This oversimplifies decades of research. While early remote viewing studies at SRI had methodological flaws, later experiments at SAIC addressed these issues and produced statistically significant results that haven't been adequately explained. Randi's million-dollar challenge isn't considered scientifically valid - it's more publicity stunt than proper experimental protocol. The circumstances and rules for awarding his prize were opaque, controlled by Randi, and has nothing to do with how science tests hypotheses.
The government programs (like STARGATE) actually produced some compelling results according to their declassified documents. The issue wasn't that they were "debunked" - the programs ended largely due to inconsistent results and questions about operational usefulness, not because of exposed fraud.
I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research rather than relying on stage magicians' critiques. While healthy skepticism is good, dismissing the entire field based on cherry-picked cases misses the nuance in the data.
The book "Phenomena" by the investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen is a fantastic and fascinating starting point.
Randi literally walked in, showed how vaudeville magicians do spoon bending (spoiler alert: the spoon is swapped for one that’s already bent using sleight of hand) and the researchers blushed in embarrassment.
They’d been HAD!
Cite this so called research you claim to have.
ps: your uncle didn’t actually steal your nose. That’s his thumb.
Papers won't help much due to your priors, you'll just question method, design and stats and pretend they confirm your biases. See my answer for why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
If you want to move beyond skepticism you need 1st hand experience. My linked answer gets you on the path :)
Phew... where to start? I think before randomly citing research, it's best to approach this subject theoretically first.
Assume "psi" exists. Purely as a thought experiment. What does this mean?
One key implication would be that consciousness can somehow access information beyond normal sensory channels. If this ability exists, it would likely be influenced by psychological factors - just like any other cognitive function. This leads us to a fascinating paradox: Our beliefs and expectations about psi would logically affect our ability to demonstrate it.
This is exactly what researchers have found with the supposed "sheep-goat effect" - where belief in psi correlates with performance in psi experiments. While skeptics often dismiss this as special pleading, the ultimate cop-out for negative results, it's actually a logical consequence of the initial premise. Strong skepticism could act as a psychological barrier, while openness might facilitate the phenomena.
This creates an interesting epistemological challenge. Unlike testing a new drug where belief shouldn't affect the chemical reaction, testing psi inherently involves consciousness - and therefore belief systems. The field has faced intense scrutiny because of these challenges and its implications. When Bem published his precognition studies in 2011, it sparked unprecedented criticism and launched psychology's replication crisis.
However, this scrutiny has led to increasingly rigorous methods in the field - despite this controversial topic being a potential career-ender and underfunded (although there are some private initiatives...).
So, having said all that as an important preface, in my opinion... One answer to your question: a recent example is the 2023 study in Brain and Behavior examining CIA remote viewing experiments (Escolà-Gascón et al.). Using extensive controls and blind conditions, they found significant above-chance results in high emotional intelligence participants. The authors - who describe themselves as skeptically oriented - conclude their data shows "robust statistical anomalies that currently lack an adequate scientific explanation and therefore are consistent with the hypothesis of psi." They argue for continued rigorous research while acknowledging the philosophical challenges these findings present.
This isn't hard proof of psi, yet, but it's evidence that there may be more going on than skeptics may think. We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, just because it's so controversial, and because it seems incompatible with a materialist worldview that says "mind" must be spatially and temporally localised, and cannot access or manipulate information elsewhere.
That sounds like a gigantic pile of rationalization for why proof is unobtainable. It sounds a lot like my religious school teachers telling us about “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” This powerful being is totally real and definitely takes visible actions in the world but don’t try to check this fact because it stops working if you try to check it.
Tons of human abilities are affected by our belief in them. Medicine is more effective when the patient believes it’s effective, to the extent that pills with no medicine in them can still have an effect if the patient believes it will. Do we just throw up our hands and say, crap, it’s super hard to figure out of any of this medicine actually works? No, we sit down and design experiments that account for it and end up with a massive library of proven drugs.
