[LawrenceKerr]

Phew... where to start? I think before randomly citing research, it's best to approach this subject theoretically first.

Assume "psi" exists. Purely as a thought experiment. What does this mean?

One key implication would be that consciousness can somehow access information beyond normal sensory channels. If this ability exists, it would likely be influenced by psychological factors - just like any other cognitive function. This leads us to a fascinating paradox: Our beliefs and expectations about psi would logically affect our ability to demonstrate it.

This is exactly what researchers have found with the supposed "sheep-goat effect" - where belief in psi correlates with performance in psi experiments. While skeptics often dismiss this as special pleading, the ultimate cop-out for negative results, it's actually a logical consequence of the initial premise. Strong skepticism could act as a psychological barrier, while openness might facilitate the phenomena.

This creates an interesting epistemological challenge. Unlike testing a new drug where belief shouldn't affect the chemical reaction, testing psi inherently involves consciousness - and therefore belief systems. The field has faced intense scrutiny because of these challenges and its implications. When Bem published his precognition studies in 2011, it sparked unprecedented criticism and launched psychology's replication crisis.

However, this scrutiny has led to increasingly rigorous methods in the field - despite this controversial topic being a potential career-ender and underfunded (although there are some private initiatives...).

So, having said all that as an important preface, in my opinion... One answer to your question: a recent example is the 2023 study in Brain and Behavior examining CIA remote viewing experiments (Escolà-Gascón et al.). Using extensive controls and blind conditions, they found significant above-chance results in high emotional intelligence participants. The authors - who describe themselves as skeptically oriented - conclude their data shows "robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi." They argue for continued rigorous research while acknowledging the philosophical challenges these findings present.

This isn't hard proof of psi, yet, but it's evidence that there may be more going on than skeptics may think. We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, just because it's so controversial, and because it seems incompatible with a materialist worldview that says "mind" must be spatially and temporally localised, and cannot access or manipulate information elsewhere.

[wat10000]

That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it.

Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs.

We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision.

And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.

[LawrenceKerr]

I did say my preface does sound like a rationalization... The difference with religious arguments is: here we can gather statistical evidence, build better experimental protocols and generate hypotheses about potential mechanisms. And the believer vs non-believer thing is, as the evidence shows, an important piece of the puzzle.

It's true the placebo effect affects other research too (and honestly I think the explanation for why it does so, isn't different than in parapsychological research, but I digress). It's also true studies (including the study I cited) try to account for this, so I don't understand why you bring this up as if it's a counter argument for what I wrote?

If psi doesn't exist, then it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not - empirically we would observe the same outcomes for both groups, no? That's one starting point.

And while you are claiming you aren't dismissing it because it's controversial, I feel like you are literally doing so.

No, the results published so far aren't conclusive (I stated this as well in the post you are replying to), but again, if you are truly impartial, how can it not be evidence that it may be worth exploring further? It's okay to say it doesn't interest you and not have an opinion on the matter, but I think, if you are dismissing it as invalid, you should at least provide arguments for why the evidence is invalid, so enthusiasts like myself can learn from it & help improve future studies.

[some_furry]

> And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.

Yeah, I've got a simple way to test this:

Go win the powerball lottery using whatever techniques you believe in. Then, even if nobody believes you, you have the proof in your wallet.

[keepamovin]

Actually the dismissive answers on this thread are what sounds like 'gigantic pile of rationalization' and cope. LK lays out why well.

[gus_massa]

Is this study? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275521/#brb33026-...

They give 347 nonbelievers and 287 believers a set of 32 locations. They must clasify them as (a) military bases, (b) hospitals, (c) schools (or education centers), or (d) cemeteries. The expected average is 8 but they get 8.31 and 10.09 respectively.

[I'm skiping a lot of confusing parts, like figure 4 and 5 that I can't understand what they mean and how are they related.]

Anyway, 8.31 for believers vs 10.09 for believers is interesting.

But ... from the article:

> A total of 347 participants who were nonbelievers in psychic experiences completed an RV experiment using targets based on location coordinates. A total of 287 participants reported beliefs in psychic experiences and completed another RV experiment using targets based on images of places.

These are two different tasks! It's impossible to know if the difference of the result is cused by nonbeliever/believer or cuased by coordinates/images.

As a technical opinion: This inmediately invalidates the whole study. I don't understand how this was even published.

As a personal opinion: It's obvious that the guys/gals with the photos would get better results than the guys/gals with only the coordinates. The CIA should build more spy planes and satelites.

[LawrenceKerr]

Can you please explain why coordinate-based vs. image-based RV is relevant here?

I mean, if you assume psi is possible, sure, then it's a valid criticism that this is a confounding variable that causes the believers to score better.

However, if you're a skeptic, it shouldn't matter. I mean, if you assume psi is BS, then why would it be obvious image target X23AY would be easier to "guess" as an image of a hospital instead of getting the coordinates (39.2965, -76.5915)?

[krapp]

OK cool. Now please cite some of that peer-reviewed research you mentioned.

[LawrenceKerr]

Please read before replying first.

[stonogo]

You could have just said 'no'.

[keepamovin]

And confirm your biases, even tho they're wrong? Sorry, that ain't our job here hahaha! :)

There's zero doubt psi/RV is real. You require 1st hand experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680

[LawrenceKerr]

I'm sorry, but comments like this have no place on HN.

If you read what I wrote, you would've seen the reference to one example published in Brain & Behavior, so yes, there is peer-reviewed research.

There are more examples, more datapoints, but I don't think it's very useful to share those in a discussion where you know the other person already made up their mind and isn't willing to engage very productively.