Feeling the future meta-analysis
Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times was kind enough to prepare us to be outraged . It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake . I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha in this blog . But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psycho...
Comments
lol
There is a question looming in my mind after I started reading "Entangled" and it is this: With all the shielding you are creating for tests subjects against electromagnetic influence, by isolating them in chamnbers... aren't you working in non natural conditions and creating biased experiments working against your original goal?
Actual PSI pehenomena happen in the open in all kinds of environments with and without a myriad of influences from the physical environment.
I wonder what is the chance that the first Higgs Boson claim will be a fake!
Sometimes the deniers there comes up with new tricks. I'm not good enough mathematician or computer programmer to evaluate this new simulation claiming that presentiment studies can be explained just by mathematical artefacts: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123007
I wonder how thoroughly "Robin" read p. 269-271 in your 2004 study before he created this simulation?
In experiments under my control, no. In demonstrating claims of strong ESP or PK abilities outside of a controlled environment? Yes. Out of the half-dozen claims of reliable macroPK that I've investigated, all were fraudulent.
Sometimes claimants for strong perceptual psi effects are sincere, but they're unaware of conventional explanations for what they do (like implicit learning of subtle cues).