Editing Remote viewing (section)

===Sensory cues===

The psychologists [[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]] and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff's remote viewing experiments<ref name=":0" /> that were carried out in the 1970s at the [[SRI International|Stanford Research Institute]]. In a series of 35 studies, they could not replicate the results, so they investigated the procedure of the original experiments. 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 having the session date written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for 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 | doi=10.1038/274680a0 | bibcode = 1978Natur.274..680M| 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 | doi=10.1038/292177a0 | pmid = 7242682 | bibcode = 1981Natur.292..177M| s2cid = 4326382 | doi-access = free }}</ref> According to [[Terence Hines]]:

{{blockquote|Examination of the few actual transcripts published by Targ and Puthoff show that just such clues were present. To find out if the unpublished transcripts contained cues, Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts. Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues.<ref>[[Terence Hines|Hines, Terence]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 135. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref>}}

[[Thomas Gilovich]] has written:

{{blockquote|Most of the material in the transcripts consists of the honest attempts by the percipients to describe their impressions. However, the transcripts also contained considerable extraneous material that could aid a judge in matching them to the correct targets. In particular, there were numerous references to dates, times and sites previously visited that would enable the judge to place the transcripts in proper sequence... Astonishingly, the judges in the Targ-Puthoff experiments were given a list of target sites in the exact order in which they were used in the tests!<ref name="Gilovich 1993"/>}}

According to Marks, when the cues were eliminated the results fell to a chance level.<ref name="Marks 2000"/> Marks achieved 100 percent accuracy using cues alone, without visiting any of the sites himself.{{refn|group=n|Martin Bridgstock wrote in ''Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal'': "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>{{cite book |first= Martin |last= Bridgstock |year= 2009 |title= Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal |publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]] |page= 106 |isbn= 978-0521758932}}</ref>}} [[James Randi]] has written that controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cueing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students also solved Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues in the transcripts.<ref name= "randi_encyclopedia"/>

Marks and Kamman concluded: "Until remote viewing can be confirmed in conditions which prevent sensory cueing the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff remain an unsubstantiated hypothesis."<ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel|Hansel, C. E. M]]. (1980). ''ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation''. Prometheus Books. p. 293</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 | author-link2 = Harold E. Puthoff | author-link3 = Russell Targ | last2 = Puthoff | first2 = Harold | last3 = Targ | first3 = Russell | year = 1980 | title = Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 284 | issue = 5752 | page = 191 | doi=10.1038/284191a0 | pmid = 7360248 | bibcode = 1980Natur.284..191T| doi-access = free }}</ref> Targ and Puthoff again refused to provide copies of the transcripts and it was not until July 1985 that they were made available for study when it was discovered they still contained [[sensory cue]]s.<ref name="Paranormal. Prometheus Books p. 136"/> 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 | doi=10.1038/319444a0 | pmid = 3945330 | bibcode = 1986Natur.319..444M| doi-access = free }}</ref>

The information from the [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Stargate Project]] remote viewing sessions was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data. The project was never useful in any intelligence operation, and it was suspected that the project managers, in some cases, changed the reports so they would fit background cues.{{refn|group=n|name="Eval of RV"|Mumford, Rose and Goslin wrote, in ''An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications'': "remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for 'actionable' intelligence operations{{snd}}that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result (...) a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports. (...) remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with known background cues. While this was appropriate in that situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomena independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume."<ref name="psiland">{{cite book |last1= Mumford |first1= Michael D. |last2= Rose |first2= Andrew M. |last3= Goslin |first3= David A. |title= An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications |url= http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf |date= 29 September 1995 |publisher= [[American Institutes for Research]] |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170113100257/http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/AirReport.pdf |archive-date= 13 January 2017 }}</ref>}}

Marks in his book ''[[The Psychology of the Psychic]]'' (2000) discussed the flaws in the Stargate Project in detail.<ref name="Marks 2">[[David Marks (psychologist)|Marks, David]]. (2000). ''[[The Psychology of the Psychic]]'' (2nd Edition). Prometheus Books. pp. 71–96. {{ISBN|1573927988}}</ref> He wrote that the experiments had several flaws. The possibility of cues or [[sensory leakage]] was not ruled out, the experiments were not independently [[Reproducibility|replicated]], and some of the experiments were conducted in secret, making [[peer review]] impossible. He further noted that the judge, [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Edwin May]], was also the [[principal investigator]] for the project, risking a significant conflict of interest. Marks concluded the project was nothing more than a "subjective delusion", and after two decades of research, it had failed to provide any scientific evidence for remote viewing.<ref name="Marks 2"/>

Professor [[Richard Wiseman]], a psychologist at the [[University of Hertfordshire]], and a fellow of the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] (CSI) has pointed out several problems with one of the early experiments at SAIC, including information leakage. However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems.<ref name="wiseman_one" /> Wiseman later insisted there were multiple opportunities for participants in that experiment to be influenced by cues and that these cues can affect the results when they appear.<ref name="wiseman_may" />