Recognition of scientific methodology for PSI experiments
Let’s not kid ourselves: As the largest lexical tool, Wikipedia has come to play a major role in shaping public opinion about the content it describes. It is often forgotten that the articles always reflect individual opinions and cannot be one hundred percent objective. The article about Remote Viewing in the German Wikipedia still reads reasonably objective, because the author avoids to introduce a corresponding valuation of the phenomena. It is different on the English pages. There the whole topic is quite directly dismissed as “pseudoscience”. Regardless of the fact that the U.S. government and secret services have put more than 23 years and several million dollars into this project. (The discontinuation of the program in 1995, after sifting through the rationale and how it came to be, may safely be considered a “show act.”)
In any case, it is relatively illogical to assume that some of the brightest minds in the country should not have noticed over two decades that the method was not producing significant results. At least, that’s what we think. But read for yourself:
In the English Wikipedia article about Russell Targ, Remote Viewing is called “pseudoscience”, as well as in the article about Remote Viewing itself. Russell Targ, who researched the phenomenon with Harold Puthoff in 1972, wrote an open letter to the Wikipedia platform in 2014, showing many arguments why this is not correct. The Wikipedia authorship has not responded to it until today.
The open letter of Russell Targ to Wikipeda
Remote Viewing is not a “pseudoscience”. From now on, please refrain from this inaccuracy and insulting label you have spread on my Wikipedia bio page.
“Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice that is presented as scientific but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative because it suggests that something is inaccurately or even deceptively presented as science.”