We don’t dismiss this stuff because it’s controversial and seems incompatible with a materialist worldview. We dismiss it because there’s no good evidence for it and no proposed method of action despite decades of trying. Arguably millennia of trying; “remote viewing” and similar things are just new framings of ancient religious ideas. There’s no actual difference between attempting “remote viewing” and praying for a vision.
And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.
I did say my preface does sound like a rationalization... The difference with religious arguments is: here we can gather statistical evidence, build better experimental protocols and generate hypotheses about potential mechanisms. And the believer vs non-believer thing is, as the evidence shows, an important piece of the puzzle.
It's true the placebo effect affects other research too (and honestly I think the explanation for why it does so, isn't different than in parapsychological research, but I digress). It's also true studies (including the study I cited) try to account for this, so I don't understand why you bring this up as if it's a counter argument for what I wrote?
If psi doesn't exist, then it shouldn't matter if you believe in it or not - empirically we would observe the same outcomes for both groups, no? That's one starting point.
And while you are claiming you aren't dismissing it because it's controversial, I feel like you are literally doing so.
No, the results published so far aren't conclusive (I stated this as well in the post you are replying to), but again, if you are truly impartial, how can it not be evidence that it may be worth exploring further? It's okay to say it doesn't interest you and not have an opinion on the matter, but I think, if you are dismissing it as invalid, you should at least provide arguments for why the evidence is invalid, so enthusiasts like myself can learn from it & help improve future studies.
> And sure, it’s possible this stuff is real. But when there’s no conclusive demonstration of it after thousands of years, the burden of proof is firmly on the people who think it’s real, and it is definitely not the job of the rest of us to take this stuff seriously.
Yeah, I've got a simple way to test this:
Go win the powerball lottery using whatever techniques you believe in. Then, even if nobody believes you, you have the proof in your wallet.
Not many people can read. In context, getting a good hit on an image or future event is very achievable, but zeroing on set of specific numbers is hard.
Probably possible with error correction and extremely clever design, by you need to hack the 'sensor' to make it work. This is a sensor like anything else, and it's more impressionistic than fine-grained resolution. Try it and you'll see, my answer gives you all you need to get to your first session: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
Without first hand experience you'll never be able to think about this clearly, due to stigma and materialist priors. So try! :)
Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.
> Analogy to winning powerball is hitting 18 holes of hole in 1s.
I work in cryptography, so I have a pretty good handle on discrete probability. This is precisely why I posit the powerball lottery as the most convincing proof of any paranormal abilities.
That it's hard, or improbable, isn't a deterrent in my eyes. It's exactly what makes successfully being able to win such powerful and convincing evidence.
People are free to believe what they want. But if you want me to believe you're correct, I need extraordinary evidence.
(And if being able to accurately predict lottery numbers isn't convincing to others? That's their problem.)
You know what I'm assuming? No, you have no idea. I take my word for it not yours. Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
I'm inferring your assumptions based on what would logically cause a person to continue the conversation in the manner you are.
And this has been a hilarious exhibition for all parties involved.
I proposed a simple way to prove remote viewing without needing to have a complete theory for why or how it works. You assumed I was playing gotcha with an impossible test. Instead, I proposed an impossible-to-debunk way to prove you're right. You continued to ask if I "tried it" yet while insisting you don't care what I believe. And now you say
> Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
And, like, this is obviously projection. I don't need supernatural powers to realize this.
You've been cascading your own misunderstandings to the point of ridiculousness.
Yet all I was doing was say, "Hey, if you do this, you'll have an irrefutable outcome that will give any skeptic pause".
If you had any intuition for analytic thinking, it would be clear that proposing such a test makes me on your side, not against you.
But no, you instead continue to respond in a way that is best explained by assuming that I wanted to fill James Randi's shoes.
I'm a goddamn furry. It's in my username. I never made any attempt to obfuscate this. I spend a lot of free time with people who aren't just "playing pretend" online, but who are significantly psychologically comforted by calling them their fursona species. And I have no trouble squaring objective biological materialism with "here's an easy button to make a friend feel better". When it comes to remote viewing, I'm agnostic. I have no strong opinions either way. That you keep insisting I'm here to discredit you or your beliefs is your own insecurity screaming through the actions and context of your words.
