Talk:Remote viewing

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

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

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

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

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

I understand you want us to read the arguments in singularityquest.com as a basis for removing reliably sourced critique of Remote Viewing by James Randi, and perhaps all others. However singularityquest.com is a blog and not a WP:RS (or in this case, a WP:FRIND source). Wikipedia has a number of editorial policies you may not be familiar with, so you may want to review them. One relevant policy guideline is WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, don't read the blog, read the argument I made here. It makes sense doesn't it? You can agree this is grounds for heavily editing the cues section. You don't need to look at the blog you can just compare the 1974 Nature article on the original Targ-Puthoff experiment with the 1986 "Remote Viewing Exposed" article by David Marks and the 1980 nature article from Charles Tart to see he randomized the target locations in the rejudging. based on those resources (all included and explained in great detail in the blog) should suffice I take it? The blog isn't the source, The Nature article references are. I take it this should be satisfactory to you?Addidy (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we'd need a third party source that passes WP:RS to make those conclusions for us. What you are suggesting is WP:OR (basically, changing the text because you personally have come to conclusions that disagree with a source). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Nature science journal, as far as I am concerned MUST be a WP:RS. As for the rest, this is a contested opinion between two parties to come to a conclusion. We can use our brains to identify that David Marks purposely skewed the dataset by omitting 44% of the original dataset to come to a conclusion that completely ignores basic empirical evidence and tries to use the same logical fallacy to discredit the research that he did in 1981 which was was corrected by Targ in the same year... all in a reliable published WP:RS all explained in explicit details in that blog with actual quotes from the WP:RS. We have to use our brains to select the conclusion that was correct. It is quite obvious Marks either acted in bad faith to make such a flawed investigation or he just simply messed up quite a few times. From the evidence it is clear that the original outbounder experiments are still scientifically valid based on Tart's rejudging. Tart is having his name dragged through the mud because the misinformation published on wikipedia. Only we can correct history. This isn't WP:OR, it is merely correcting a mistake from the past. The blog is an explanation. The sources are all Nature science journal publications, you can compare them side by side and you will come to the same conclusion. It's all in there. Please, this is vitally important we clear someone's name and correct history.Addidy (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. We can't do side by side comparisons of sources, then insert our own analysis into the article that concludes one source is wrong and another is right. We can only summarize what reliable sources have published about a subject. Regarding your request to "clear someone's name and correct history", see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

First off, I want to thank you for being patient. This isn't 'inserting our own analysis', it's common sense based on the information provided. Look at the state of this article... I know I have to play nice but I have to be blunt... it's complete trash. The whole thing reads like something designed to falsify RV as quickly as possible. There are at best 2 sentences that teach you what RV is and even those are skeptically sourced. Do you have any idea how much pain this article brings to the people who have had enough sense to at least try it before coming to conclusions? You guys don't think Targ could've been the one to source the definition?... or maybe have any information on whether there is scientific evidence sourced from the original proponents? It took me 12 hours to start seeing evidence this worked and I look at this garbage to remind myself every day that this world is ruled by dogmatists who don't know any better but drive the narrative anyway. How is anyone supposed to know to try RV with an article like this? Doesn't everything here pretty much violate WP:NPOV. Why aren't the people who actually know what the RV methodologies and protocols are writing this article instead of skeptics that don't know anything but assumptions? It's quite clear the Marks-Kammann investigation was flawed. I knew it would be from the start and I knew that my anecdotal wasn't worth anything. But that's why I wrote that blog. TO PROVE the marks-kammann investigation was a flawed hit piece rife with idiocy. This wikipedia article is a stain on humanity and it's a poison to scientific progress. Everything in that blog is verifiable by trusted sources. I wrote it for the people here so that maybe they could understand: the debunking of RV is a lot shakier than you think, based on a lot less than you might assume.2A01:4B00:8070:E400:139:5EF3:437F:1C40 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Also, many people call their own analysis "common sense", but it is still their own analysis.

You need to get that stuff published in a reliable source. Then you will have fulfilled the minimum requirement for using it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Question about having a quote from Targ

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

Hi, Sgerbic, I got your notification ping. Why we can't cite fringe/self published sources such as Targ's website has been discussed to WP:EXHAUSTION on this Talk page. That "Targ does not think remote viewing is pseudoscience" is a given. Every pseudoscience advocate strenuously objects to their avocation being called pseudoscience, it's an expected denial (see WP:MANDY). However unless these objections are notable in WP:FRIND sources, they don't belong in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - just wanted to make sure I asked and got a clear answer for Addity. I'm going to state one more time for Addity's sake - if you want to become a serious Wikipedia editor then learn the rules, read though this talk page - all of it. Make a user page for yourself so that we know that you are here to stay awhile. And start with pages that you don't have an agenda. As Louie says it would be odd to write that Targ does not agree, because that is implied in the article. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And thank you for that article on MANDY that's the first I've heard of that. Years I've been here and still have a lot to learn. Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I've added it to WP:FLAT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And another one I've never heard of. Sgerbic (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CIA admits that remote viewing isn't bull

A statement was posted to the CIA website confirming that they believe it to be a real phenomenon. It's not obvious to me where this might go – could someone who's inclined include it? — TARDIS builder^💬   |     07:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The consensus view is that CIA got no actionable intelligence through remote viewing, so whether they believe it to be genuine or not is irrelevant. Verbatim quote: but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes. So, yeah, taking the report at face value, they concluded that it works, but it works so badly as to be practically useless. As in general with psi phenomena: they provide some significant correlations, but they are useless in the real world. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, replacing "significant" with "real" is a rookie mistake because correlation is not causation. And it would be very weird if all the CIA had a single opinion about it. There are bound to be people working there who are very smart and knowledgeable and others who are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"Rvvv" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rvvv has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 17 § Rvvv until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

CIA

Stargate Project of CIA must be added. You can go to this website and type "remote view". Thousands of documents will be revealed. Looks like CIA involved "pseudo-scientific" operations. Psycics has been used for operations by CIA. Not adding this information on this page and calling remote view "pseudo-science" is highly biased and suspicious move.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/home 159.146.121.8 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to be able to read and comprehend the existing article. What you want to add to the article is already in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)