COLLECTION
Claims, Hoaxes & Investigations
The most interesting question in psi research is not whether one side can produce a dramatic quote. It is whether an anomalous result survives controls, independent replication, transparent analysis and a clear distinction between statistical significance and explanation.
4 Articles
1 Deep Dive · 1 Case File · 2 Question & Debate
The strange part of the Stargate story is not that people claim the CIA used psychics. The strange part is that the United States really did spend years trying to find out whether remote viewing could produce useful intelligence — and the final record is far less simple than either believers or skeptics often make it sound.
Put one person into a uniform field of light and sound, isolate another with a target image, then ask whether the receiver can identify the target above chance. Ganzfeld experiments sound simple. Their statistical history is anything but.
Some experiments do not ask people to predict tomorrow’s lottery numbers. They ask something narrower and stranger: can a choice, reaction or physiological signal measured now correlate with a random event that has not happened yet?
Psi research is often treated as a fight between believers and skeptics. The deeper conflict is methodological: how much evidence should be required when an effect is small, surprising, difficult to replicate and potentially incompatible with existing explanations?