I don't need a fucking crystal ball to see it. Maybe you do.
I'm inferring your assumptions based on what would logically cause a person to continue the conversation in the manner you are.
And this has been a hilarious exhibition for all parties involved.
I proposed a simple way to prove remote viewing without needing to have a complete theory for why or how it works. You assumed I was playing gotcha with an impossible test. Instead, I proposed an impossible-to-debunk way to prove you're right. You continued to ask if I "tried it" yet while insisting you don't care what I believe. And now you say
> Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
And, like, this is obviously projection. I don't need supernatural powers to realize this.
You've been cascading your own misunderstandings to the point of ridiculousness.
Yet all I was doing was say, "Hey, if you do this, you'll have an irrefutable outcome that will give any skeptic pause".
If you had any intuition for analytic thinking, it would be clear that proposing such a test makes me on your side, not against you.
But no, you instead continue to respond in a way that is best explained by assuming that I wanted to fill James Randi's shoes.
I'm a goddamn furry. It's in my username. I never made any attempt to obfuscate this. I spend a lot of free time with people who aren't just "playing pretend" online, but who are significantly psychologically comforted by calling them their fursona species. And I have no trouble squaring objective biological materialism with "here's an easy button to make a friend feel better". When it comes to remote viewing, I'm agnostic. I have no strong opinions either way. That you keep insisting I'm here to discredit you or your beliefs is your own insecurity screaming through the actions and context of your words.
I don't need a fucking crystal ball to see it. Maybe you do.
You don't need to prove it: there's zero doubt. The test is obviously cooked, you didn't listen, and haven't tried.
You assume I'm encouraging you to try because I care what you believe. Nope. Wrong again! Because I enjoy the idea of people becoming stronger, and seeing more reality does that. A world filled with stronger people is better.
Dude, there's a lot of delusion in your answer, I appreciate you for revealing it. Maybe you can read it back and learn.
Hahaha! You try to convince people you are on their side by exploding into abuse? After mislabeling and projecting your stuff onto people? Hahahahaha!
However you saw your role here in the arc of the psi/Remote Viewing story, it was never that. This was just 1 moment in your life where you had a chance to try something new. And you failed. Because of fear. Just like I laid out in my OG linked answer why it would be hard. You showed the example.
I hope you have a nice day and give it a shot another time.
You don't seem to understand the point, or the value, of proof. Ironically, this belies a poor understanding of the value of belief.
If you're going to assert "there's zero doubt", then you should have profound amounts of proof. But to couple that with "you don't need to prove it" exposes a very fragile worldview.
Doubt isn't the opposite of belief, but its opening act. If I believe something to be true, I can explain why. This requires proof and a state of humility. The strongest faith is forged in the fires of the deepest doubt.
If you aren't willing to entertain doubts or understand the value of proofs, why are you even on a hacker forum? Everything here is science, mathematics, and technology. Hacking requires a mix of curiosity, rigor, and imagination. It's not that any discussion outside the accepted consensus is unwelcome, but if you're going to engage in such a silly way, you shouldn't be surprised when things "[get] ugly".
Dude you just need to get first hand experience. That’s the whole point. You can keep dancing around it, but that’s a fact. Until then, you’re just lost in delusion. You have no concept of my worldview, barely your own. You need to try. If you don’t do that, you just keep generating garbage like this, unchallenged, think you’re right - you’re missing so much of the picture. You’re so wrong, you don’t even know it.
> Dude you just need to get first hand experience.
Why?
> That’s the whole point. You can keep dancing around it, but that’s a fact.
Why do you believe this to be true?
First-hand experience doesn't seem to offer me much except confirmation bias and feeding one's ego. No thanks.
> Until then, you’re just lost in delusion.
What belief have I uttered in this discussion that warrants the word "delusion"?
> You have no concept of my worldview, barely your own.
How would that even work, having "barely [my] own" concept of my own worldview? If I barely have a concept of a given worldview, how would it be mine? Even if it were flawed?
