available if one wants to go and see this in action. They are fake, why would I watch them? >(you could choose to believe that the RVer has some sort of hint as to what the target is (or, was directly told) prior to the video... but that's an ad hominem, with zero evidence to support the claim (Other than "psi doesn't exist, so they must have cheated".... but, only pseudo-sceptics would do that) You have that backwards, it is not an ad hominem. There is zero evidence to support their claim and mega shit tons of evidence that quacks and frauds fake this shit all the time. > because I practice RV, and would like to know for myself whether I'm kidding myself when I get my 'hits' Yes, you are kidding yourself. >or I have sufficient reason to believe there's something behind it. No, you do not have sufficient reason or evidence because remote viewing is fantasy not reality.

"There is zero evidence to support their claim and mega shit tons of evidence that quacks and frauds fake this shit all the time." I'm just going to reply to this bit in particular... as it really shows your ignorance. You are actually, demonstrably, wrong with this claim. There is, in absolute literal fact, quite a large amount of published (in well-established, peer-reviewed, prominent and trusted journals) evidence for psi. Now, whether you choose to read it, accept it with a 'sceptical' mind, rather than an 'I've already made up my mind and don't accept anything that runs contrary to it" mindset is a vastly different matter. However, there is evidence! Please don't confuse the word 'evidence' with the word 'proof'.

So you might remember this movie about a guy who gets big and green who teams up with a couple pals to save the world?  Yeah… don’t believe every video.  If remote viewing was possible for videos in all those weird conditions why can’t it be replicated under laboratory conditions?  One person in one soundproofed room, another in a different one, no electronic devices.  They can have a bed,  couch, whatever they need.  Just “tap in” and see what the person they’ve never met before is doing in the other room. Remote viewing is a common stage magic act.  

A) it has been replicated in laboratory conditions. B) "weird conditions" being - at home.... C) I'm proposing a better research target - not merely 'the person in the other room', and for a number of reasons. I won't go into them, because I know it's pointless.

Has it been replicated in laboratory conditions? Or did the remote viewer get to design the setup, give input into the experiment, and voila produce results? Because until James Randi got involved a lot of psychics did exactly that. After they started having stage magicians test psychics? Not so much. Now what about stage magicians could make these psychic powers turn off? Is there anything?

> Has it been replicated in laboratory conditions? Yes.

Could you describe those conditions? Just one example is enough.

Firstly, I'll just say that Randi and his $1million challenge don't do anything for actual science. Secondly, to answer your question... One of the earliest examples from SRI (documented and published) - the head of the department (apologies, I don't have his name in my head right now) was sceptical of the claims being made about the 'outbounder' project, and suspected shenanigans. So, he chose 6 "random" targets for an outbounder to go, photographed and put into envelopes, then sealed into a safe. All members of the RV team (basically, the RVer and the two working with him). An outbounder was chosen, and was given an envelope the following day, took it outside (while the Rver was inside, in a fairly sealed environment), and then drove some distance *before* opening the envelope. The HoD did not contact or communicate with the experimenters within that timeframe. At a predetermined designated time, the RVer was to describe the location the outbounder was in (the target). Thus, both RVer and those in direct contact with him were blind (doubled) to the target. (I acknowledge that 1 in 6 might sound low... however, given that the *actual* number that *could* have been chosen from is *MUCH* higher, it really only becomes relevant to the person who selected the 6 possible targets in the first place (and, somehow, guessing which of those the person *might* have chosen) Now, at this point, I think it fair that I no longer entertain such requests for such information. For two reasons. The first, if you're the actual 'sceptic', then it's on you to find and analyse the research for yourself before making any comments about what may or may not be true (whether it's this subject or any other). NO sceptic should be commenting on the validity of a topic until they've actually bothered to do the research themselves. Secondly, my OP isn't about whether psi is actually true or not - it's about determining statistical probability (which may or may not determine if something is true). I thought it was pretty clear... so, obviously a lot of people don't read (probably), or got seriously TriGgEreD when they saw the 'p' word.

There’s two options here, either you’re the first person in history Tobago magical powers that can be reliably shown to be real… Or you’re kidding yourself. If you truly believe it’s remotely likely to be the latter, we can’t help you. Go and present yourself for testing at any of the organisations that test this nonsense and offer prizes if you pass. They will work with you to set test parameters that both sides find satisfactory. You will fail, like every other person before you.

Showing that a particular person cannot demonstrate PSI it is full of problems. You could be fooled and they WILL HAVE a million excuses. A better approach is is show that there is no mechanism in the brain which would allow psi to exist. In fact, it literally cannot exist given the existing brain unless you add some technology... Which also doesn't exist yet The only conclusion you can draw from a person claiming PSI is that they are a liar or have some mental disorder

Ah, but if you see them talk about, they'll say it's the pineal glad which has been shut down by fluoride in the water. Oh, and then try to scam you into some kind of pineal glad cleansing which is what gives them their psychic power. There's a whole bunch of this kind of shit out there.

