Clairvoyance

Clairvoyant redirects here.

Clairvoyant (disambiguation).

For other uses, see

The term clairvoyance (from French clair meaning

clear and voyance meaning vision) is used to refer
to the ability to gain information about an object, person,
location or physical event through means other than the
known senses,[1][2] i.e., a form of extrasensory perception. A person said to have the ability of clairvoyance is
referred to as a clairvoyant (one who sees clearly).
Claims for the existence of paranormal and psychic abilities such as clairvoyance have not been supported by
scientic evidence published in high impact factor peer
reviewed journals.[3] Parapsychology explores this possibility, but the existence of the paranormal is not accepted by the scientic community.[4] Parapsychology,
including the study of clairvoyance, is an example of
pseudoscience.[5][6][7][8]

Character reader and clairvoyant in a British travelling show of

the 1940s, collected by Arthur James Fenwick (18781957)

Early researchers of clairvoyance included William Gregory, Gustav Pagenstecher, and Rudolf Tischner.[12]
Clairvoyance experiments were reported in 1884 by
Charles Richet. Playing cards were enclosed in envelopes
and a subject put under hypnosis attempted to identify
them. The subject was reported to have been successful
in a series of 133 trials but the results dropped to chance
level when performed before a group of scientists in Cambridge. J. M. Peirce and E. C. Pickering reported a similar experiment in which they tested 36 subjects over 23,
384 trials which did not obtain above chance scores.[13]

Usage

Pertaining to the ability of clear-sightedness, clairvoyance

refers to the supposed paranormal ability to see persons
and events that are distant in time or space. It can be divided into roughly three classes: precognition, the ability
to perceive or predict future events, retrocognition, the
Ivor Lloyd Tuckett (1911) and Joseph McCabe (1920)
ability to see past events, and remote viewing, the peranalyzed early cases of clairvoyance and came to the
ception of contemporary events happening outside of the
conclusion they were best explained by coincidence or
[9]
range of normal perception.
fraud.[14][15]

2
2.1

A signicant development in clairvoyance research came

when J. B. Rhine, a parapsychologist at Duke University,
introduced a standard methodology, with a standard statistical approach to analyzing data, as part of his research
into extrasensory perception. A number of psychological departments attempted to repeat Rhines experiments
with failure. W. S. Cox (1936) from Princeton University with 132 subjects produced 25, 064 trials in a playing
card ESP experiment. Cox concluded There is no evidence of extrasensory perception either in the 'average
man' or of the group investigated or in any particular individual of that group. The discrepancy between these
results and those obtained by Rhine is due either to uncontrollable factors in experimental procedure or to the
dierence in the subjects.[16] Four other psychological
departments failed to replicate Rhines results.[17][18] It
was revealed that Rhines experiments contained methodological aws and procedural errors.[19][20][21]

Parapsychology
Early research

The earliest record of somnambulistic clairvoyance is

credited to the Marquis de Puysgur, a follower of Franz
Mesmer, who in 1784 was treating a local dull-witted
peasant named Victor Race. During treatment, Race reportedly would go into trance and undergo a personality
change, becoming uent and articulate, and giving diagnosis and prescription for his own disease as well as those
of others.[10] Clairvoyance was a reported ability of some
mediums during the spiritualist period of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, and psychics of many descriptions have claimed clairvoyant ability up to the present
day.[11]
1

3 SCIENTIFIC RECEPTION

Eileen Garrett was tested by Rhine at Duke University

in 1933 with Zener cards. Certain symbols that were
placed on the cards and sealed in an envelope, and she
was asked to guess their contents. She performed poorly
and later criticized the tests by claiming the cards lacked
a psychic energy called energy stimulus and that she
could not perform clairvoyance to order.[22] The parapsychologist Samuel Soal and his colleagues tested Garrett in
May, 1937. Most of the experiments were carried out in
the Psychological Laboratory at the University College
London. A total of over 12,000 guesses were recorded
but Garrett failed to produce above chance level.[23] In
his report Soal wrote In the case of Mrs. Eileen Garrett we fail to nd the slightest conrmation of Dr. J. B.
Rhines remarkable claims relating to her alleged powers
of extra-sensory perception. Not only did she fail when
I took charge of the experiments, but she failed equally
when four other carefully trained experimenters took my
place.[24]

and Puthos experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterdays
two targets, or they had the date of the session written
at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues
were the reason for the experiments high hit rates.[30][31]
Marks was able to achieve 100 per cent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues.[32]
James Randi has written controlled tests by several other
researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced
negative results. Students were also able to solve Putho
and Targs locations from the clues that had inadvertently
been included in the transcripts.[33]

ing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at the

Stanford Research Institute. In a series of 35 studies, they
were unable to replicate the results so investigated the
procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ

Skeptics say that if clairvoyance were a reality it would

have become abundantly clear. They also contend that
those who believe in paranormal phenomena do so for
merely psychological reasons.[46] According to David G.
Myers (Psychology, 8th ed.):

In 1980, Charles Tart claimed that a rejudging of the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthos experiments revealed an above-chance result.[34] Targ and Putho again
refused to provide copies of the transcripts and it was
not until July 1985 that they were made available for
study when it was discovered they still contained sensory
cues.[35] Marks and Christopher Scott (1986) wrote considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothe2.2 Remote viewing
sis of adequate cue removal, Tarts failure to perform this
Remote viewing also known as remote sensing, remote basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously
perception, telesthesia and travelling clairvoyance is the concluded, remote viewing has not been demonstrated in
alleged paranormal ability to perceive a remote or hidden the experiments conducted by Putho and Targ, only the
repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory
target without support of the senses.[25]
cues.[36]
A well known study of remote viewing in recent times has
been the US government-funded project at the Stanford In 1982 Robert Jahn, then Dean of the School of EngiResearch Institute during the 1970s through the mid- neering at Princeton University wrote a comprehensive
1990s. In 1972, Harold Putho and Russell Targ ini- review of psychic phenomena from an engineering perreferences to retiated a series of human subject studies to determine spective. His paper included numerous
[37]
mote
viewing
studies
at
the
time.
Statistical
aws in
whether participants (the viewers or percipients) could rehis
work
have
been
proposed
by
others
in
the
parapsyliably identify and accurately describe salient features of
and within the general scientic
remote locations or targets. In the early studies, a hu- chological community
[38][39]
community.
man sender was typically present at the remote location,
as part of the experiment protocol. A three-step process was used, the rst step being to randomly select the
target conditions to be experienced by the senders. Secondly, in the viewing step, participants were asked to ver- 3 Scientic reception
bally express or sketch their impressions of the remote
scene. Thirdly, in the judging step, these descriptions According to scientic research, clairvoyance is generally
were matched by separate judges, as closely as possible, explained as the result of conrmation bias, expectancy
with the intended targets. The term remote viewing was bias, fraud, hallucination, self-delusion, sensory leakcoined to describe this overall process. The rst paper age, subjective validation, wishful thinking or failby Putho and Targ on remote viewing was published in ures to appreciate the base rate of chance occurrences
Nature in March 1974; in it, the team reported some de- and not as a paranormal power.[3][40][41][42] Parapsygree of remote viewing success.[26] After the publication chology is regarded by the scientic community as a
of these ndings, other attempts to replicate the experi- pseudoscience.[43][44] In 1988, the US National Rements were carried out.[27][28] and remotely linked groups search Council concluded The committee nds no sciusing computer conferencing.[29]
entic justication from research conducted over a pefor the existence of parapsychological
The psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann riod of 130 years,
[45]
phenomena.
attempted to replicate Targ and Puthos remote view-

4.2

Clairaudience (hearing/listening)
The search for a valid and reliable test of
clairvoyance has resulted in thousands of experiments. One controlled procedure has invited 'senders to telepathically transmit one of
four visual images to 'receivers deprived of
sensation in a nearby chamber (Bem & Honorton, 1994). The result? A reported 32
percent accurate response rate, surpassing the
chance rate of 25 percent. But follow-up studies have (depending on who was summarizing
the results) failed to replicate the phenomenon
or produced mixed results (Bem & others,
2001; Milton & Wiseman, 2002; Storm, 2000,
2003).
One skeptic, magician James Randi, has a
longstanding oernow U.S. $1 millionto
anyone who proves a genuine psychic power
under proper observing conditions (Randi,
1999). French, Australian, and Indian groups
have parallel oers of up to 200,000 euros
to anyone with demonstrable paranormal abilities (CFI, 2003). Large as these sums are,
the scientic seal of approval would be worth
far more to anyone whose claims could be authenticated. To refute those who say there is
no ESP, one need only produce a single person who can demonstrate a single, reproducible
ESP phenomenon. So far, no such person has
emerged. Randis oer has been publicized
for three decades and dozens of people have
been tested, sometimes under the scrutiny of
an independent panel of judges. Still, nothing. Peoples desire to believe in the paranormal is stronger than all the evidence that
it does not exist. Susan Blackmore, Blackmores rst law, 2004.[47]