> You need to try. If you don’t do that, you just keep generating garbage like this, unchallenged, think you’re right - you’re missing so much of the picture. You’re so wrong, you don’t even know it.
We have language for a reason. If you can't explain something and convince me of it being true without me having to experience it first-hand, and independent experts cannot interrogate your explanations to agree that it's correct, then how do you know it's actually true?
You keep making absolute statements, but get really defensive when I ask simple questions.
Dude, there's a lot of delusion in your answer, I appreciate you for revealing it. Maybe you can read it back and learn.
However you saw your role here in the arc of the psi/Remote Viewing story, it was never that. This was just 1 moment in your life where you had a chance to try something new. And you failed. Because of fear. Just like I laid out in my OG linked answer why it would be hard. You showed the example.
I hope you have a nice day and give it a shot another time.
Well you kept pretending you know how I feel when you don’t, you seemed awfully concerned about how I feel, despite your resistance here being all about you.
Fear is not belittling, it's okay to be afraid. Only shame is to hide from it, or let it rule you. So why all this angry noise and abuse, all this time, when you could have just tried? You can always show it doesn't rule you: try.
Your outburst doesn't affect me because I'm so assured in this - I earned it - but think about how your angry outburst here will affect and may dissuade people who want to try this, and take responsibility for your words and your own convincing, instead of fake blaming others. If dissuading people is your goal, continue and you'll meet people like me who'll push back in ways you dislike. If it's not don't do it.
If you come back to this topic, I encourage you to read my OG answer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680, see your patterns, decide to move beyond them, try the next steps, and head to the remoteviewing subreddit. There's a community of people there happy to assist someone with the humility to say "I don't know, but I'll try". From your behavior here tho, I'm not interested to know you at all, so please do not contact me again. Accept that 'no', thanks. Good bye.
It's a beautiful time of year, I hope you find some peace and that what challenged you here becomes seeds in the new year that grow into real growth rather than the stagnation you orbited. And be better.
So you're securely confident you invented a gotcha statistical test to disprove what you see as other people's delusions and you're enjoying what you feel is the security of that? A position you've arrived at by your own intelligence, yes? So...what are you avoiding in that?
I'm not tryin' to convince you, and I don't care what you believe. Nobody is coming to convince you - except you! - it's your responsibility. Your life. Own it. And... you got it ... try! Just try. Extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance! :) hahaha. Your grasp of stats appears loose if you require such odds to see an effect.
Right now, you're coming at this all wrong! It don't matter what you work in, and it ain't about belief. You look like you're hiding behind priors and statistics. "Extraordinary" depends on your priors. So, your prior beliefs in "the impossibility of golf" are deluding you into thinking you need 18 hole-in-ones to know you can play golf. When there is zero doubt psi/RV is real. All you have to do is try. 1st. Hand. Experience. :) I refer you to my other answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42528680
> So you're securely confident you invented a gotcha statistical test to disprove what you see as other people's delusions and you're enjoying what you feel is the security of that?
You totally misunderstand. I invite you to try remote viewing my intentions here instead of misreading my post defensively.
> I'm not tryin' to convince you, and I don't care what you believe.
Interesting thing to say, for someone who assumes so hard that I'm being dismissive.
You could try instead of making excuses, and acting like it's other people's fault: incorrect concept of personal responsibility.
You think I'm defensive? Defensive? me? Here? Dude, I am so assured about this stuff. I have zero reason to be defensive here at all. I am not. You are misreading it and projecting.
But I will bat back your mislabeling and confused entitlement. You’re not entitled to my viewing, but I don’t need to view your intentions, I knew them before I even opened the page to read your comment. They’re irrelevant to me, tho. Totally irrelevant, even tho they’re not good, no matter how you disguise them. Here, a mirror -
So…Defensively? Assumes so hard? I totally misunderstand? Hahaha, your fantasy of import and vanity, your talk of you, right? Twistedly projecting to make your stuff about others is classic toxic behavior. You need see others like that? I get if you need that, but that ain’t how reality is.
