{"id":5613,"date":"2022-01-28T02:12:45","date_gmt":"2022-01-28T01:12:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/psi-unit.com\/?p=5613"},"modified":"2022-01-28T02:20:37","modified_gmt":"2022-01-28T01:20:37","slug":"protocol-method-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/psi-unit.com\/en\/protocol-method-en\/","title":{"rendered":"#2 Protocol \u2026 or Method? Another remote viewing controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"

This blog post is a reprint of the original article from the Remote Viewing\/Remote Perception blog,<\/a> courtesy of Paul H. Smith.<\/h5>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Protocol \u2026 or Method?
\nAnother remote viewing controversy<\/h2><\/h3><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

by Paul H. Smith<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"What is a protocol? What is a method? Are they different? Or is this merely a distinction without a difference (in other words, the words are different, but is there any real<\/em> difference)? Even after two decades people in the remote viewing community still debate this. At root the question is trivial. But it leads nonetheless to disputes from time to time. In Germany recently, an organization called Psi Unit (whose members also happen to be students of mine) has recently stirred the pot again.<\/p>\n

In an article titled \u201cYou don\u2019t need a protocol for remote viewing<\/strong><\/a>\u201d they argue that even those who don\u2019t think they are following a protocol really are. But is \u201cprotocol\u201d the right word here?<\/p>\n

Certainly, there is confusion between the terms \u201cprotocol\u201d and \u201cmethod.\u201d Part of what creates the confusion is that in both the linguistic and scientific worlds there is already confusion to begin with about \u201cprotocol\u201d and \u201cmethod.\u201d Go to a dictionary and note how interchangeable the terms sound. Get into scientific research, and you will find the same thing.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"

Jana and Theo from Germany\u2019s PSI Unit remote viewing organization.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

For example, according to Merriam-Webster a protocol is<\/p>\n

A system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in formal situations; [also it is] a plan for a scientific experiment or for medical treatment.<\/em><\/p>\n

The same dictionary says that a method is<\/p>\n

A systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art; [and] a discipline that deals with the principles and techniques of scientific inquiry.<\/em><\/p>\n

Okay. Well, the wording is different. But if you can tease out enough difference in meaning to justify getting wound up about, then you\u2019re doing better than me!<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Joe McMoneagle on Protocol vs. Method<\/h4><\/h1><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle first raised the issue shortly after remote viewing was declassified in the mid 1990s. Joe insists on a rigid distinction between \u201cprotocol\u201d and \u201cmethod\u201d that actually seems to be much more fluid in general science. In fact, the term \u201cthe scientific method\u201d is used almost universally to describe what science does, yet when the details of what \u201cscientific method\u201d means are spelled out, it matches what Joe insists is a protocol.<\/p>\n

The truth is, in the Star Gate program we described how we actually did remote viewing as a \u201cprotocol.\u201d We never used the word \u201cmethod.\u201d There were, after all, only two formats for doing remote viewing back then, ERV (for \u201cextended remote viewing<\/strong><\/a>\u201d) and CRV (for what was then called \u201ccoordinate remote viewing\u201d and now called \u201ccontrolled remote viewing<\/strong><\/a>\u201d). (This doesn\u2019t count what I call \u201cgeneric\u201d remote viewing, by which I mean whatever approach a viewer might invent for how he or she does remote viewing.)<\/p>\n

Since we had so few approaches to the remote viewing discipline in Star Gate, it never occurred to us to ask which \u201cmethod\u201d one was using. It was always \u201cAre you going to use ERV or CRV?\u201d Even the documentation from SRI and the briefings we gave to senior officers and government officials used the word \u201cprotocol\u201d when referring to what Joe thinks of as a\u201dmethod\u201d today.<\/p>\n

Only after Joe left the program, and only after types of remote viewing practice proliferated like\u00a0 rabbits on Viagra, did the question of protocol vs. method arise. In principle, there is barely a space between the two.<\/p>\n

However, today for certain reasons I tend to adopt the distinction Joe initiated, which I have made more explicit than either I or Joe technically have the lexical right to do. I\u2019ve done this because it does help folks sort out some nuances and educate themselves in the process.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"

Joe McMoneagle with John Kruth, executive director of the Rhine Research Center, in 2020.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div>

My book, The Essential Guide to Remote Viewing<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, explains my usage.<\/p>\n

[R]remote viewing\u2026is not just a method of using ESP. \u201cRemote viewing\u201d also refers to an experimental protocol. In other words, the framework, rules and procedures within which a remote viewing session is conducted can be considered \u201cremote viewing\u201d as well.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are various remote viewing methods \u2013 you can think of \u201cmethods\u201d as a set of techniques for how to do remote viewing. Then there is the remote viewing protocol. You can think of protocols as the goals a viewer is supposed to aim for and the conditions under which remote viewing should be done. Take lap swimming as an analogy, for example. There are any number of strokes (\u201cmethods\u201d) a swimmer can use to get from one end of the pool to the other. But the conditions (\u201cprotocols\u201d) are the same no matter which stroke is used: there must be water; it must be deep enough; the swimmer must go end-to-end, etc.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div>
<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Ingo Swann and Protocols<\/h4><\/h1><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

When Ingo Swann first created remote viewing, it was the \u201cprotocol\u201d concept that he first had in mind. He was doing research with Dr. Karlis Osis at the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City at the time, and felt that the ASPR\u2019s experimental approach needed some tweaking. So he came up with a protocol that he felt improved the research process. This he named \u201cremote viewing.\u201d Inadvertently, he also invented a rudimentary remote viewing method as well. In this case, if the protocol is the conditions under which you do an experiment, then the method is how you do it.<\/p>\n

As Ingo said in an interview from 1993,<\/p>\n

\n

There is a substantial definitional difference between coining a term to identify a type of ESP experiment and an ESP ability\u2026Experiments have what in science are called \u201cprotocols,\u201d more simply put as \u201csteps\u201d that govern how the experiment is conducted\u2026In the case of the term \u201cremote viewing,\u201d there can be no doubt at all that it originally referred to an experimental model (never to a novel ESP ability)\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

To simplify all this, we can resort to an easy-to understand formula. Remote viewing consists of five absolutely necessary ingredients: (1) subject, (2) active ESP abilities, (3) distant target, (4) subject\u2019s recorded responses, (5) confirmatory positive feedback \u2013 all of which equals (6) the remote-viewing model. [Fate, September 1993, p. 75\u201379]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Unfortunately, he there introduces yet another term, \u201cmodel.\u201d But by the context, I\u2019m certain he intends \u201cmodel\u201d as a stand-in for \u201cprotocol.\u201d There can be a difference between the steps that govern \u201chow the experiment is conducted\u201d and how you actually perform the experiment. Sometimes the latter is vary much unspecified by the governing steps, or protocol. But sometimes they are almost identical. So which is the protocol and which the method? That\u2019s part of the confusion.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"

Ingo Swann in 1985.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Protocol \u201cSteps\u201d<\/h4><\/h1><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

What are the \u201csteps,\u201d or protocol that govern a remote viewing experiment? In the quote cited above, Ingo has specified some of them. Here is a list of some of the main requirements that have since been included in the process:<\/p>\n