Skip to main content

Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect"

Contested
Marks, David F 1982 Ganzfeld Era remote_viewing

📌 Appears in:

Plain English Summary

In the late 1970s, Stanford Research Institute claimed two subjects could "remotely view" distant locations using ESP. Psychologist David Marks investigated -- and what he found was devastating. The original researchers refused to release raw transcripts (red flag!). When Marks obtained them anyway, he discovered they were riddled with giveaway clues: dates, experimenter names, and cross-session references having nothing to do with psychic ability. The jaw-dropping part: Marks sent these cue-laden transcripts to judges in New Zealand, who matched them to locations just as accurately as the originals -- using only mundane clues, no ESP required. Surveying all replication attempts, he found a clean pattern: tightly controlled studies came up empty, while positive results only appeared in sloppy designs. Remote viewing, Marks concluded, is a methodological mirage. His work set the standards that all serious RV research has followed since.

Abstract

Well-controlled experiments don't find the "RV effect," while poorly controlled ones do. These and numerous other problems lead to the conclusion that remote viewing is a cognitive illusion.

Related Papers

More in Remote Viewing

📋 Cite this paper
APA
Marks, David F (1982). Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect". The Skeptical Inquirer.
BibTeX
@article{marks_1982_remote_viewing_revisited,
  title = {Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect"},
  author = {Marks, David F},
  year = {1982},
  journal = {The Skeptical Inquirer},
}