Christopher Arnold wrote:
There are people that actually refuse to believe that Remote Viewing is
real too, despite all the evidence.
What evidence?
Has remote viewing been tested objectively, in depth? The only tests I know
of were performed by Hal Puthoff. I know little about them, although he
sent me a paper. I find them inconclusive, and few in number. I do not
think anyone attempted to replicate them, so there is not much evidence
either way.
Of course remote viewing or the Jahn effects seem impossible based on what
we now know of biology and physics, but we know practically NOTHING about
biology. I can list dozens of ordinary, everyday biological phenomena that
seem utterly incredible, and which we cannot begin to explain. They are as
mysterious as cellular reproduction was before the structure of DNA was
elucidated in 1952. DNA is wonderfully elegant and simple, so the truth
seems obvious to us in retrospect. We forget that before 1952 people did
not have a clue about reproduction (or how the nucleus controls the cell,
or any other aspect of DNA). The theories being floated to explain
reproduction turned out to be utterly, profoundly, absurdly wrong. They
turned out to be wildly out of kilter -- as bad as most people today would
say claims about ESP, remote viewing, or for that matter cold fusion are.
In short, the fact that something seems impossible is no indication that it
really is impossible (especially in biology); and the fact that experts
think a theory is plausible is no guarantee that it really is. Or, as the
Great American Fats Waller put it:
"One never knows, do one?"
Experiment -- and experiment alone -- is only standard of truth. If there
have not been many experiments in remote viewing, then no one knows whether
it is real or not.
- Jed
