Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

  • Thread starter Thread starter pftest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Journal Paper
Click For Summary
Recent discussions highlight a groundbreaking paper suggesting that future events may influence current behavior, challenging traditional views on precognition. The study, led by Daryl Bem and set to be published in a prominent psychology journal, has garnered attention for its rigorous methodology, with even skeptics unable to identify significant flaws. Previous experiments, such as those on "presentiment," have shown physiological responses occurring before stimuli, hinting at a possible precognitive effect. While some participants express skepticism about the findings, the research opens the door for further scientific inquiry into phenomena previously deemed untestable. The implications of confirming precognition could revolutionize our understanding of time and perception.
  • #91
pftest said:
We can't just go "hey someone criticised that scientific peer reviewed paper that i don't like, that means its false", especially not in a skepticism and debunking forum. It will take time for science to show whether Bem has actually found ESP or not.

Nobody here ever said "hey, someone criticized that paper, that means it's false." I said "that paper tortures the data in an unacceptable way, using the same data to both form and test a hypothesis."

Using the same data to both form and test a hypothesis is never acceptable. Ever. I don't care if it's in a peer-reviewed journal or not. Doing that makes the paper false. Never once did I appeal to authority like you're claiming (by phrasing my argument as "hey, someone criticized it").

Bem used the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy" One doesn't need peer-reviewed research to point that out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Jack21222 said:
Nobody here ever said "hey, someone criticized that paper, that means it's false." I said "that paper tortures the data in an unacceptable way, using the same data to both form and test a hypothesis."

Using the same data to both form and test a hypothesis is never acceptable. Ever. I don't care if it's in a peer-reviewed journal or not. Doing that makes the paper false. Never once did I appeal to authority like you're claiming (by phrasing my argument as "hey, someone criticized it").

Bem used the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy" One doesn't need peer-reviewed research to point that out.

Perfectly said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
nismaratwork said:
Perfectly said.

Perfectly said.
 
  • #94
So at what point does discussion get back to the OP? Or is everyone going to sit bickering about who said what?
 
  • #95
jarednjames said:
So at what point does discussion get back to the OP? Or is everyone going to sit bickering about who said what?

That was an amazingly ironic post.

I wish people would stop quoting other people's posts and and writing about them! We need to get back to the OP! Everything else is a distraction. I hate it when people ramble on and on about nothing at all like a leaky sink faucet! Just dripping water all night against the unwashed pan from the night before. The metronomic pinging of water against metal a constant reminder that, no matter how hard you try, you just can't prepare dinner to her satisfaction.

Ping, "this is undercooked."
Ping, "did you just put seasoned salt on this?"
Ping, "Jason knew how to cook haddock."

The incessant nagging still with you long after she's fallen asleep; a dead weight in the bed pulling you closer only though the deformation of the long saggy mattress. And that's the moment you realized the love is gone.
 
  • #96
FlexGunship said:
That was an amazingly ironic post.

Yes it is (so is this one), and by extension so is every "can we get back to topic" post.

This thread is no longer discussing the OP (or related materials), it is arguing over silly little things and getting no where.

So back to the OP please.
 
  • #97
jarednjames said:
Yes it is (so is this one), and by extension so is every "can we get back to topic" post.

This thread is no longer discussing the OP (or related materials), it is arguing over silly little things and getting no where.

So back to the OP please.

Yeah... it's gone off topic because the OP got the answer, the argument, and everyone's opinion. What's left except minutiae?
 
  • #98
nismaratwork said:
Yeah... it's gone off topic because the OP got the answer, the argument, and everyone's opinion. What's left except minutiae?

Okay, fine. I'll bring it back to the OP. Not the specific paper, but the topic.

I think, that because of the nature of a discovery like precognition, a single peer-reviewed paper shouldn't be considered enough. This is the type of effect that should be reproducible on command, in many different locations, at a very small cost. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for additional conformational papers.

Does anyone disagree?
 
  • #99
FlexGunship said:
Okay, fine. I'll bring it back to the OP. Not the specific paper, but the topic.

I think, that because of the nature of a discovery like precognition, a single peer-reviewed paper shouldn't be considered enough. This is the type of effect that should be reproducible on command, in many different locations, at a very small cost. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for additional conformational papers.

Does anyone disagree?

I concur, much as would be the case with a SETI discovery, confirming such a thing would be a process. What I hate, and what the 'true believers' miss, is that who wouldn't be thrilled to find out that the universe was so odd? I'd go for a super-power!

I just don't see the evidence to start leaping from buildings to see if I'll fly, to throw out a colorful metaphor.
 
  • #100
I completely agree flex. One paper doesn't constitute perfect evidence, but it is a good starting point.
 
  • #101
jarednjames said:
I completely agree flex. One paper doesn't constitute perfect evidence, but it is a good starting point.