Other related terms

The words clairvoyance and psychic are often used

to refer to many dierent kinds of paranormal sensory
experiences, but there are more specic names:

4.2 Clairaudience (hearing/listening)

In the eld of parapsychology, clairaudience [from late
17th century French clair (clear) and audience (hearing)]
is a form of extra-sensory perception wherein a person
acquires information by paranormal auditory means. It is
often considered to be a form of clairvoyance.[50] Clairaudience is essentially the ability to hear in a paranormal
manner, as opposed to paranormal seeing (clairvoyance)
and feeling (clairsentience).

4.3 Clairalience (smelling)

Also known as clairescence. In the eld of parapsychology, clairalience (or alternatively, clairolfactance) [presumably from late 17th century French clair (clear) and
alience (smelling)] is a form of extra-sensory perception
wherein a person accesses psychic knowledge through the
physical sense of smell.[51]

4.4 Claircognizance (knowing)

In the eld of parapsychology, claircognizance [presumably from late 17th century French clair (clear) and cognizance (< ME cognisaunce < OFr conoissance, knowledge)] is a form of extra-sensory perception wherein a
person acquires psychic knowledge primarily by means of
intrinsic knowledge. It is the ability to know something
without a physical explanation why you know it, like the
concept of mediums.

4.5 Clairgustance (tasting)

In the eld of parapsychology, clairgustance is dened as
a form of extra-sensory perception that allegedly allows
one to taste a substance without putting anything in ones
mouth. It is claimed that those who possess this ability
are able to perceive the essence of a substance from the
spiritual or ethereal realms through taste.

5 See also
Astral projection
Aura

4.1

Clairsentience (feeling/touching)

In the eld of parapsychology, clairsentience is a form

of extra-sensory perception wherein a person acquires
psychic knowledge primarily by feeling.[48] The word
clair is French for clear, and sentience is derived
from the Latin sentire, to feel. Psychometry is related
to clairsentience. The word stems from psyche and metric,
which means soul-measuring.[49]

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Out-of-body experience
Postdiction (retroactive clairvoyance)
Precognition
Remote viewing
Second sight

References

[1] Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, Retrieved 200710-05 1: the power or faculty of discerning objects not
present to the senses 2: ability to perceive matters beyond the range of ordinary perception: penetration"".
Mw1.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved November 17,
2011.
[2] Britannica Online Encyclopedia, Retrieved 2007-10-07.
The ESP entry includes clairvoyance
[3] Carroll, Robert Todd. (2003). Clairvoyance. Retrieved
2014-04-30.
[4]

Bunge, Mario. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology
II: Understanding the World. Springer. p. 226.
ISBN 90-277-1635-8 Despite being several thousand years old, and having attracted a large number of researchers over the past hundred years, we
owe no single rm nding to parapsychology: no
hard data on telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition,
or psychokinesis.
Stenger, Victor. (1990). Physics and Psychics: The
Search for a World Beyond the Senses. Prometheus
Books. p. 166. ISBN 0-87975-575-X The bottom
line is simple: science is based on consensus, and at
present a scientic consensus that psychic phenomena exist is still not established.
Zechmeister, Eugene; Johnson, James. (1992).
Critical Thinking:
A Functional Approach.
Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. p. 115. ISBN 0534165966
There exists no good scientic evidence for the
existence of paranormal phenomena such as ESP.
To be acceptable to the scientic community,
evidence must be both valid and reliable.
Hines, Terence. (2003). Pseudoscience and the
Paranormal. Prometheus Books. p. 144. ISBN 157392-979-4 It is important to realize that, in one
hundred years of parapsychological investigations,
there has never been a single adequate demonstration of the reality of any psi phenomenon.

