Within Targ Puthoff
Why Uri Geller Made SRI More Controversial
Uri Geller's SRI sessions brought attention to Targ and Puthoff's work while sharpening criticism of their controls.
On this page
- Why Geller drew exceptional attention
- What SRI claimed to test
- How spectacle complicated scientific credibility
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Uri Geller’s involvement with the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) became one of the defining episodes in the history of remote viewing. His testing by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff brought unprecedented publicity to a research programme that might otherwise have remained a niche investigation into alleged psychic perception. At the same time, it transformed a scientific dispute into a highly visible public controversy. Supporters viewed the SRI experiments as evidence that extraordinary claims deserved serious investigation, while critics argued that the experimental controls were too weak to exclude deception or inadvertent information leakage. The resulting debate shaped not only Geller’s reputation but also the long-term credibility of Targ and Puthoff’s wider remote-viewing research.[Nature]nature.comTARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 251, 602–607 (1974). https…
Why Geller Drew Exceptional Attention
Before arriving at SRI in 1973, Uri Geller had already become internationally known through television appearances featuring spoon bending, watch-starting and drawing-duplication demonstrations. Unlike most participants in parapsychology experiments, he entered the laboratory as a celebrity whose performances had already divided public opinion.
This made the SRI tests unusually significant. Rather than introducing an unknown research subject, Targ and Puthoff were evaluating someone whose claims had become front-page news. Because SRI was a respected research organisation with government contracts, its willingness to investigate Geller was widely interpreted as lending scientific legitimacy to claims that many scientists regarded with deep scepticism.[Time]time.comscience the magician and the think tankScience: The Magician And the Think Tank11 Mar 1973 — After spending a day with Geller and Physicists Targ and Puthoff, Hyman was, in…
The publicity surrounding Geller also meant that every aspect of the experiments attracted scrutiny. Scientific questions about protocol became inseparable from public arguments over whether Geller was a genuine psychic, an accomplished magician, or something in between.
What SRI Claimed to Test
The SRI programme distinguished between Geller’s stage performances and the laboratory tasks it believed could be evaluated under controlled conditions. Targ and Puthoff focused primarily on experiments in which Geller attempted to reproduce drawings prepared in another room while separated from the experimenters by sensory shielding. They reported that several sessions produced correspondences which they considered too accurate to attribute to chance alone and argued that the results justified further investigation rather than proving paranormal abilities beyond doubt. Their influential 1974 paper in Nature framed the issue as “information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding” rather than as proof of psychic powers.[Nature]nature.comTARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 251, 602–607 (1974). https…
Importantly, the published paper did not claim that Geller’s well-known spoon bending had been scientifically established. Instead, it concentrated on perceptual tasks resembling what would later become known as remote viewing. Even so, because Geller’s public identity rested largely on spectacular demonstrations of psychokinesis, many readers interpreted the paper as a broad endorsement of all his paranormal claims.[Nature]nature.comTARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 251, 602–607 (1974). https…
Why Critics Challenged the Experiments
The strongest criticism was not simply that Geller might have cheated, but that the experimental design failed to rule out ordinary explanations convincingly enough for extraordinary claims.
Several lines of criticism emerged:
- Experimental controls. Psychologist Ray Hyman argued that the protocols contained weaknesses that allowed opportunities for normal information transfer and that the investigators underestimated the importance of rigorous anti-fraud procedures.[Time]time.comscience the magician and the think tankScience: The Magician And the Think Tank11 Mar 1973 — After spending a day with Geller and Physicists Targ and Puthoff, Hyman was, in…
- Sensory cueing. Psychologists David Marks and Richard Kammann later examined the published procedures and argued that features of the testing environment—including potential visual access and communication opportunities—could have permitted information leakage without requiring paranormal perception. They used these criticisms more broadly to challenge early remote-viewing research.[Wikipedia]WikipediaHarold E. PuthoffHarold E. Puthoff
- Magicians’ perspective. Professional magician James Randi maintained that many of Geller’s public feats could be duplicated through sleight of hand and argued that scientists unfamiliar with deception were poorly equipped to evaluate skilled performers. His criticism focused as much on the investigators’ methodology as on Geller himself.[Google Books]books.google.comBooks The Truth about Uri GellerGoogle BooksThe Truth about Uri Geller - James RandiThere is more to Uri Geller than his countless "miracles" - and James (The Amazing) R…
These objections became increasingly influential because they addressed methodology rather than personal belief. Critics argued that even sincere researchers could obtain misleading results if experimental safeguards were inadequate.