Well, one good paper would be a good starting point. This paper is no starting point at all, for the reasons I mentioned. If I take all sorts of data and start drawing lines around some of it, I'm sure I could "prove" all sorts of weird things.

"Oh look, dice throws come up as a five 3% more often on the third Tuesday of January, March, and November. We did over 1,000 dice throws every day, so the results are statistically significant."
 
  • #102
[I wrote: "Wow [Ionadis 2005] is an amazing paper! But yes, it looks like Bem's paper and the criticism on it is being published to provide a case example of just that problem... ]
pftest said:
[..]
Where'd you get that from? That paper is 5 years old and it applies to the majority of published research, not just a single ESP paper. It specifically refers to the area of biomedical research.

The criticism I referred to is the refutation by Wagenmakers at al, which apparently will be published in the same edition as Bem's paper.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
My post was in response to what flex put (like I said). Which is regarding one paper not being enough.

I'm not saying this paper is the starting point. My comment was a general reply regarding any topic, where one paper (under the conditions outlined by flex) is a good starting point.

For me, this paper is not that starting point.
 
  • #104
Uh, right. I should've been more clear. I was NOT implying that the paper being discussed would have been "#1" in the list called "Evidence." I'm simply saying that the list called "Evidence" can't be one item long.
 
  • #105
FlexGunship said:
Uh, right. I should've been more clear. I was NOT implying that the paper being discussed would have been "#1" in the list called "Evidence." I'm simply saying that the list called "Evidence" can't be one item long.

A word I love... "Indication"!
 
  • #106
I feel like I might've posted this somewhere already, but I love it, and it seems appropriate. I just hope you'll all take it with a grain of salt given the current context within this thread!

The Data So Far
the_data_so_far.png

But THIS guy, he might be for real!​
(Source: http://xkcd.com/373/)
 
  • #107
FlexGunship said:
I feel like I might've posted this somewhere already, but I love it, and it seems appropriate. I just hope you'll all take it with a grain of salt given the current context within this thread!

The Data So Far
the_data_so_far.png

But THIS guy, he might be for real!​


(Source: http://xkcd.com/373/)

Sums it up for me!
 
  • #108
This seems more accurate:
2078ivb.gif
 
  • #109
pftest said:
This seems more accurate:
2078ivb.gif

Let me get this straight; you believe claims ARE confirmed by experiment?
 
  • #110
pftest said:
This seems more accurate:
2078ivb.gif

I don't get it.
 
  • #111
nismaratwork said:
Let me get this straight; you believe claims ARE confirmed by experiment?
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.
 
  • #112
pftest said:
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.

Oh, well then by all means, present the evidence that the world has been waiting for.
 
  • #113
pftest said:
Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZwpwrrnhqCX8uvE98EPFXkvDuTKSoh1nBzB4CQSQNibtryicD-Q.jpg
 
  • #114
FlexGunship said:
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZwpwrrnhqCX8uvE98EPFXkvDuTKSoh1nBzB4CQSQNibtryicD-Q.jpg

Don't worry, I'm sure he's been holding back for pages, waiting to pounce! That, or he's just completely and blatantly blasting through the rules as though they don't exist.

One or the other.
 
  • #115
Look through the references of the paper posted in OP of this topic for some of such experiments. Also just browse through this Skepticism & Debunking forum for many many more examples.
 
  • #116
pftest said:
Look through the references of the paper posted in OP of this topic for some of such experiments. Also just browse through this Skepticism & Debunking forum for many many more examples.

You said, "Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid."

You have a huge burden of proof to meet. I'd start pulling sources together; I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons:

1.) You made a claim, you get to support it.
2.) Cracked Pottery.
 
  • #117
nismaratwork said:
You said, "Of course. Theres a gigantic amount of such experiments with reported positive results. However, it is mostly said that those experiments are flawed and thereby the results are invalid."

You have a huge burden of proof to meet. I'd start pulling sources together; I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons:

1.) You made a claim, you get to support it.
2.) Cracked Pottery.

Meh, I would call it an "off the cuff" remark. He doesn't mean it, it was just a knee-jerk reaction to your post. No need to hammer on the guy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
FlexGunship said:
Meh, I would call it an "off the cuff" remark. He doesn't mean it, it was just a knee-jerk reaction to your post. No need to hammer on the guy.

... But it keeps talking to me! :biggrin:
"It provides sources for its claims or it gets the HOSE again!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
nismaratwork said:
... But it keeps talking to me! :biggrin:
"It provides sources for its claims or it gets the HOSE again!"

:smile:
 
  • #120
nismaratwork said:
I'm browsing precisely nada for two reasons
Suddenly its too much trouble to click on the opening post? :smile:

Does anyone know when the paper will be published? I thought it was supposed to happen in 2010.
 

Similar threads

A review of dowsing: Evidence for and against
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
28K