You do not understand, do you? Nobody is chasing you. Nobody needs your approval or judgement. Nobody needs to prove to you. This is just your chance to prove to yourself, that’s all. But instead of trying a session, maybe doing that, and sharing how it was, you … made stuff up, tried to make it about other people, and invoked maths, lies and hiding.
When you coulda just…tried a session. Afraid?
And that unsatisfied entitlement which leads to provocation for attention, being also a mark of fear blurring intimacy, just another way to hide.
Lol - I think you’re dismissive? Why would I not just then dismiss you back? Haha! No, you’re fixated. But on the wrong thing. You don’t have serious ideas about this topic, just lazy ones. Your commentary is a lot of lonely, boorish mental gymnastics to avoid the one thing this is all about. You trying. I guess you’re not interested in that.
Lol, no. This sounds crazy. ‘Edits are defensive’? And you’re reloading to watch the same comments? Fixated creepy af.
You could try instead of making excuses, and acting like it's other people's fault: incorrect concept of personal responsibility.
So you know what I'm feeling? No, you have no idea. I have zero insecurity, zero defensiveness about any of this. I take my word for it not yours. You read in your projection of your insecurity and defensiveness to compensate issues. You got some serious emotional boundary issues. Again, you're lost in this imagining trying to make your 'not trying' about other people or excuses. It's not. Just about you.
Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps it has already been done (multiple people have won more than one ’1 in XX million chance' lotteries). And perhaps none of those who have the capability of something that specific/difficult (I.e. masters of the craft) want or care to have people know how real their abilities are.
I think it's all bullshit, but it doesn't hurt to play the other side sometimes.
I don’t think the lottery is where to look. Look at hedge funds instead. If this stuff were real, hedge funds would be hiring them at insane salaries. There would be a pipeline for identifying, recruiting, and training people with the ability.
This is used in finance, business, law enforcement, and other areas. In the same way that private security firms are used to dig up dirt on counterparties. It's very discrete.
Also, to run a real operation you can't rely on 1 talent. You need to run a team so it's typically outsourced. Companies don't have the political capital to run a real RV department due to stigma, which has surprising power: business is conservative and not always smart (think dress code, remote work, tech debt), so the test of "used widely by business" is not a great test. Many people in tech know that business decisions are not often rationally about what works best.
If you need external validation of why this works, try doing it yourself instead. Then you'll know! :)
True, with the lottery the information density is a lot higher. In market predictions with binary outcomes, you really only need 1 bit of "information transfer".
And about the economic argument: let's continue the thought experiment I suggested above. Imagine a universe where psi exists as a real phenomenon of anomalous information transfer & manipulation. Assume anyone has some level of psychic influence on everything else. Let's say this explains the phenomenon of "hey I was thinking of this person and now they're suddenly calling me" (instead of it being purely confirmation bias).
In such a universe, you wouldn't want to publish much about your psi-based hedge fund, lest your profits would come under attack from the psi-influence of the active disbelievers... No, you'd keep it under wraps and do your recruiting secretly and selectively. And any disclosure would need happen very slowly and in the right way.
Cope! I like xkcd but this cartoon is wrong. There's zero doubt psi/RV is real.
I’m not sure that ‘would be used widely by business’ is a great test of anything. Business is pretty conservative. Observe their adoption of technology, of cyber, even of dress code. Not to mention remote work!
Many things that work, as you working in tech in a business context will understand, are specifically not adopted by business for reasons that often don’t make sense (or at least aren’t right) to those who know what works and its value.
Even so, this capability is used by business. It's like a high end sensor system used in D&D and corporate espionage, very discrete.
They give 347 nonbelievers and 287 believers a set of 32 locations. They must clasify them as (a) military bases, (b) hospitals, (c) schools (or education centers), or (d) cemeteries. The expected average is 8 but they get 8.31 and 10.09 respectively.
[I'm skiping a lot of confusing parts, like figure 4 and 5 that I can't understand what they mean and how are they related.]
Anyway, 8.31 for believers vs 10.09 for believers is interesting.
