Editing Clairvoyance (section)

==Parapsychology==

===Early research===
The earliest record of [[Sleepwalking|somnambulist]] clairvoyance is credited to the [[Armand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis of Puységur|Marquis de Puységur]], a follower of [[Franz Mesmer]], who in 1784 was treating a local dull-witted peasant named Victor Race. During treatment, Race reportedly went into a trance and underwent a personality change, becoming fluent and articulate, and giving diagnosis and prescription for his own disease as well as those of others.<ref>[[Ann Taves|Taves, Ann]]. (1999). ''Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to James''. Princeton University Press. p. 126. {{ISBN|0-691-01024-2}}</ref> Clairvoyance was a reported ability of some mediums during the [[Spiritualism (movement)|spiritualist]] period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and psychics of many descriptions have claimed clairvoyant ability up to the present day.<ref>[[Ray Hyman|Hyman, Ray]]. (1985). ''A Critical Historical Overview of Parapsychology''. In [[Paul Kurtz|Kurtz, Paul]]. ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 3–96. {{ISBN|0-87975-300-5}}</ref>

[[File:Character reader and Clairvoyant.jpg|thumb|Character reader and clairvoyant in a British travelling show of the 1940s, collected by Arthur James Fenwick (1878–1957)]]

Early researchers of clairvoyance included [[William Gregory (chemist)|William Gregory]], Gustav Pagenstecher, and [[Rudolf Tischner]].<ref>Roeckelein, Jon. (2006). ''Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories''. Elsevier Science. p. 450. {{ISBN|0-444-51750-2}}</ref> Clairvoyance experiments were reported in 1884 by [[Charles Richet]]. Playing cards were enclosed in envelopes and a subject under hypnosis attempted to identify them. The subject was reported to have been successful in a series of 133 trials but the results dropped to chance level when performed before a group of scientists in Cambridge. J. M. Peirce and [[Edward Charles Pickering|E. C. Pickering]] reported a similar experiment in which they tested 36 subjects over 23,384 trials. They did not find above chance scores.<ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel|Hansel, C. E. M]]. ''The Search for a Demonstration of ESP''. In [[Paul Kurtz]]. (1985). ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 97–127. {{ISBN|0-87975-300-5}}</ref>

[[Ivor Lloyd Tuckett]] (1911) and [[Joseph McCabe]] (1920) analyzed early cases of clairvoyance and concluded they were best explained by coincidence or fraud.<ref>[[Joseph McCabe|McCabe, Joseph]]. (1920). ''Is Spiritualism Based On Fraud? The Evidence Given By Sir A. C. Doyle and Others Drastically Examined''. Chapter ''The Subtle Art of Clairvoyance''. London: Watts & Co. pp. 93–108</ref><ref>[[Ivor Lloyd Tuckett|Tuckett, Ivor Lloyd]]. (1911). ''The Evidence for the Supernatural: A Critical Study Made with "Uncommon Sense"''. Chapter ''Telepathy and Clairvoyance''. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner. pp. 107–142</ref> In 1919, the magician [[P. T. Selbit]] staged a séance at his flat in [[Bloomsbury]]. The spiritualist [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] attended and declared the clairvoyance manifestations genuine.<ref>Baker, Robert A. (1996). ''Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions From Within''. Prometheus Books. p. 234. {{ISBN|978-1-57392-094-0}}</ref><ref>Christopher, Milbourne. (1996). ''The Illustrated History of Magic''. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 264. {{ISBN|978-0-435-07016-8}}</ref>

