Editing Clairvoyance (section)

==Scientific reception==

According to scientific research, clairvoyance is generally explained as the result of [[confirmation bias]], [[Observer-expectancy effect|expectancy bias]], fraud, [[hallucination]], self-[[delusion]], [[sensory leakage]], [[subjective validation]], [[wishful thinking]] or failures to appreciate the base rate of chance occurrences and not as a paranormal power.<ref name=skepdic1/><ref>Rawcliffe, Donovan. (1988). ''Occult and Supernatural Phenomena''. Dover Publications. pp. 367–463. {{ISBN|0-486-20503-7}}</ref><ref>[[Graham Reed (psychologist)|Reed, Graham]]. (1988). ''The Psychology of Anomalous Experience: A Cognitive Approach''. Prometheus Books. {{ISBN|0-87975-435-4}}</ref><ref>Zusne, Leonard; Jones, Warren. (1989). ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking''. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 152–168. {{ISBN|0-8058-0508-7}}</ref> Parapsychology is generally regarded by the scientific community as a [[pseudoscience]].<ref>Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). ''At the Fringes of Science''. Westview Press. p. 119. {{ISBN|0-8133-2200-6}} "Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time."</ref><ref>[[Massimo Pigliucci|Pigliucci, Massimo]]; [[Maarten Boudry|Boudry, Maarten]]. (2013). ''Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem''. University of Chicago Press p. 158. {{ISBN|978-0-226-05196-3}} "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated."</ref> In 1988, the [[United States National Research Council|US National Research Council]] concluded "The committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."<ref>[[Thomas Gilovich|Gilovich, Thomas]]. (1993). ''How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life''. Free Press. p. 160. {{ISBN|978-0-02-911706-4}}</ref>

[[Scientific skepticism|Skeptics]] say that if clairvoyance were a reality, it would have become abundantly clear. They also contend that those who believe in [[paranormal]] phenomena do so for merely psychological reasons.<ref>[[Chris French|French, Chis]]; Wilson, Krissy. (2007). ''Cognitive Factors Underlying Paranormal Beliefs and Experiences''. In Sala, Sergio. ''Tall Tales About the Mind and Brain: Separating Fact From Fiction''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–22. {{ISBN|978-0198568773}}</ref> According to [[David Myers (academic)|David G. Myers]] (''Psychology,'' 8th ed.):

<blockquote>The search for a valid and reliable test of clairvoyance has resulted in thousands of experiments. One controlled procedure has invited 'senders' to telepathically transmit one of four visual images to 'receivers' deprived of sensation in a nearby chamber (Bem & Honorton, 1994). The result? A reported 32 percent accurate response rate, surpassing the chance rate of 25 percent. But follow-up studies have (depending on who was summarizing the results) failed to replicate the phenomenon or produced mixed results (Bem & others, 2001; Milton & Wiseman, 2002; Storm, 2000, 2003).<br /><br />One skeptic, magician [[James Randi]], had a longstanding offer of [[One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge|U.S. $1 million]]—"to anyone who proves a genuine psychic power under proper observing conditions" (Randi, 1999). French, Australian, and Indian groups have parallel offers of up to 200,000 euros to anyone with demonstrable paranormal abilities (CFI, 2003). Large as these sums are, the scientific seal of approval would be worth far more to anyone whose claims could be authenticated. To refute those who say there is no ESP, one need only produce a single person who can demonstrate a single, reproducible ESP phenomenon. So far, no such person has emerged. Randi's offer has been publicized for three decades and dozens of people have been tested, sometimes under the scrutiny of an independent panel of judges. Still, nothing.  "People's desire to believe in the paranormal is stronger than all the evidence that it does not exist." [[Susan Blackmore]], "Blackmore's first law", 2004.<ref>[[David Myers (academic)|Myers, David]]. (2006). ''Psychology''. Worth Publishers; 8th edition. {{ISBN|978-0716764281}}</ref></blockquote>

Clairvoyance is considered a [[hallucination]] by mainstream [[psychiatry]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Blom|first1=Jan Dirk|title=A Dictionary of Hallucinations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qbF44AEMGdcC&q=clairvoyance+is+hallucination&pg=PA99|access-date=2012-01-11|year=2010|publisher=Springer Science+Business Media, LLC|location=New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London|isbn=978-1-4419-1222-0|doi=10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7|page=99|quote='''Clairvoyance'''<br><br>Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. ''Clairvoyance'' is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.<br><br>'''Reference'''<br>Guily, R.E. (1991) ''Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience.'' New York: Castle Books.}}</ref>