REFERENCES

[10] Taves, Ann. (1999). Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience from Wesley to
James. Princeton University Press. p. 126. ISBN 0-69101024-2
[11] Hyman, Ray. (1985). A Critical Historical Overview of
Parapsychology. In Kurtz, Paul. A Skeptics Handbook of
Parapsychology. Prometheus Books. pp. 3-96. ISBN 087975-300-5
[12] Roeckelein, Jon. (2006). Elseviers Dictionary of Psychological Theories. Elsevier Science. p. 450. ISBN 0-44451750-2
[13] Hansel, C. E. M. The Search for a Demonstration of ESP.
In Paul Kurtz. (1985). A Skeptics Handbook of Parapsychology. Prometheus Books. pp. 97-127. ISBN 0-87975300-5
[14] McCabe, Joseph. (1920). Is Spiritualism Based On
Fraud? The Evidence Given By Sir A. C. Doyle and Others
Drastically Examined. Chapter The Subtle Art of Clairvoyance. London: Watts & Co. pp. 93-108
[15] Tuckett, Ivor Lloyd. (1911). The Evidence for the Supernatural: A Critical Study Made with Uncommon Sense.
Chapter Telepathy and Clairvoyance. K. Paul, Trench,
Trbner. pp. 107-142
[16] Cox, W. S. (1936). An experiment in ESP. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 12: 437.
[17] Jastrow, Joseph. (1938). ESP, House of Cards. The
American Scholar. Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 13-22. Rhines
results fail to be conrmed. At Colgate University (40,
000 tests, 7 subjects), at Chicago (extensive series on 315
students), at Southern Methodist College (75, 000 tests),
at Glasgow, Scotland (6, 650 tests), at London University
(105, 000 tests), not a single individual was found who
under rigidly conducted experiments could score above
chance. At Stanford University it has been convincingly
shown that the conditions favorable to the intrusion of
subtle errors produce above-chance records which come
down to chance when sources of error are eliminated.

[5] Dictionary.com
Pseudoscience"".
Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved September 22, 2012.

[18] Hansel, C. E. M. The Search for a Demonstration of ESP.

In Paul Kurtz. (1985). A Skeptics Handbook of Parapsychology. Prometheus Books. pp. 105-127. ISBN 087975-300-5

[6] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Science and

Pseudo-Science"". Plato.stanford.edu. September 3,
2008. Retrieved September 22, 2012.

Adam, E. T. (1938). A summary of some negative experiments. Journal of Parapsychology 2: 232236.

[7] Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience: A Statement

by 32 Russian Scientists and Philosophers. Quackwatch.com. July 17, 1998. Retrieved September 22,
2012.
[8] International Cultic Studies Association Science Fiction
in Pseudoscience"". Csj.org. Retrieved September 22,
2012.
[9] Melton, John. (2001). The Encyclopedia of Occultism &
Parapsychology. p. 297. Gale Group, Detroit. ISBN 9780810385702.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1938). An experimental study of

extra-sensory perception. Masters thesis. Southern
Methodist University.
Heinlein, C. P; Heinlein, J. H. (1938). Critique of
the premises of statistical methodology of parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology 5: 135-148.
Willoughby, R. R. (1938). Further card-guessing
experiments. Journal of Psychology 18: 3-13.
[19] Gulliksen, Harold. (1938). Extra-Sensory Perception:
What Is It?. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 43,
No. 4. pp. 623-634. Investigating Rhines methods,

