Editing Clairvoyance (section)

===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>