A significant development in clairvoyance research came when [[Joseph Banks Rhine|J. B. Rhine]], a parapsychologist at [[Duke University]], introduced a standard methodology, with a standard statistical approach to analyzing data, as part of his research into [[extrasensory perception]]. A number of psychological departments attempted and failed to repeat Rhine's experiments. At [[Princeton University]], W. S. Cox (1936) produced 25,064 trials with 132 subjects in a playing card ESP experiment. Cox concluded: "There is no evidence of extrasensory perception either in the 'average man' or of the group investigated or in any particular individual of that group. The discrepancy between these results and those obtained by Rhine is due either to uncontrollable factors in experimental procedure or to the difference in the subjects."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cox | first1 = W. S. | year = 1936 | title = An experiment in ESP | doi = 10.1037/h0054630 | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 19 | issue = 4| page = 437 }}</ref> Four other psychological departments failed to replicate Rhine's results.<ref>[[Joseph Jastrow|Jastrow, Joseph]]. (1938). ''ESP, House of Cards''. The American Scholar. Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 13–22. "Rhine's results fail to be confirmed. At Colgate University (40, 000 tests, 7 subjects), at Chicago (extensive series on 315 students), at Southern Methodist College (75, 000 tests), at Glasgow, Scotland (6, 650 tests), at London University (105, 000 tests), not a single individual was found who under rigidly conducted experiments could score above chance. At Stanford University it has been convincingly shown that the conditions favorable to the intrusion of subtle errors produce above-chance records which come down to chance when sources of error are eliminated."</ref><ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel|Hansel, C. E. M]]. ''The Search for a Demonstration of ESP''. In [[Paul Kurtz]]. (1985). ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 105–127. {{ISBN|0-87975-300-5}}
*{{cite journal | last1 = Adam | first1 = E. T. | year = 1938 | title = A summary of some negative experiments | journal = Journal of Parapsychology | volume = 2 | pages = 232–236 }}
*Crumbaugh, J. C. (1938). ''An experimental study of extra-sensory perception''. Masters thesis. Southern Methodist University.
*{{cite journal | last1 = Heinlein | first1 = C. P | last2 = Heinlein | first2 = J. H. | year = 1938 | title = Critique of the premises of statistical methodology of parapsychology | journal = Journal of Parapsychology | volume = 5 | pages = 135–148 | doi=10.1080/00223980.1938.9917558}}
*Willoughby, R. R. (1938). ''Further card-guessing experiments''. ''Journal of Psychology'' 18: 3–13.</ref> It was revealed that Rhine's experiments contained methodological flaws and procedural errors.<ref>[[Harold Gulliksen|Gulliksen, Harold]]. (1938). ''Extra-Sensory Perception: What Is It?''. ''American Journal of Sociology''. Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 623–634. "Investigating Rhine's methods, we find that his mathematical methods are wrong and that the effect of this error would in some cases be negligible and in others very marked. We find that many of his experiments were set up in a manner which would tend to increase, instead of to diminish, the possibility of systematic clerical errors; and lastly, that the ESP cards can be read from the back."</ref><ref>Wynn, Charles; Wiggins, Arthur. (2001). ''Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins''. Joseph Henry Press. p. 156. {{ISBN|978-0-309-07309-7}} "In 1940, Rhine coauthored a book, ''Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years'' in which he suggested that something more than mere guess work was involved in his experiments. He was right! It is now known that the experiments conducted in his laboratory contained serious methodological flaws. Tests often took place with minimal or no screening between the subject and the person administering the test. Subjects could see the backs of cards that were later discovered to be so cheaply printed that a faint outline of the symbol could be seen. Furthermore, in face-to-face tests, subjects could see card faces reflected in the tester's eyeglasses or cornea. They were even able to (consciously or unconsciously) pick up clues from the tester's facial expression and voice inflection. In addition, an observant subject could identify the cards by certain irregularities like warped edges, spots on the backs, or design imperfections."</ref><ref>[[Terence Hines|Hines, Terence]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 122. {{ISBN|978-1573929790}} "The procedural errors in the Rhine experiments have been extremely damaging to his claims to have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Equally damaging has been the fact that the results have not replicated when the experiments have been conducted in other laboratories."</ref>

