SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL TO PUBLISH ARTICLE ON THEORETICAL PRECOGNITIVE ABILITIES IN HUMANS.

Posts

Pages: 1
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18722
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.html

Even being insane a psychology person myself, I find myself skeptical of this, but apparently nobody can find anything wrong with it....
Despite
When the going gets tough, go fuck yourself.
1317
i always told you guys i was psychic.
i stopped reading the article as soon as i saw the word 'parapsychology'

edit: jk i read the whole thing

im interested in seeing what any follow up studies reveal but im not expecting much out of the ordinary
post=Solitayre
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-is-this-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future.htmlEven being insane a psychology person myself, I find myself skeptical of this, but apparently nobody can find anything wrong with it....

What this means is that they could not find anything wrong with the experimental setup itself. This still leaves the possibility that Bem flat out falsified the test result wide open. We'll see once the experiments are repeated.
Sated
puking up frothing vitriolic sarcastic spittle
4020
I'm surprised this made it into NewScientist. No I'm not: they're like the Fox News of scientific research.

EDIT: Okay, that's a bit harsh, but they do get a bit ahead of themselves.
Well, all I can say is that Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is a very badass journal, and Daryl Bem is an experient respected psychologist. Of course that doesn't eliminate the possibility that he would falsify the data, but the scientific community is not likely to make that kind of judgement towards his findings.

I always believed in the possibility of premonition/precognition, though I thought it was some sort of gift that some people had and some didn't, which would be a big problem in terms of scientific research, since scientific data must be replicable. But Bem picked random subjects, and he got a significant (even though very small) evidence of premonition.

Let's see if other researches will try to replicate that. Because if they do, and they get positive results... welp. We're in big trouble. Big, big trouble.
You can't explain that crap like when you think of someone and they phone or when your dream ends around your alarm clock going off.
kentona
I am tired of Earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.
21220
I knew you were going to post this.

it's like deja vu all over again.

post=thedjt
You can't explain that crap like when you think of someone and they phone or when your dream ends around your alarm clock going off.


Well, they are not the same thing. You CAN explain your dream ending around your alarm clock going off with no mention to premonition. Your body is doesn't stop working when you sleep. There something called "biological clock" or something.
arcan
Having a signature is too mainstream. I'm not part of your system!
1791
post=thedjt
You can't explain that crap like when you think of someone and they phone or when your dream ends around your alarm clock going off.


Those are easily explained.
I have deja vu all the flippin' time, but I don't believe I can see into the future. I figured it was just some random feeling that I've done something before, when I really haven't.
Deja vu is just a memory anomaly, but I don't think it's generally thought of to be a precognitive thing.

The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

That may sound unimpressive â€" truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all.


My...My god. Who could have possibly predicted this! And it would only ever be fifty percent if you did around a million trial experiments. Call me when this whole thing is replicated.
MMmmm... all these findings may be just a sign of misused statistic analyses after all.
post=calunio
MMmmm... all these findings may be just a sign of misused statistic analyses after all.

Misused statistic analyses is indeed the culprit. http://www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakersetal_subm.pdf

Bem's experiment has two errors that I'm able to understand. There's a third listed, but I could not understand what it actually meant.

The first error Bem made was to make multiple attempts and only report those who yielded significant result. Let's for simplicity's sake say that the probability of something to happen is 5% if left entirely to chance. Let's assume you do five experiments, each with that probability. Now, the chance that at least one of the experiments will yield that 5% result is 1-0,95^5 which is about 23%. If one of your experiment does happen to produce that 5% result, you should report a 23% result, not a 5% result. Bem did an error similar to reporting a 5% result in my example.

The second error was to not weight his evidence for precognition against the evidence <i>against</i> precognition. We have no evidence that proves beyond any doubt that precognition doesn't exist and I do not think it's even possible to have such evidence. We do however have evidence suggesting that precognition is very unlikely. One example given is casinos being profitable. It's not hard to imagine how people with precognitive abilities could ruin a casino. Casinos being profitable therefore speaks against people with precognitive abilities existing. Obviously, if you find evidence for precognition, it has to be stronger than the evidence against precognition before you can draw any conclusion.

