This will finish up my notes on the first study, sections 4.6, 6 and 7 below were the most interesting to me:
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioningby Jessica Utts
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf
Lots of interesting ideas and questions to take into reading other studies - there are about a hundred peer-reviewed articled on Radin's evidence site:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
maybe there is a black swan or two in the flock . . .
3.4 Consistency with Other Laboratories in the Same Era
- These consistent results across laboratories help refute the idea that the successful experiments at any one lab are the result of fraud, sloppy protocols or some methodological problem and also provide an indication of what can be expected in future experiments.
4. The SAIC Era -An Overview
The review team decided to focus more intensively on the experiments conducted at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), because they provide a manageable yet varied set to examine in detail. They were guided by a Scientific Oversight Committee consisting of experts in a variety of disciplines, including a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, internationally known professors of statistics, psychology, neuroscience and astronomy and a medical doctor who is a retired U.S. Army Major General. Further, we have access to the details for the full set of SAIC experiments, unlike for the set conducted at SRI. Whatever details may be missing from the written reports are obtainable from the principal investigator, Dr. Edwin May, to whom we have been given unlimited access.
4.2 The Ten Experiments
4.3 Assessing the Remote Viewing Experiments by Homogeneous Sets of Sessions
- summary tables in the preceding two sections
4.4 Consistency and Replicability of the Remote Viewing Results
One of the most important hallmarks of science is
replicability. A phenomenon with statistical variability . . . should exhibit about the same level of success in the long run, over repeated experiments of a similar nature. The remote viewing experiments are no exception. . . .
The overall effect sizes for two of the three, viewers 009 and 372, were very close to the SRI effect size of 0.385 for these subjects, at 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, and the 0.35 effect size for Viewer 009 was very similar to his 0.363 effect size in the report by May, Lantz and Piantineda (1994). Therefore, we see a repeated and, more importantly, hopefully a repeatable level of functioning above chance for these individuals. An effect of this size should be reliable enough to be sustained in any properly conducted experiment with enough trials to obtain the long run statistical replicability required to rule out chance.
It is also important to notice that viewers 009 and 372 did well on the same
experiments and poorly on the same experiments. In fact the correlation between
their effect sizes across experiments is 0.901, which is very close to a
perfect correlation of 1 .O.
4.5 Methodological Issues in the Remote Viewing Experiments at SAIC
*4.6 Was Anything Learned at SAIC?
theory
change in visual entropy
Each of the five senses with which we are familiar is a change detector. Our
vision is most readily drawn to something that is moving, and in fact if our eyes
are kept completely still, we cease to see at all. Similarly, we hear because of
moving air, and our attention is drawn to sudden changes in sound levels.
Other senses behave similarly. Thus, it is reasonable that if there really is a
"psychic sense" then it would follow that same pattern.
It is worth speculating on what this might mean for determining how psychic
functioning works.
Physicists are currently (published 1996) grappling with the concept of time, and cannot rule out precognition as being consistent with current understanding. Perhaps it is the case that we do have a psychic sense, much like our other senses, and that it works by scanning the future for possibilities of major change much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change and our ears are responsive to auditory change. That idea is consistent with anecdotal reports of precognition, which are generally concerned with events involving major life change. Laboratory remote viewing may in part work by someone directing the viewer to focus on a particular point in the future, that in which he or she receives the feedback from the experiment. It may also be the case that this same sense can scan the environment in actual time and detect change as well.
4.6.2. Remote Staring
4.6.3 Enhanced Binary Computer Guessing.
5. External Validation: Replications of Other Experiments
*Ganzfield experiments
5.3 Conclusions About External Replication
The results shown in Table 3 show that remote viewing has been conceptually (?) replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not in such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological problems could account for the remarkable consistency of results shown in Table 3.
6. Is Remote Viewing Useful?
Even if we were all to agree that anomalous cognition is possible, there re-mains the question of whether or not it would have any practical use for government purposes. The answer to that question is beyond the scope of this report, but some speculations can be made about how to increase the usefulness.
First, it appears that anomalous cognition is to some extent possible in the general population. None of the ganzfeld experiments used exclusively selected subjects. However, it also appears that certain individuals possess more talent than others, and that it is easier to find those individuals than to train people. It also appears to be the case that certain individuals are better at some tasks than others. For instance, Viewer 372 at SAIC appears to have a facility with describing technical sites.
Second, if remote viewing is to be useful, the end users must be trained in what it can do and what it cannot. Given our current level of understanding, it is rarely 100 percent accurate, and there is no reliable way to learn what is accurate and what is not. The same is probably true of most sources of intelligence data.
Third, what is useful for one purpose may not be useful for another. For in-
stance, suppose a remote viewer could describe the setting in which a hostage is being held. That information may not be any use at all to those unfamiliar with the territory, but could be useful to those familiar with it.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been
demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.
What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.
I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look
for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical
problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Re-
sources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability
works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other
questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if ap
propriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.
. . . and now on to the next study . . .