How Public Spectacle Complicated Scientific Credibility
Geller’s celebrity created a dilemma that extended beyond the laboratory. Every positive result received widespread media attention, while every allegation of trickery raised questions about the judgement of the researchers themselves.
Contemporary reporting captured this tension. Alongside publication of the Nature paper, journalists highlighted both the apparent significance of the experiments and concerns that the investigators lacked experience detecting stage deception. A widely discussed investigation by New Scientist journalist Joseph Hanlon concluded that the available evidence for Geller’s paranormal powers was unconvincing and criticised aspects of the SRI testing. Similar concerns appeared in major news coverage, where commentators argued that expertise in physics did not necessarily translate into expertise in evaluating conjuring techniques.[Time]content.time.comScience: New Flap Over UriScience: New Flap Over Uri - TIMENov 4, 1974 — He also criticized the controls that Targ and Puthoff used in their experiments…. T…
This controversy had consequences beyond Geller. Public discussion increasingly shifted away from the specific experimental data and towards broader questions:
- Should magicians routinely participate in testing extraordinary claims?
- How much methodological imperfection is acceptable when investigating controversial phenomena?
- Can highly public personalities be studied without publicity influencing scientific judgement?
Those questions continued to influence later debates over remote viewing and other parapsychological research.
The Lasting Impact on Targ and Puthoff’s Legacy
For supporters of SRI’s work, the Geller experiments demonstrated that unusual observations deserved systematic investigation rather than immediate dismissal. They argue that the studies were exploratory and that later remote-viewing research should be judged independently of one controversial participant.[Nature]nature.comTARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 251, 602–607 (1974). https…
For critics, however, Geller became emblematic of the dangers of insufficient experimental controls. They contend that the weaknesses identified in the SRI studies undermined confidence not only in the Geller sessions but also in the broader remote-viewing programme that followed. Later assessments of the field frequently cite the Geller experiments as an early example of how methodological flaws can produce persuasive but disputed evidence.[Wikipedia]WikipediaHarold E. PuthoffHarold E. Puthoff
The episode therefore occupies a unique place in the history of remote viewing. Geller’s participation gave Targ and Puthoff unprecedented visibility and helped establish remote viewing as a subject worthy of public debate. Yet that same visibility ensured that questions about experimental rigour became inseparable from the legacy of their research, leaving the SRI studies remembered as much for the controversy they generated as for the claims they sought to investigate.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why Uri Geller Made SRI More Controversial. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Truth about Uri Geller
Directly addresses the claims and criticism surrounding Uri Geller.
Mind-Reach
First published 2005. Subjects: Consciousness, Parapsychology, Case studies.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/251602a0
Source snippet
TARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature 251, 602–607 (1974). https...
2.
Source: content.time.com
Title: Science: New Flap Over Uri
Link:https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0%2C33009%2C945074-2%2C00.html
Source snippet
Science: New Flap Over Uri - TIMENov 4, 1974 — He also criticized the controls that Targ and Puthoff used in their experiments.... T...
3.
Source: time.com
Title: science the magician and the think tank
Link:https://time.com/archive/6877742/science-the-magician-and-the-think-tank/
Source snippet
Science: The Magician And the Think Tank11 Mar 1973 — After spending a day with Geller and Physicists Targ and Puthoff, Hyman was, in...
4.
Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/251559a0.pdf
Source snippet
18 Oct 1974 — one of the subjects, Mr Uri Geller, have been hailed pub- licly as indicating total acceptance by the SRI of allegedl...
5.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Harold E. Puthoff
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
6.
Source: books.google.com
Title: Books The Truth about Uri Geller
Link:https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Truth_about_Uri_Geller.html?id=RMSC6up3oyEC
Source snippet
Google BooksThe Truth about Uri Geller - James RandiThere is more to Uri Geller than his countless "miracles" - and James (The Amazing) R...
7.
Source: time.com
Title: science new flap over uri
Link:https://time.com/archive/6878192/science-new-flap-over-uri/
Source snippet
Science: New Flap Over Uri3 Nov 1974 —... Targ and Hal Puthoff are no match for Uri Geller.” Furthermore, he says, the SRI paper publish...
