I like to think that RV is not a challenge to science, but a new article in it. We can regard it as an explainable phenomenon that fits with modern physics, we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
But it's understandable that there is a lot of skepticism. If someone is to believe remote viewing data, what's to bar them from believing every channeler out there. Surely there's a gateway between what's evident and what's just a whole bunch of fancy sounding speeches and misdirection.
So we know that RV is based on corroboration between viewers blind to each other's work. We know that universities have bogged down the frontier with an overly-heavy demand for evidence and legalese. But the principal is still the same. We only believe what proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think the RV frontier will have much more potential if we can combine photographed UAP data with RV investigations. Photography is still a powerful form of evidence. And even though we shouldn't think of every little UAP out there to be crucial to the future of the planet and the human race, we should still consider the scope of how influential that will be in the collective minds of rational skeptics - IF RV and UAP consolidate, the RV being the predictor and explainer of much of these things, we have a better model of theory to work from.
I believe Courtney et al have already said it. As much as we appeal to external forces, they are still not adamant to come and save us unless they see a large effort on our part in collectively waking up to the reality and proving our importance in our unique resilience. We have many people that are glued in fascination to UAP and yet they're still hesitant to fall in with RV interest. What if these things could get bridged? Not saying do anything very novel and special - but just help to form this culture in which these two things are relatable. When we talk about either subject, we should try to throw the other one in there with it. When we talk about RV, we should see if we can find ways to corroborate with UAP, when we talk about UAP, we should see if we can produce RV data to support the ideas behind it.
The thing I am hoping to avoid is to prevent conversations of this nature fall into dead ends that have been happening for decades. For example someone talks about a UAP and others say "wow it's amazing the strange things that are out there" and the subject falls dead, or "wow, you know I think that's based on the channeler named Bukubuku and he has the answer to everything, we should all believe him." Both outcomes are just kind of useless for progress.
Anyhow, my long-winded way of just reiterating the title. We should really try to consolidate these two frontiers.