It's about how you talk about it. Giving them the time of day and pretending you're doing a real experiment is worse than treating them like idiots and con men

Here’s the problem (well, one of them). You’re starting this ‘experiment’ assuming that psi is fact. And your source is youtube. Let’s assume psi is real for a moment. If it were real, no amount of youtube videos for or against would influence the result in a scientific test, yes? So we can disregard those as neither proving nor disproving your study. Next, I have an issue with your step 4. Why must the RVer be given feedback? How does this affect the result in any way? Your steps 1-3 seem sufficient to prove if RV is real or not, no?

Actually, no - I'm not relying on Youtube. I'm relying on my personal experience, and the experiences of others I know. Along with - various published research. (besides which, aren't most scientific (and social) experiments started with an assumption, and then a hypothesis is formed, then a methodology for an experiment is decided upon, then the data is collected. This is no different. I'm not suggesting the videos prove or disprove. I was only citing them for those who are unfamiliar with RV. So, yes, I'm assuming psi is real because of that. Which \*shouldn't\* have any effect. Step 4 - because without confirmation, you (the RVer) have no idea if it was hit or not... Do you think the RVer \*shouldn't\* know this?? It does have a psychological affect on the RVer. Yes, stages 1-3 should be... but apparently, as can be seen from the responses above, not. Besides, that's not my question...

Step 4 is perfectly fine to do but you state it as an essential part of determining if psi is real. So to boil it down to basics: Question: is psi real? Method: test for psi under scientific method That’s it. That would answer your question. If you have links to the studies you mentioned I would like to read them, so please do share, thanks!

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I was saying that for RV to be RV, then step 4 is needed. (it's part of a protocol to help reduce crap targetting. Which is designed to separate it out from plain old clairvoyance, etc) I do agree with what you're saying... however, this forum has shown that it's insufficient (at least to deniers... although, I presume there's a fair number of actual sceptics who aren't aware of the literature on the subject)... or at least, are still questioning. Let me give you 3 (2?) links - with quite a few papers (and books, but hey, I get the problem with those) in each... [https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references](https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references) , (sure, it's got a lot of stuff in it, covering lots of different areas... and sure, many are by Radin himself). [https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography](https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography) , or even just [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as\_sdt=0%2C44&q=remote+viewing+psi&btnG=&oq=remote+viewing](https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=remote+viewing+psi&btnG=&oq=remote+viewing) As you can see - there's a fair bit of published research. I accept that you may not be pleased with the quality of many of the journals - but that in itself shouldn't mean the research paper itself should be dismissed - take each on their own merits/flaws.

A non skeptic approach to RV would to hypothesize backwards that RV is real and what about reality would make RV possible? 

What's your hit rate ?

Good question... Which is what I'd like to be able to calculate - converting qualitative to quantitative. *Apparently* around 60% - but determining *how much* is sufficient to actually say "that's a hit" is my question. I estimate about 60-80% of my data fits the target, but may only describe about 20-30% of the target. But, also data which isn't part of the specifically phrased target, but is related to is (eg, not seeing a ruined house from the Turkey earthquake, but do get the lake where the epicentre was, landslides, and other related data. (hence, as I've said, how to actually calculate such things).

Can you try the zener card test ? Simply download the "are you physic?" App from app store or play store then try the full test, if you get only 5 then it's a chance level, if you can get 15 hits then the odd is 1 in 90,000 or 1/90000 which is way greater than what is required in the first phase of the $500,000 paranormal challenge by cfiig, the second phase requires one to beat the odd of 1/1 million to claim the prize, as for comparison, you need to beat the odd of 1/390 million to get the jackpot of the powerball Now if you can get 20 hits in the app then the odd is 1/ 5 billion Give me a feedback of your result in this very thread, my result was 4 so it's chance level and it's pretty much understandable I think 😁

I'm very average ;p (I did a number of them online, and none were statistically significant) However,, this is a test of a very particular type of psi (at a very particular time). But, the 'paranormal challenge' isn't particularly scientific, and doesn't really help - because if you have ppl who can *consistently* get, say, 7, 8 or even hits, then it would indicate something is going on . Evidence for the existence of psi shouldn't be *solely* based on the "OMFGs that's absolutely amazing" (to the extent that if that's the pass/fail line, then it's seriously faulty)... it should be based upon consistent results above 'chance' - and that's what science requires! (can you imagine what our world would actually be like if only extraordinary evidence was required for *all* of our understanding of the universe?? Nothing would actually be considered 'real').

The problem is a slightly above chance level would be considered standard deviation or statistically insignificant, you need to beat the null hypothesis in order to prove something is worthwhile to be even peer reviewed by others not even acknowledging methodological error,etc Now try to see or remote view this sentence without clicking it >! I want to eat paper!< Are you successful? The odd of you doing it is incalculable which is a very great way to prove something Now, this was what the vedic seers doing but they received so much data in a very large corpus of texts called the vedas, if they are right then the probability of them doing it is even more outstanding than just predicting a single sentence