we nd that his mathematical methods are wrong and that

the eect of this error would in some cases be negligible
and in others very marked. We nd that many of his experiments were set up in a manner which would tend to
increase, instead of to diminish, the possibility of systematic clerical errors; and lastly, that the ESP cards can be
read from the back.
[20] Wynn, Charles; Wiggins, Arthur. (2001). Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science
Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins. Joseph Henry Press. p.
156. ISBN 978-0-309-07309-7 In 1940, Rhine coauthored a book, Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years in
which he suggested that something more than mere guess
work was involved in his experiments. He was right! It is
now known that the experiments conducted in his laboratory contained serious methodological aws. Tests often
took place with minimal or no screening between the subject and the person administering the test. Subjects could
see the backs of cards that were later discovered to be
so cheaply printed that a faint outline of the symbol could
be seen. Furthermore, in face-to-face tests, subjects could
see card faces reected in the testers eyeglasses or cornea.
They were even able to (consciously or unconsciously)
pick up clues from the testers facial expression and voice
inection. In addition, an observant subject could identify
the cards by certain irregularities like warped edges, spots
on the backs, or design imperfections.
[21] Hines, Terence. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. p. 122. ISBN 978-1573929790
The procedural errors in the Rhine experiments have
been extremely damaging to his claims to have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Equally damaging has been
the fact that the results have not replicated when the experiments have been conducted in other laboratories.
[22] Hazelgrove, Jenny. (2000). Spiritualism and British Society Between the Wars. Manchester University Press. p.
204. ISBN 978-0719055591
[23] Russell, A. S; Benn, John Andrews. (1938). Discovery
the Popular Journal of Knowledge. Cambridge University
Press. pp. 305-306
[24] Soal, Samuel. A Repetition of Dr. Rhines work with Mrs.
Eileen Garrett. Proc. S.P.R. Vol. XLII. pp. 84-85. Also
quoted in Antony Flew. (1955). A New Approach To Psychical Research. Watts & Co. pp. 90-92.
[25] Blom, Jan. (2009). A Dictionary of Hallucinations.
Springer. p. 451. ISBN 978-1441912220
[26] Targ, Russel; Putho, Harold (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature
251 (5476): 602607. doi:10.1038/251602a0. PMID
4423858.
[27] Hastings, A.C.; Hurt, D.B. (October 1976). A conrmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting. Proceedings of the IEEE 64 (10): 15441545.
doi:10.1109/PROC.1976.10369.
[28] Whitson, T.W.; Bogart, D.N.; Palmer, J.; Tart, C.T. (October 1976). Preliminary experiments in group 'Remote
viewing'". Proceedings of the IEEE 64 (10): 15501551.
doi:10.1109/PROC.1976.10371.

[29] Vallee, J.; Hastings, A.C.; Askevold, G. (October 1976).

Remote viewing experiments through computer conferencing. Proceedings of the IEEE 64 (10): 15511552.
doi:10.1109/PROC.1976.10372.
[30] Marks, David; Kammann, Richard (1978). Information
transmission in remote viewing experiments. Nature 274
(5672): 680681. doi:10.1038/274680a0.
[31] Marks, David (1981). Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments. Nature 292 (5819): 177.
doi:10.1038/292177a0.
[32] Bridgstock, Martin. (2009). Beyond Belief: Skepticism,
Science and the Paranormal. Cambridge University Press.
p. 106. ISBN 978-0521758932 The explanation used by
Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of Occams
razor. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues - clues
to the order in which sites had been visitedprovided sufcient information for the results, without any recourse to
extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able
to achieve 100 percent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself,
purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occams
razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal
explanation: Targ and Puthos claims are not justied.
[33] James Randi Educational Foundation An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. Randi.org. Retrieved 2014-04-11.
[34] Tart, Charles; Putho, Harold; Targ, Russell (1980).
Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments. Nature 284 (5752): 191. doi:10.1038/284191a0.
PMID 7360248.
[35] Terence Hines. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. p. 136. ISBN 978-1573929790
[36] Marks, David; Scott, Christopher (1986).
Remote Viewing Exposed. Nature 319 (6053): 444.
doi:10.1038/319444a0. PMID 3945330.
[37] Jahn, R.G. (February 1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE 70 (2): 136170.
doi:10.1109/PROC.1982.12260.
[38] Stanley Jeers (MayJune 2006). The PEAR proposition: Fact or fallacy?". Skeptical Inquirer (Committee for
Skeptical Inquiry) 30.3. Retrieved 2014-01-24.
[39] George P. Hansen. Princeton [PEAR] Remote-Viewing
Experiments - A Critique. Tricksterbook.com. Retrieved 2014-04-06.
[40] Rawclie, Donovan. (1988). Occult and Supernatural
Phenomena. Dover Publications. pp. 367-463. ISBN
0-486-20503-7
[41] Reed, Graham. (1988). The Psychology of Anomalous
Experience: A Cognitive Approach. Prometheus Books.
ISBN 0-87975-435-4
[42] Zusne, Leonard; Jones, Warren. (1989). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. pp. 152-168. ISBN 0-8058-0508-7

EXTERNAL LINKS

[43] Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6
Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientic acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence
among the scientic community. Most scientists write it
o as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.

