The criminal Scientology enterprise makes all sorts of wild claims and then offers anecdotal "evidence" to support those claims---- this is far from the scientific method. Those who assert the positive about "remote viewing" do the same: they strive to prove themselves correct by asserting positives, instead of proving themselves wrong by asserting a negative and then falsifying that negative.
The only way to know for sure if "remote viewing" occurs is to state a negation about some facet of "remote viewing" and then proving that negation false. This is because it is far too easy to produce evidence that a false belief is true; it is impossible to produce evidence that a true belief is false.
Scientology Inc. states "narCONon is successful in having people cease abusing drugs." That is a worthless statement, since anecdotal "evidence" can be produced by the MILLIONS to support that statement. There is no way to demonstrate that statement false.
Rather, the proper statement is "narCONon is a failure at having people cease abusing drugs." If narCONon *IS* successful, this statement is easy to refute, and will not yield to any anecdotal evidence: it is therefore the only statement about narCONon that, when tested, yields any worthwhile data about narCONon.
For "remote viewing," the proponents usually state "Some special people, or anyone who has been trained, can observe events that have not been perceived by the five human senses." One can produce billions of magazine articles that show this statement is true; the statement is therefore worthless.
On the other hand, those who assert that "remote viewing" exists must prove the null hypothesis false: "No human being can observe an event without using the five human senses." This, if false, will be easy to prove false, and cannot be proven true: it is therefore the only statement about "remote viewing" that, if tested, yields valuable information.
It is up to the proponents of "remote viewing," just as it is up to the proponents of "narCONon," to test the null hypothesis for their assertions and then prove those null hypothesies false. It is not up to the critics to do this.
This is why no refereed, peer-reviewed journal has published an article in support of "remote viewing."
"Isn't robotic parking just valet service by a Scientologist?" -- Queso