Now for something fun. Bem followed the rules that guide academic publishing. There may at this point be a lot of published findings by psychologists that came to be due to flawed statistic analyses.
post=Crystalgate
Now for something fun. Bem followed the rules that guide academic publishing. There may at this point be a lot of published findings by psychologists that came to be due to flawed statistic analyses.

Oh, nothing new there. :D

But that's the reason science replicates things so much. No one would claim any important finding from a single study, using a single style of method and a single type of data analysis.
All I need now is a blue and yellow striped shirt Ooooo Yeeeh
post=calunio
Oh, nothing new there. :D

But that's the reason science replicates things so much. No one would claim any important finding from a single study, using a single style of method and a single type of data analysis.

This is true, but flaws in experimental design and misuse of statistics can be caught via per review. Also, while in this case the attempts at duplicating the experiment failed to get the same result, this is not guaranteed to happen in other cases. Imagine for example you wish to test if having nightmares shortens your lifespan. That sounds reasonable (and may even have been proven true, but I'll ignore that possibility for the sake of this example) and you go about gathering statistic data. Now, let's assume you do find a correlation between people having nightmares and a shortened lifespan. This is however not enough to conclude that nightmares causes a shortened lifespan. Reason for that is because anxiety and stress in your life increases both the likelihood of nightmares and an earlier death. Basically, we have a third factor that can be the cause.

If someone were to duplicate that experiment, they would most likely have gotten the same result. Therefore it is important that people do notice that you misused the statistic data. In my example the flaw was really obvious, but in other experimental setups a flaw may be less obvious. Now, anything in the field of parapsychology is guaranteed to be reviewed by at least thousands of scientists before it is accepted, so parapsychology will never slip past a flawed experimental design. However, a less "interesting" discovery in psychology is not so likely to be reviewed by anyone working outside that field meaning it's up to the psychologists to catch the flaws.
Welp, I'm not sure the case of the middle variable (like in the study of nightmares) applies here.

Also, I don't think Bem's study should even be called parapsychology. He's dealing with concrete psychological variables... of course the effect is interpreted in terms of something that can't be explained without the use of parapsychological terms, but still... it sounds like valid psychological science. What is to question is the analysis of data, and maybe methodological issues.

The thing about the statistics is... if you have 10 subjects performing with a 0.53 average accuracy, it will probably not be very significant. If you have 100 subjects, it will be more significant. If you have 10000 subjects, it will definitely be significant, even with the same average score. So, yeah, 53% accuracy is not so great, but what matters for the scientific conclusion is the p.
tardis
is it too late for ironhide facepalm
285
author=WolfCoder
All I need now is a blue and yellow striped shirt Ooooo Yeeeh


yeah, no. that's psychokinetic and/or telekinetic, not precognitive.
author=calunio
Welp, I'm not sure the case of the middle variable (like in the study of nightmares) applies here.

It applies to what you posted, but not to Bem's experiment. My example was provided to explain why per review has to catch flawed experimental design, not to explain anything about Bem's experiment.

Also, I don't think Bem's study should even be called parapsychology. He's dealing with concrete psychological variables... of course the effect is interpreted in terms of something that can't be explained without the use of parapsychological terms, but still... it sounds like valid psychological science. What is to question is the analysis of data, and maybe methodological issues.

It's not so that some fields of science are valid while others are not. You can make perfectly valid studies of parapsychology. Such studies have also been made. However, those studies have not showed any significant result. So, just because something is valid doesn't mean it can't be parapsychology. As a general rule, if it concerns our minds and you're trying to observe something we can't explain as opposed to explain something we observed, it's parapsychology. Precognition fits nicely.

The thing about the statistics is... if you have 10 subjects performing with a 0.53 average accuracy, it will probably not be very significant. If you have 100 subjects, it will be more significant. If you have 10000 subjects, it will definitely be significant, even with the same average score. So, yeah, 53% accuracy is not so great, but what matters for the scientific conclusion is the p.

Bem did multiple experiments and only one yielded that 53% accuracy. If you do multiple experiments, the chance that at least one of them will yield those 53% is obviously higher than if you only do one experiment. You need to correct the p-value accordingly, something Bem did not do. Also, more than the p-value matters. There are evidence against precognition, such as the example I mentioned of casinos being profitable. The evidence for precognition has to overcome the evidence against.
Pages: 1