I'm just wondering if there's been any actually published research, by fully controlled scientific protocols, in 'lab' based conditions, and then been published in 'credible' peer-reviewed journals.
I keep hearing that the FS team basically does this, but I can't find any (at least, Google Scholar didn't give me any hits with Courtney's name on it).
I'm just now getting around to watching the Domain video (I'm not a fan of watching 2+ hour sessions), and I've just finished listening to Aziz' introduction - very overtly political, and frankly insulting and unhelpful (which is something I'm not used to from him).
I do think it's actually *imperative* to get the *research* done with very experienced RVers, under fully controlled conditions (evaluated by true sceptics) - and then publish the results... And yes, this *needs* to be replicated numerous times, in numerous labs, by numerous experienced RVers with hundreds of targets, from fully AI chosen target pools, with the strictest of controls in place. (and, yes, with 100% completely verifiable targets! NOTHING outside of planet Earth, and NOTHING outside of the last few decades... (predictions would be good - but that just means more research). "Corroboration" amongst the viewers means nothing if the actual target can't be verified (which is one thing that I think is seriously ignored at FS).
(and then, when it's published, spam the media with the links).
I know people are going to say "but it's already been done" - yes and no. There has definitely been *some* research done on it, and published in some (barely) credible journals... but more needs to be done, and very very strictly (and, with the full co-operation of the real sceptics... which is probably the hardest aspect of it - although, with technology the way it is, they wouldn't even need to leave their office, since the chosen target is AI chosen, one would just need to decide on how to do it).
Send a challenge to Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (SCI) (formerly Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)) - https://skepticalinquirer.org/
Simply attacking the scientific mainstream achieves nothing (good). Attacking those who are doing the research, but not to the level you want achieves nothing (good). Just saying "It's already been proven", and then pointing to small indicators achieves nothing (good).
Being able to point to paper after paper after paper all showing the same results, from multiple sources, with similar *staggering* results is what will shut the critics up (eventually), as well as getting people interested.
Lastly, if you want people to get on board with RV, then it needs to be shown to work in real life practical ways. Locating lost locations would be great (which has already been done). But, again, *verifiable* - not "Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean" that no-one is going find anytime soon. People want to see big 'Randi Challenge' type proof... if FS believes that it's been able to do that - then show it!
As a trained physicist, I get what you are saying. After that stage of proving whether its real or not, the next stage is to put it into practice and cultivate that power within. It seems the first stage has already been done and everyone's made up their mind. Its like climate change. Most scientists I know, don't see the crisis in the objective data, and yet 60% of the population believes there's a crisis. Who's right? Most doctors accepted blood letting with leeches as a good way to cure everything, even anemia or vitamin deficiency. It took centuries to convince them to change. The mainstream scientific community is always wrong about major things, for centuries. So, what will be accomplished with more such strict trials? We are talking about an innate subjective sense, tied with consciousness, outside the limitations of physics. What good are such protocols, when the rational and scientific mind is actually the thing that gets in the way of that sense operating correctly.
I want to make an analogy. Its like someone eats an exotic fruit and says, "wow, its refreshing in a way i never experienced before." Then the scientists come along and say, "I don't believe you. I want to do double blind studies to prove you experienced something real." Yet the scientist could just reach out and take that fruit for themselves. But they can't, cause they are filled with doubt and self-imposed limitations.
Just try it for yourself. Belief in it, is the first step. Putting the mind aside is the second step. The more you chase the scientific method, in the classical sense, the further away you might go from the truth.