8.
Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/322506a0.pdf
Source snippet
Wide sweepby AJ Thomson · 1986 — Uri Geller, a professional ma- gician who claimed to be psychic, was tested during a visit to SRI where...
9.
Source: time.com
Title: boom times on the psychic frontier
Link:https://time.com/archive/6877897/boom-times-on-the-psychic-frontier/
Source snippet
3 Mar 1974 — James Randi, who appears on television as “the Amazing Randi,” duplicates many of Uri Geller's achievements with a combinati...
10.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Uri Geller
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller
Source snippet
Uri GellerPuthoff and Russell Targ. Geller was isolated and asked to reproduce simple drawings prepared in another room. Writing about...
11.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Parapsychology research at SRI
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI
Source snippet
Parapsychology research at SRIUri Geller began work with SRI in the early 1970s and was the primary focus of Puthoff and Targ's 1974 a...
12.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Remote viewing
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Source snippet
Remote viewingPhysicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, parapsychology researchers at Stanford Research Institute (SRI), are general...
13.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Nature Published It… And They Couldn’t Explain Why
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI_eq5RGrR0
Source snippet
The Story of Uri Geller: CIA Psychic Warrior??...
Additional References
14.
Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/49221738/A-Meeting-With-Uri-Geller
15.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000500240021-0
Source snippet
since the beginning, and reported thus both in the SRI film and...Read more...
16.
Source: chriscarosa.com
Title: the [stargate]({{ ‘stargate/’ | relative_url }}) folly its never about the science its always about the funding
Link:https://chriscarosa.com/2022/04/the-stargate-folly-its-never-about-the-science-its-always-about-the-funding/
Source snippet
Echoing critics of the [Nature paper]({{ 'nature-paper/' | relative_url }}), Martinez wrote “A University of Oregon scientist...Read more...
17.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Uri Geller’s Paranormal PROOF at the Stanford Research Institute
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFCBzL5ol5E
Source snippet
This video details the skeptical reaction and the methods used by magicians to challenge the Stanford Research Institute's findings, high...
18.
Source: machronicle.com
Title: The CIA Tested Psychic Spies for 22 Years
Link:https://machronicle.com/the-cia-tested-psychic-spies-for-22-years-they-worked-down-the-street/
Source snippet
They Worked...5 hours ago — In 1974, the results of the experiment were published in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific jour...
19.
Source: skepticalaboutskeptics.org
Title: Randi’s take on this series of experiments is withering.Read more
Link:https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/whos-who-of-media-skeptics/james-randi/james-randi-a-skeptical-look/
Source snippet
James Randi, A Skeptical LookThe article details experiments involving, among other participants, the professed psychic Uri Geller...
20.
Source: damninteresting.com
Title: project alpha and the spoon benders
Link:https://www.damninteresting.com/project-alpha-and-the-spoon-benders/
Source snippet
affiliate link Videos from the Stanford research Video of James Randi criticizing...Read more...
21.
Source: reddit.com
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/18gplti/targ_and_puthoffs_work_with_uri_geller/
Source snippet
Targ and Puthoff's work with Uri Geller: r/remoteviewingIf you read the actual Nature paper, Geller performed well under a variety of ci...
22.
Source: encyclopedia.com
Title: targ russell 1934
Link:https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-[transcripts
Source snippet
Targ, Russell (1934-)Targ, Russel, and Harold E. Puthoff. "ESP Experiments with Uri Geller." In Research in Parapsychology 1973. Metuchen...
23.
Source: latimes.com
Title: The Psychic
Link:https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-13-vw-2279-story.html
Source snippet
and the Skeptic: Uri Geller and James...13 Sept 1991 — For almost 20 years, the skeptic and the psychic have feuded, calling names and...
Topic Tree
Follow this branch
Parent topic
Targ Puthoff The Physicists Behind Remote Viewing's RiseRelated pages 5
- Authority Problem Did Physics Credentials Make Remote Viewing Credible?
- CIA Interest Did CIA Interest Prove Remote Viewing Worked?
- Legacy Chain How SRI Became the Remote Viewing Origin Story
- Mind Reach How Mind Reach Sold Remote Viewing to Readers
- Viewer Language Why Calling Psychics 'Viewers' Changed the Story