But ... from the article:
> A total of 347 participants who were nonbelievers in psychic experiences completed an RV experiment using targets based on location coordinates. A total of 287 participants reported beliefs in psychic experiences and completed another RV experiment using targets based on images of places.
These are two different tasks! It's impossible to know if the difference of the result is cused by nonbeliever/believer or cuased by coordinates/images.
As a technical opinion: This inmediately invalidates the whole study. I don't understand how this was even published.
As a personal opinion: It's obvious that the guys/gals with the photos would get better results than the guys/gals with only the coordinates. The CIA should build more spy planes and satelites.
Can you please explain why coordinate-based vs. image-based RV is relevant here?
I mean, if you assume psi is possible, sure, then it's a valid criticism that this is a confounding variable that causes the believers to score better.
However, if you're a skeptic, it shouldn't matter. I mean, if you assume psi is BS, then why would it be obvious image target X23AY would be easier to "guess" as an image of a hospital instead of getting the coordinates (39.2965, -76.5915)?
I'm sorry, but comments like this have no place on HN.
If you read what I wrote, you would've seen the reference to one example published in Brain & Behavior, so yes, there is peer-reviewed research.
There are more examples, more datapoints, but I don't think it's very useful to share those in a discussion where you know the other person already made up their mind and isn't willing to engage very productively.
Part of the point of making claims -- and defending them -- in a public forum is that many more people than "the other person" get to read them. You claimed "decades" of research, and when asked where it is, mentioned one review of second hand information from a discontinued program, couched in a torrent of handwaving. I stand by my assessment of your post, and am not interested in armchair moderation. I remain of the opinion that if you could have made a compelling argument backed by research you would have. I, like a lot of people, am uncertain about this topic and would have liked to have some good research to consider, but I still don't, and you're blaming someone else for that outcome. It's not a good argument.
I'm glad to hear you are uncertain and sound as if you are willing to learn more. This is a good position! This topic needs smart people who are strong enough to overcome the significant barriers to entry. So I'll try to help you do that. By you here I address it not just to you, specifically, but to all the others who will see this. While most other answers of mine on this thread will be tiny and short, this one I made particular effort to construct, as it's necessary you hear every word. So if you can read all of it, and not skim, it is written for you! :)
But you will need the stomach for it. Reading this comment will likely require a process of pairing away, and like any cutting back it may be painful, but if you can bear with it, treasures await! :)
So let's begin: unfortunately the pre-requisite section here will be somewhat lengthy, and you will most likely and understandably complain, or find yourself wanting to reactively discredit simply due to the number of paragraphs, or you find the introductory apparatus excessive and obnoxiously handwavey. You will most likely experience an urge to yell "Shut up!" or to fight with every point and wording. If you can endure beyond these perceptions, and if you can retain sufficient patience, and keep in mind that as your goal sincerely is learning, then these words are the necessary sanding down, because if you jump straight to the facts without this minimal introduction, you will be in no position to comprehend them.
So, there's a sort of selection process already in operation. Only those who can resist attacks on multiple fronts (both from within and without their own minds) can get through and retain their rational faculty. This perhaps unique-to-this-topic challenge is oft under appreciated but once perceived will be readily apprehended, and its importance and necessity, including the necessity of overcoming such limiting beliefs to learning, realized.
You have hinted at what's there for you in your comment, so let's directly address that: the objection raised in the above comment is a fairly standard academic dismissal, not specific to psi/RV and to be expected anywhere, tho the tone of multiple commenters here was a tad too spicy to encourage the standard academic responses.
Which again is not that surprising given the understandable yet irrational resistance to something like this, especially for those minds embedded in a Western materialist framework, a contrast about which more can be said in another place.
Given all that, it's understandable (is it not?), and hopefully forgivable, that a bit of couching (counter couching?) is required, when those with different ideas, either from having opposite views, or from lacking the priors required to view this correctly, come heavily encumbered in their own couching, and display it so overtly -- hahah! :)
So hopefully that can dispense with some of the spiciness, so now down to practical matters.
