Talk:Charles Tart

Tart was innocent on the rejudging cues
https://singularityquest.com/so-you-asked-for-proof-of-psychic-abilities/ The sensory cues that were last discovered by Marks were irrelevant as they pertain to the psychic's location, not the demarcation team. Although this allows you to order the transcripts to some degree, this provides no discernible advantage when the list of target sites were randomized. Therefore the original Targ-Puthoff experiment is valid and should be considered scientific evidence. More importantly than the cues. A basic empirical analysis would clearly show those with common sense psychic functioning took place. Price said "Hoover Tower" for Hoover Tower. Stop demonizing an otherwise innocent man. Marks has literally made the same play in 1981 and had to be corrected by Targ in the same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addidy (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That blog is not remotely RS and therefore its conclusions on the validity of any of the experiments cannot be included on Wikipedia. You need to provide an independent academic publication if you want to insert that material. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Read the argument I made in the change. It makes sense doesn't it? You can clearly see this man is innocent just from reading the Nature articles alone. You don't need to look at the blog you can just compare the 1974 Nature article on the original Targ-Puthoff experiment with the 1986 "Remote Viewing Exposed" article by David Marks and the 1980 nature article from Charles Tart to see he randomized the target locations in the rejudging. based on those resources (all included and explained in great detail in the blog) should suffice I take it? The blog isn't the source, The Nature article references are. I take it this should be satisfactory to you?Addidy (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless one of those articles is explicitly reaching the conclusion that Marks' 1986 criticism was irrelevant/unjustified/whatever, then that material is both UNDUE and OR and cannot be included. We do not place our own (or a non-RS source's) interpretation of something on WP. If an interpretation is actually noteworthy, RS would pick up on it. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, WP readers are to be assumed, by default, to be people who are incapable of thinking for themselves (literally true, as far as I understand the interpretation of the rules by some people at least).--Brian Josephson (talk)


 * FWIW, I did read most of that blog post as well as the original paper. I was not at all satisfied with the methodologies employed in the T&P Price experiments: the target pool being known to Price; heterogeneous, feature-rich scenery giving the potential for Price to just spam buzzwords and receive a "hit" if one of them matches; the subjectivity and bias of the judges (they know the target order, so the extraneous cues are extremely relevant, and being SRI employees they're invested in getting positive results); and importantly, the lack of negative control percipients and lack of a negative control target. How can you do all that frequentist statistical analysis when there's no evidence a non-psychic would actually produce statistically-random results in the real world? Not to mention, why did they never perform the extremely obvious and easy baseline correction of randomly replacing one of the sites with a featureless shielded room (without either the judges or Price knowing this was an option beforehand)? And the Tart response can be rejected based on study design alone: there's no way to ensure his judge is unfamiliar with the original experiment/Mind-Reach, so using any of the "leaked" transcripts is scientifically invalid. JoelleJay (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)