Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sources

Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments, by David Marks and Richard Kammann, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature in 1978, is a critical study identifying methodological flaws, particularly unintended cues in experimental transcripts, that could explain apparent remote-viewing successes reported by other researchers without requiring any paranormal transmission of information. Its authority rests on publication in one of the most rigorously peer-reviewed general science journals and on the authors' direct re-examination of the original experimental materials. It is widely cited in mainstream psychology as a key methodological critique of remote-viewing research.

Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier
1
David Marks and Richard Kammann's Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments, published in the peer reviewed journal Nature in 1978, the top tier reflecting publication in one of the most rigorously peer reviewed general science journals and the authors' direct re-examination of the original experimental materials, identifying methodological flaws, particularly unintended cues in experimental transcripts, that could explain apparent remote-viewing successes without requiring any paranormal transmission of information, notwithstanding that it is widely cited specifically as a methodological critique rather than a comprehensive survey of every remote-viewing study.
Notes
Peer-reviewed critique of information transmission in remote viewing experiments, Nature, 1978.
Citation
Author
David Marks and Richard Kammann
Publisher
Nature
Publication Year
1978
Source Type
peer-reviewed article
Claims Backed By This Source (12 claims)

This source backs 12 claims across the atlas. As facts: 8 well-attested, 2 scholarly debate. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.

Disposition By Topic

  • Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
  • Historical Figures, 2 claims: 1 scholarly debate, 1 general references.
  • Studies, 2 claims: 1 scholarly debate, 1 general references.
  • Articles, 1 claims: 1 well-attested.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.