I’m reading “Mind-Reach” by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff on kindle.

It’s ostensibly on the topic of remote viewing as investigated by two physicists at SRI International in the 70s.

My default, like most, is that it’s total bunk.

The investigations are presented somewhat rigorously. They are trying.

Each time they drop stats, it’s an odds estimate (e.g. this result is 1:1,000,000), my spidey sense tells me “p-hacking” and why aren’t you reporting the negative results as well?

I guess it’s trying to be a pop-science/monograph and one should read the actual papers to get the real data. Fair.

Nevertheless, the book is super fun to read. I’m treating it as hard science-fiction dressed as non-fiction. My favorite genre.

My thought:

Surely people read the book and tried to replicate the studies!?

Not much equipment is needed, it’s all methodology. And I suspect we have come a long way with mythology since then.

I checked-in with Perplexity, to avoid gpt4o hallucinations and to get refs.

What were the main criticisms of Targ and Puthoff’s experiments?

The main criticisms of Targ and Puthoff’s remote viewing experiments were:

  1. Flawed methodology: David Marks and Richard Kammann found significant flaws in the experimental design, including sensory cues that could have influenced the results[2].

  2. Lack of proper controls: Critics pointed out that the experiments lacked adequate randomization and failed to rigidly exclude all possible methods of secret coding between subject and sender[1].

  3. Poor experimental design: Martin Gardner criticized Targ and Puthoff for violating basic principles of experimental design, such as allowing subjects to record their own data or having data reported by family members[1].

  4. Potential for cheating: The experimental setup did not sufficiently close all possible loopholes for cheating, which is considered crucial in parapsychology research due to the history of fraud in the field[1].

  5. Lack of replicability: Attempts to replicate the findings under more controlled conditions failed to produce consistent or reliable results[2].

  6. Vague and weak presentation: The editors of Nature described the original SRI paper as “weak in design and presentation” with “disconcertingly vague” details[3].

  7. Naive methods: Nature’s editors also noted that some methods used in the experiments were “naive” and showed “a lack of skill” on the part of the experimenters[3].

  8. Insufficient documentation: Critics noted a lack of proper documentation to back up the claims made by Targ and Puthoff[2].

  9. Overstated conclusions: Ray Hyman argued that Targ’s claims about the reality of psi and the validity of remote viewing were “filled with exaggerated and unsupported conclusions”[2].

These criticisms led to the general scientific consensus that Targ and Puthoff’s experiments were “fatally flawed” and did not provide convincing evidence for the reality of remote viewing or other psi phenomena[2].

Citations:

And:

Have any of the claims from the book “Mind-Reach” been replicated?

The claims from the book “Mind-Reach” by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff have not been successfully replicated under rigorous scientific scrutiny. Several attempts to validate their remote viewing experiments have failed to produce consistent or reliable results.

David Marks and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate Targ and Puthoff’s remote viewing experiments and found significant flaws in the methodology[2]. They discovered that the original experiments contained sensory cues that could have influenced the results, such as references to previous targets and session dates[2]. When these cues were eliminated, the results fell to chance levels[2].

Other researchers have also failed to replicate the findings:

  1. The United States National Research Council concluded in 1988 that the Targ-Puthoff studies were “fatally flawed”[2].
  2. Ray Hyman, a psychologist, stated that Targ’s claims for the reality of psi and the validity of remote viewing were “filled with exaggerated and unsupported conclusions”[2].
  3. The CIA’s Stargate Project, which was influenced by Targ and Puthoff’s work, ultimately failed to provide any useful intelligence information[4]. The project’s remote viewing sessions produced vague, irrelevant, and often erroneous data[4].

While some proponents claim successful replications, these have not been widely accepted by the scientific community due to methodological issues and the lack of a positive theory to guide controlled experiments[4]. The overall consensus in the scientific community is that the claims made in “Mind-Reach” remain unsubstantiated and have not been reliably replicated under controlled conditions.

Citations:

Nod.

About what I would have expected.

I suspect these criticisms will be equally leveled at the Telepathy Tapes, the new hotness over the holiday break.

Ah yes, see:

The main criticisms being (as summarized by gpt4o):

Here are the main criticisms against the claims made in The Telepathy Tapes as outlined in the article:

  • Unscientific Methods: The podcast relies on discredited techniques like facilitated communication and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), which have been proven to involve unintentional influence by facilitators.
  • Lack of Evidence: The claims about telepathy lack support from peer-reviewed research.
  • Bias and Excuses: Failures of telepathy tests are excused by subjective interpretations, undermining scientific rigor.
  • Exploitation: The promotion of pseudoscience exploits vulnerable populations, such as nonverbal autistic individuals.

And the rebuttal:

Terrible theme on that site by the way, making text appear as I scroll. Also no date on the piece?

Anyway, the main points being (as summarized by gpt4o):

The rebuttal to the critique of The Telepathy Tapes defends Dr. Powell’s credibility and research by highlighting the following points:

  • Professional Background: Challenges claims of professional misconduct, asserting that license issues were misrepresented.
  • Ethics and Research: Addresses concerns about methodologies like RPM, emphasizing efforts to ensure objectivity and transparency.
  • Scientific Misunderstanding: Critiques the dismissal of telepathy studies as unscientific, arguing that they explore genuine phenomena requiring nuanced investigation.

Hmmm.