In ''remote viewing'' the claimant alleges a special ability to ''see'' or describe remote scenes where he is not physically present (and usually where he has never been). In the mid-70s, Russel Targ and Harold Puthoff, two physicist at SRI International’s Radio Physics Laboratory, caused a media stir when they presented research results showing that subjects were able to describe remote locations with greater than chance accuracy. However, in 1980 when David Marks and Richard Kammann, two psychologists at the University of Otago in New Zealand eliminated some control flaws from the research protocol, they were unable to replicate Tark and Puthoff’s results. In the mid-80s, University of Oregon psychologist Ray Hyman replicated Marks and Kammann's disconfirmatory findings. In short, there is no empirical support for the validity of remote viewing. Conclusion: Practitioners of ''remote viewing'' are driven by the singular motive to separate vulnerable believers from their money. If someone claims to have remote viewing ability and is willing to work pro bono, there’s probably no harm in giving it a whirl. But if they charge a fee, beat a hasty retreat. Caveat emptor.
|