Donald Hebb (1980). Extrasensory Perception: A

Problem. In Essays on Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. ISBN 978-0-898-59017-3.

[44] Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation
Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. ISBN
978-0-226-05196-3 Many observers refer to the eld as
a pseudoscience. When mainstream scientists say that
the eld of parapsychology is not scientic, they mean that
no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-eect explanation for
these supposed eects has yet been proposed and that the
elds experiments cannot be consistently replicated.

Terence Hines (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-979-4.

[45] Gilovich, Thomas. (1993). How We Know What Isn't So:

The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. Free
Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-02-911706-4
[46] French, Chis; Wilson, Krissy. (2007). Cognitive Factors
Underlying Paranormal Beliefs and Experiences. In Sala,
Sergio. Tall Tales About the Mind and Brain: Separating
Fact From Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
3-22. ISBN 978-0198568773
[47] Myers, David. (2006). Psychology. Worth Publishers; 8th
edition. ISBN 978-0716764281
[48] Parapsychological Association historical terms glossary,
retrieved 2006-12-17
[49] Joseph Rodes Buchanan, Manual of Psychometry : the
Dawn of a New Civilization Boston, Frank H. Hodges (4th
edition), 1893 p.3
[50] Parapsychological Association website, Glossary of Key
Words Frequently Used in Parapsychology, Retrieved
2006-01-24
[51] Supernatural Glossary. Ghostvillage.com. Retrieved
November 17, 2011.

Further reading
James Alcock (1981). Parapsychology: Science or
Magic? A Psychological Perspective. Pergamon
Press. ISBN 0-08-025772-0.
Willis Dutcher (1922). On the Other Side of the
Footlights: An Expose of Routines, Apparatus and
Deceptions Resorted to by Mediums, Clairvoyants,
Fortune Tellers and Crystal Gazers in Deluding the
Public. Berlin, WI: Heaney Magic.
Thomas Gilovich (1993). How We Know What Isn't
So: Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life.
Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-911706-4.
Henry Gordon. (1988). Extrasensory Deception:
ESP, Psychics, Shirley MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs.
Macmillan of Canada. ISBN 0-7715-9539-5.

C. E. M. Hansel (1989). The Search for Psychic Power: ESP and Parapsychology Revisited.
Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-516-4.

David Marks. (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic

(2nd Edition). Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392798-8.
Joseph McCabe (1920). Is Spiritualism Based On
Fraud? The Evidence Given By Sir A. C. Doyle and
Others Drastically Examined. Chapter The Subtle
Art of Clairvoyance. London: Watts & Co. pp.
93108.

8 External links
Springer Psychic: A Study in Clairvoyance - Joe
Nickell
Debunking the Sixth Sense - Science Daily
Clairvoyance - The Skeptics Dictionary