[[Eileen Garrett]] was tested by Rhine at Duke University in 1933 with [[Zener cards]]. Certain symbols were placed on the cards and sealed in an envelope, and she was asked to guess their contents. She performed poorly and later criticized the tests by claiming the cards lacked a [[Energy (esotericism)|psychic energy]] called "energy stimulus" and that she could not perform clairvoyance on command.<ref>Hazelgrove, Jenny. (2000). ''Spiritualism and British Society Between the Wars''. Manchester University Press. p. 204. {{ISBN|978-0719055591}}</ref> The parapsychologist [[Samuel Soal]] and his colleagues tested Garrett in May 1937. Most of the experiments were carried out in the Psychological Laboratory at the [[University College London]]. A total of over 12,000 guesses were recorded but Garrett failed to produce above chance level.<ref>Russell, A. S; Benn, John Andrews. (1938). ''Discovery the Popular Journal of Knowledge''. Cambridge University Press. pp. 305–306</ref> Soal wrote: "In the case of Mrs. Eileen Garrett we fail to find the slightest confirmation of Dr. J. B. Rhine's remarkable claims relating to her alleged powers of extra-sensory perception. Not only did she fail when I took charge of the experiments, but she failed equally when four other carefully trained experimenters took my place."<ref>[[Samuel Soal|Soal, Samuel]]. ''A Repetition of Dr. Rhine's work with Mrs. Eileen Garrett''. Proc. S.P.R. Vol. XLII. pp. 84–85. Also quoted in [[Antony Flew]]. (1955). ''A New Approach To Psychical Research''. Watts & Co. pp. 90–92.</ref>

===Remote viewing===

[[Remote viewing]], also known as remote sensing, remote perception, telesthesia and travelling clairvoyance, is the alleged paranormal ability to perceive a remote or hidden target without support of the senses.<ref>{{cite book |last=Blom |first=Jan |title=A dictionary of hallucinations |publisher=Springer |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4419-1222-0 |publication-place=New York |page=451 |oclc=618047801}}</ref>

A well-known recent study of remote viewing is the US government-funded project at the [[SRI International|Stanford Research Institute]] from the 1970s through the mid-1990s. In 1972, [[Harold E. Puthoff]] and [[Russell Targ]] initiated a series of human subject studies to determine whether participants (the ''viewers'' or ''percipients'') could reliably identify and accurately describe salient features of remote locations (''targets''). In the early studies, a human ''sender'' was typically present at the remote location as part of the experiment protocol. A three-step process was used. First, target conditions to be experienced by the senders were randomly selected. Second, in the viewing step, participants were asked to verbally express or sketch their impressions of the remote scene. Third, these descriptions were matched by separate judges, as closely as possible, with the intended targets. The term [[remote viewing]] was coined to describe this overall process. The first paper by Puthoff and Targ on remote viewing was published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' in March 1974; in it, the team reported some degree of remote viewing success.<ref name="nat251">{{Cite journal |last1=Targ |first1=Russel |last2=Puthoff |first2=Harold |year=1974 |title=Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding |journal=Nature |volume=251 |issue=5476 |pages=602–607 |bibcode=1974Natur.251..602T |doi=10.1038/251602a0 |pmid=4423858 |s2cid=4152651}}</ref> After the publication of these findings, other attempts to replicate the experiments were carried out <ref name="hast1">{{Cite journal |author=Hastings, A.C. |last2=Hurt |first2=D.B. |date=October 1976 |title=A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=64 |issue=10 |pages=1544–1545 |doi=10.1109/PROC.1976.10369 |s2cid=36582119}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |author=Whitson, T.W. |last2=Bogart |first2=D.N. |last3=Palmer |first3=J. |last4=Tart |first4=C.T. |date=October 1976 |title=Preliminary experiments in group 'Remote viewing' |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=64 |issue=10 |pages=1550–1551 |doi=10.1109/PROC.1976.10371 |s2cid=27302086}}</ref> with remotely linked groups using computer conferencing.<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Vallee, J. |last2=Hastings |first2=A.C. |last3=Askevold |first3=G. |date=October 1976 |title=Remote viewing experiments through computer conferencing |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=64 |issue=10 |pages=1551–1552 |doi=10.1109/PROC.1976.10372 |s2cid=24096224}}</ref>