Papers? Sure, we've got a few, but first a question on methodology of approach to the topic, and pre-requisites. The following two paragraphs could easily be taken personally, but shouldn't be. If you find yourself doing that, look around to the prevailing biased or dismissive commentary on this (here or wherever you like), and reassure yourself it applies to them, not to you! Yet these paragraphs are a necessary introduction to help you unlearn obstacles, and be aware of impediments to your curiosity and learning about this. So, the key insight is that: papers are not the best way for most of you to approach this given the significant obstacles you will face from pre-existing biases. But equally important, unless you are an actual psi researcher, who do you want to read stuffy academic papers? Especially when you can just experience it for yourself, right now!
In that context it's likely that papers will be simply a mill for you to dismiss each study with methodological, design, or analysis quibbles, as that confirming of your existing biases is what you want to do anyway. And even if you don't want to, it will be easy for you to pseudo-confidently do as such questions can be levied at any papers in any discipline, and even if you levy them, either unfairly on this topic; or to a stricter standard than you apply to other topics; you will sincerely believe you are in fact objective, because you want to achieve your aim. And even if you don't take the lead, you will easily be lead by others who do. The talk of being 'taken in by shysters' is funny, because it can be so often applied to those who inconsistently dismiss studies by enslavement to legacy bias! Ha :) There is no cure to this beside first hand experience, which is, sensibly where we will go first, and now!
So, again papers are not the best way for many of you to initially approach this. The best way is by having a conversion experience (without drugs!) -- and free, and only taking a few minutes of your time. So, take the responsibility, don't outsource it, and try :)
What other topic can offer you such a compelling and transformative re-vivisection/reorientation of your worldview at such low cost, and entirely within your capacity to effect? I challenge you to name one, haha! :)
So, I will give you papers, but only on the condition that you do not read them until you have given an honest try to it yourself. And I will not listen to your whinnying about papers until you have attained the proper training and experience, albeit brief but sufficient, via such first hand experience, a fairly standard academic bar to raise.
So, finally we come to what you probably hope we had just said at first, but hopefully by now you have some understanding of why that was unwise to do before the introduction above. SO: first and most importantly, head to https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/ and head to the pinned "[START HERE] INTRODUCTION | FAQ | RESOURCES" post, just as you would when learning any new technology (and believe me, this is a technology, although the public versions are not as advanced as the current state of the art). Read all of that, and then go to the "beginners guide" (linked in the same), and do all of that. That will take you through your first psi/RV session. All of this is a small investment of time, and the largest obstacle you will find to doing it is your own fear, because the implications of this are so huge. Briefly: there are other paths, and intros (just like to any tech there are a glut of resources), but this one is clear, simple, checked through experience, and comes with a community -- all very important for a supportive first time.
I trust you have sufficient discipline to do the above prior to possibly getting mistracked reading any papers, so I will provide you a decades long bibliography, which you can find here: https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography
Much more can be said, but the necessary initiation for you to understand is to perform the self exercise first. The papers are not important (for reasons given, you can always simply abuse them to confirm biases), but if approached with the right mind, only obtainable through first hand experience in our materialist Western purview, they may help you.
So to conclude, hopefully this painful, and difficult comment, likely also made harder to read by its difficult long-sentence style, could nevertheless assist those true learners to step forward beyond the difficulties and into the light of this topic. The point of that? Their own enrichment. And expanding the community of understanding, acknowledgement and acceptance around this. Greater treasures await if we can do that. Finally, in the gestalt this process of approaching this topic is analogous to (and likely essential to) the very process of psi/RV itself where conventional senses must be moved beyond to access information from what lies beyond them. Hopefully this effort by me today helped you in some way on your path to that :)
The government programs (like STARGATE) actually produced some compelling results according to their declassified documents. The issue wasn't that they were "debunked" - the programs ended largely due to inconsistent results and questions about operational usefulness, not because of exposed fraud.
I'd encourage looking at the peer-reviewed research rather than relying on stage magicians' critiques. While healthy skepticism is good, dismissing the entire field based on cherry-picked cases misses the nuance in the data.
The book "Phenomena" by the investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen is a fantastic and fascinating starting point.