, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 322–326 | Cite as

Remote viewing

  • C. Scott
Multi-author Review Investigating the Paranormal


Remote viewing is the supposed faculty which enables a percipient, sited in a closed room, to describe the perceptions of a remote agent visiting an unknown target site. To provide convincing demonstration of such a faculty poses a range of experimental and practical problems, especially if feedback to the percipient is allowed after each trial. The precautions needed are elaborate and troublesome; many potential loopholes have to be plugged and there will be strong temptations to relax standards, requiring exceptional discipline and dedication by the experimenters. Most reports of remote viewing experiments are rather superficial and do not permit assessment of the experimental procedures with confidence; in many cases there is clear evidence of particular loopholes left unclosed. Any serious appraisal of the evidence would have to go beyond the reports. Meanwhile the published evidence is far from compelling, and certainly insufficient to justify overthrow of well-established scientific principles.

Key words

Remote viewing ESP feedback data selection bias fraud statistics methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, S., Green, P., Rucker, K., Cohen, R., Goolsby, C., and Morris, R. L., A remote viewing study using a modified version of the SRI procedure, in: Research in Parapsychology 1975, pp. 46–48. Eds J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll and R. L. Morris. Scarecrow, Metuchen, N. J. 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bisaha, J. P., and Dunne, B. J., Multiple subject and long-distance precognitive remote viewing of geographic locations, in: Mind at Large. Eds C. T. Tart, H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ. Praeger, N.Y. 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, D. C., Personal communication cited by Karnes et al., ref. 6 below.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dingwall, E., Abnormal Hypnotic Phenomena, vol. III. Churchill, London 1968.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunne, D. J., Jahn, R. G., and Nelson, R. D., Precognitive remote perception, Technical Note 83003, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, Princeton University 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karnes, E. W., Ballou, J., Susman, E. P., and Swaraff, P., Remote viewing: failures to replicate with control comparisons. Psychol. Rep.45 (1979) 963–973.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marks, D., Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments. Nature292 (1981) 177.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marks, D., and Kammann, R., Information transmission in remote viewing experiments. Nature274 (1978) 680–681.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marks, D., and Kammann, R., The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marks, D., and Scott, C., Remote viewing exposed. Nature319 (1986) 444.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris, R. L., An exact method for evaluating preferentially matched free-response material, J. Am. Soc. psychical. Res.46 (1972) 79–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ornstein, R., Review of Mind-Reach, New York Times (March 13, 1977).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puthoff, H. E., Targ, R., and May, E. C., Experimental psi research: implication for physics, in: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World, pp. 37–86. Ed. R. G. Jahn. Westview, Boulder, CO 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Puthoff, H., and Targ, R., Rebuttal of criticisms of remote viewing experiments. Nature292 (1981) 388.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rauscher, E. A., Weismann, G., Sarfatti, J., and Sirag, S.-P., Remote perception of natural scenes shielded against ordinary perception, in: Research in Parapsychology 1975, pp. 41–46. Eds J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll and R. L. Morris. Scarecrow, Metuchen, N. J. 1976.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schlitz, M., and Gruber, E., Transcontinental remote viewing. J. Parapsychol.44 (1980) 305–317.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott, C., No ‘remote viewing’. Nature298 (1982) 414.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Targ, R., and Puthoff, H., Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature251 (1974) 602–607.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Targ, R., and Puthoff, H. E., Mind-Reach: scientists look at psychic ability. Delacorte, New York 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tart, C. T., Puthoff, H. E., and Targ, R., Information transmission in remote viewing experiments. Nature284 (1980) 191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.London(England)

Personalised recommendations