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1

Text

Clairvoyance Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance?oldid=659210798 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Eloquence, BF, Bryan Derksen, R Lowry, Grizzly, Rambot, Ixfd64, Tgeorgescu, TakuyaMurata, IMSoP, Evercat, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Hyacinth, Martinphi,
Wiwaxia, Dpbsmith, Wetman, Wjhonson, Aetheling, Sjc196, DocWatson42, Gtrmp, Wighson, Zinnmann, Geni, Gary D, Freakofnurture, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Goplat, Pt, Mwanner, Marcok, Shanes, Dungodung, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Forteanajones,
Hooperbloob, Orangemarlin, Alansohn, DreamGuy, Ronark, CloudNine, Ceyockey, Issk, OwenX, JeremyA, MONGO, Miss Madeline, Wikiklrsc, Andrea.gf, Shikai shaw, GalaazV, Canderson7, Rjwilmsi, Bubba73, AED, Margosbot~enwiki, Nihiltres, Riki, Todd
Vierling, Pigman, Chris Capoccia, Hydrargyrum, CambridgeBayWeather, Cbird1057, Tavilis, Ytcracker, Joshdboz, Harrisale, Tailpig,
Augusto maguina~enwiki, The Obfuscator, Mccready, Nomadcowboy, Eduard Gherkin, BorgQueen, GraemeL, HereToHelp, Nealparr,
Finell, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Jim62sch, Bomac, Gilliam, Ohnoitsjamie, Chris the speller, Kurykh, JMSwtlk, The Rogue Penguin,
Colonies Chris, Blagov, Zsinj, Farseer, Anthon.E, Underbar dk, Vectrax, BullRangifer, Ollj, Ohconfucius, Eric82oslo, JzG, iga, Perfectblue97, Jggouvea, Hu12, Agent007bond, Michaelbusch, Clarityend, Psychic-Junkie, Keeton69, Gco, The Letter J, Alexbrewer, Lighthead,
KevinPuj, Slazenger, Gogo Dodo, Pstanton, Keraunos, John254, Shot info, Rjmail, Gioto, Drakonicon, Shabicht, LuckyLouie, Tillman,
Shanghipirate, Knotwork, Leolaursen, Magioladitis, Antelan, VoABot II, Wikidudeman, Knowledge for All, ***Ria777, Clich Online,
Dcb011235, Businessman332211, ArmadilloFromHell, Kabuto Yakushi, B9 hummingbird hovering, MartinBot, Fconaway, Pharaoh of the
Wizards, Psychicresearch, Ian.thomson, Minderbinder~enwiki, Anneh2803, Dispenser, Naniwako, Johnfos, Rodgarton, Martinevans123,
Jezar, IPSOS, Ktyler5618, Steve3849, Michaeldsuarez, Absconditum, Annalisa Ventola, Myriam Tobias, Why Not A Duck, Anton H,
Nihil novi, Toxicroak, Boonewightman, Keilana, Mankar Camoran, Ddxc, Faradayplank, Fratrep, Cebra, Jesterking, 9ofcups, RichardKingCEng, ClueBot, Dejavuyu2, RAmesbury, Ironmouse56, Simon D M, Hans Adler, LonerXL, Lucyintheskywithdada, SF007, M177,
DumZiBoT, Wednesday Next, Rror, NellieBly, Mabalu, Addbot, Basilicofresco, Twinzor, Mseanbrown, Leszek Jaczuk, Fluernutter,
Grubel, Redheylin, Scotopia, Verbal, Jarble, LuK3, Suwa, Yobot, AnomieBOT, 1exec1, Mann jess, Citation bot, Bob Burkhardt, Skarl the
Drummer, Miym, MaryNovak, Kesaloma, Kaplanclan, Vihelik, Knightnr, Ondeck1, Dan6hell66, FrescoBot, Happykg, Misuchi, Drew R.
Smith, Fahrenheit92, Atlantia, Zayaizzy22, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, Dazedbythebell, Tim1357, Trappist the monk, Thestraycat57, Lotje,
Schwede66, Cjwilky, Nederlandse Leeuw, Mean as custard, DexDor, Acather96, K6ka, Gerald daniels, Anthon St Maarten, Sbmeirow,
Jess, Kesmoore, Cforrester101, Ihardlythinkso, AndyTheGrump, DASHBotAV, TMNTfoeva, ClueBot NG, This lousy T-shirt, Keyuria,
Dream of Nyx, MerlIwBot, RakiSykes, Helpful Pixie Bot, SERGEJ2011, Monique Saunders, Hallows AG, MrBill3, Melodychick, SkepticalRaptor, ChrisGualtieri, Pk dba, Jdsg1, Emily Matweow, Clairvoyant-fourm, Froglich, YiFeiBot, Monkbot, Goblin Face, Mystical13,
ClockworkRebel, Njames0, Daisy6116 and Anonymous: 273

9.2

Images

File:Character_reader_and_Clairvoyant.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Character_reader_and_

Clairvoyant.jpg License: ? Contributors: Flickr: Character reader and Clairvoyant Original artist: Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-bysa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Ganzfeld.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Ganzfeld.jpg License: Public domain Contributors:
Transfered from en.wikipedia Original artist: Original uploader was Nealparr at en.wikipedia
File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk contribs), based
on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

9.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0