The psychologists [[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]] and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff's remote viewing experiments at the Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they could not do so, so they investigated the original experiments' procedure. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or the date of the session at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues explained the experiment's high hit rates.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marks |first1=David |author-link=David Marks (psychologist) |last2=Kammann |first2=Richard |year=1978 |title=Information transmission in remote viewing experiments |journal=Nature |volume=274 |issue=5672 |pages=680–681 |bibcode=1978Natur.274..680M |doi=10.1038/274680a0 |s2cid=4249968}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marks |first1=David |author-link=David Marks (psychologist) |year=1981 |title=Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments |journal=Nature |volume=292 |issue=5819 |page=177 |bibcode=1981Natur.292..177M |doi=10.1038/292177a0 |pmid=7242682 |s2cid=4326382|doi-access=free }}</ref> Marks achieved 100% accuracy without visiting any of the sites but by using cues.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bridgstock |first=Martin |title=Beyond belief: skepticism, science and the paranormal |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-521-75893-2 |publication-place=Cambridge Port Melbourne, Vic |page=106 |oclc=652432050 |quote=The explanation used by Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of [[Occam's razor]]. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues'—clues to the order in which sites had been visited—provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve 100 percent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified.}}</ref> [[James Randi]] has written that controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues inadvertently included in the transcripts.<ref>{{cite Encyclopedia of Claims|title=Remote Viewing|first-letter=R|access-date=26 January 2022|archive-url=|archive-date=}}</ref>

In 1980, [[Charles Tart]] claimed that a rejudging of the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthoff's experiments revealed an above-chance result.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tart |first1=Charles |author-link=Charles Tart |last2=Puthoff |first2=Harold |author-link2=Harold E. Puthoff |last3=Targ |first3=Russell |author-link3=Russell Targ |year=1980 |title=Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments |journal=Nature |volume=284 |issue=5752 |page=191 |bibcode=1980Natur.284..191T |doi=10.1038/284191a0 |pmid=7360248 |doi-access=free |s2cid=4326363}}</ref> Targ and Puthoff again refused to provide copies of the transcripts, and they were not made available for study until July 1985, when it was discovered they still contained [[sensory cue]]s.<ref>{{cite book |last=Hines |first=Terence |title=Pseudoscience and the paranormal |publisher=Prometheus Books |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-57392-979-0 |publication-place=Amherst, NY |page=136 |oclc=50124260 |author-link=Terence Hines}}</ref> Marks and Christopher Scott (1986) wrote: "considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart's failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously concluded, remote viewing has not been demonstrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marks |first1=David |author-link=David Marks (psychologist) |last2=Scott |first2=Christopher |year=1986 |title=Remote Viewing Exposed |journal=Nature |volume=319 |issue=6053 |page=444 |bibcode=1986Natur.319..444M |doi=10.1038/319444a0 |pmid=3945330 |doi-access=free |s2cid=13642580}}</ref>

In 1982, [[Robert G. Jahn]], then Dean of the School of Engineering at Princeton University, wrote a comprehensive review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perspective. His paper included numerous references to remote viewing studies at the time.<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Jahn, R.G. |date=February 1982 |title=The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective |url=http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1982-persistant-paradox-psychic-phenomena.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514011527/http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1982-persistant-paradox-psychic-phenomena.pdf |archive-date=2011-05-14 |url-status=live |journal=Proceedings of the IEEE |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=136–170 |citeseerx=10.1.1.15.8760 |doi=10.1109/PROC.1982.12260 |s2cid=31434794}}</ref> Statistical flaws in his work have been proposed by others in the parapsychological community and the general scientific community.<ref name="Jeffers2006">{{cite journal |author=Stanley Jeffers |date=May–June 2006 |title=The PEAR proposition: Fact or fallacy? |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=30 |issue=3 |access-date=2014-01-24 |archive-date=February 1, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201122738/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=George P. Hansen |title=Princeton Remote-Viewing Experiments (PEAR) – A Critique |url=http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm |access-date=2014-04-06 |publisher=Tricksterbook.com}}</ref>