Talk:Precognition/Archive 2

Mathematical analysis of precognition

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

as per http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research I don't think that it would be appropriate, any other thoughts? JFArcher (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I read that section over before I posted, and I don't think it applies. My reason for this is that these are preexisting and well-established methods of research (runs analysis, goodness of fit analysis, etc). In addition the reference is not to the research, but to the online data-collection system, which is unique. Furthermore a well known player in the paranormal/skeptical community (James Randi) is involved in the project, which makes it worthy of note. Thoughts? I will await your word before I make any edits to the page. Thanks again for responding. -Scotopia 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

it does apply, the question is not the quality nor content of the research, but where the research is sourced from. Get it published, not just in a blog or similar but in a reputable source (WP:RELIABLE) & it can go in; particularly important for this sort of article, which may be questioned by some. David Woodward (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Visitors, Please add suggestions here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few of my thoughts on what cold be added.

• While precognition is not a "fact of science" it is a "fact of belief", this page needs to include more about the belief in precognition amongst the populace. For example, what percentage of the population believe in precognition and how does this compare to the belief in other elements of the paranormal? Or do religious people believe in it more/less?
• What about its use in fortune telling? Psychic hotlines are quite popular, yet they aren't mentioned here.
• How about the rise in popularity of precognition in Asia now that Chinese rural superstitions are being brought into the cities by migrant workers and thus are being made a money making opportunity (it became such a problem that the Chinese government recently banned fortune telling via text message).
• What about people who've made famous claims in regards to precognition. People who "had a bad feeling" and stayed home on 9/11 or who begged their relatives not to get on a certain plane that later crashed?
• What about people who predicted events that never transpired and are famous for that?
• How about notable pseudoscience on the mechanisms behind precognition?
• Precognition in myth and religion. Sooth sayer, Biblical prophets? At least there should be some see also links. If not a passage outlining them and wikilinking to their respective pages.
• Various forms of precognition. Dreams, sudden visions, nagging feelings?

perfectblue 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My main goal was to try to keep this article separate from the Psychic article. I don't want it to contain the exact same information as that article does. So if I were to elaborate on all of the things mentioned above then the two articles would be very similar in info and would probably warrant being merged. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, which of these things would do better in Prophecy? Precognition is more like parapsychology, and the psychic article is going to cover some of what you talk about. Precognition does need its own article, but only as a parapsychological topic perhaps? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind merging this with the Psychic article and giving it it's own section with a few paragraphs. That could easily be done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against merging parapsychology topics into general headings like psychic. However, it might merge into ESP. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you against it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've done a review for this article too. View here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Precognition/archive1. --Midnightdreary 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a peer review source, but a good clear case from a reputable source, i may be back later to integrate into article, but anybody else help yourself. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-got-a-lesson-they-got-a-lesson/2007/11/09/1194329513144.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

David Woodward (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA status

WDM, why did you nominate this article for GA status without even telling anyone? More to the point, why did you nominate it? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who should I have told? Also, Why should I have nominated it? This article is about as large as it's going to get without overlapping with the Psychic article. It's very clean and to the point and is quite thorough. I think it's close to GA criteria. If you have any suggestions for improving it that don't include adding info which would overlap with the Psychic article then please go ahead. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should tell people just to be polite, and you should have consulted, because the paranormal isn't really your area of study. There is a great deal which is not covered, and should be, such as presentiment, and many studies which have been done. A good article would be 5 or more times the current size. This is really a stub. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal is my area of study, now... If you have any problems with the article then just post them so we can discuss them. There is no "size minimum" on good articles. This article is much larger than a stub. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake: the paranormal is not an area in which you have much expertise. A beginning survey would take a couple years intense study. Expertise in a select area or two of the paranormal would take about 10 years studying it intensely, sometimes much more. The paranormal comprises many fields, which are often no less detailed than many other disciplines. And please point me to the "size limit" on stubs.

You're right that this is probably too large for stub status, but it is certainly not a finished article.

Just out of curiosity, what books on the paranormal have you read recently, and what books are you planning to read in the near future? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read? Don't you mean written? - perfectblue 11:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got better things to do than read "Paranormal books", However I think we should stay on topic of this article and now delve into what I have or haven't read. Concerning Stub size, Please see WP:STUB. A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. If you can provide relevant information for this article that the Psychic article doesn't also contain (or shouldn't contain) then please do. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, I seeee.... Well, anyway, you're right about the stub status thing. I think most of the articles related to parapsychology need tons of work, but I don't have time to do it all. Presentiment is one major area that needs to be covered. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This artilce needs expansion and work in a few areas before it should be considered a good article. Here are the criteria as a reminder.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The main problem with this artilce is that it is not broad enough in coverage. It also has neutral point of view problems, it shouldn't state that precognition is real, since that's controversial. It has a bit of a weasel words problem, and finally the lists should be in prose format. Looking at individual issues.

Nostradamus is used as the image, which is good, but he should be discussed in the History section. The History section starts in 1937, what happened before then?

The part about J. W. Dunne says "Dunne's study was based on his own precognitive dreams," and "His worries soon eased when he discovered that precognitive dreams are common." These refs are based on his own book, so probably accurate, but this artilce should ascribe these type of statements to him, and not state them as fact, since this is a controversial area of research. Maybe changes like "Dunne's study was based on what he believed to be his own precognitive dreams," You can probably find better wording.

The part about Joseph Banks Rhine starts good, but then never reports on the finding of the study.

There should be a reference for the part about J. A. Barker, and again this article is stating as fact that "human seismographs" exist. Again, what exactly were the findings?

Why did the Princeton lab close down? Probably one or two more sentences about the lab would be enough.

The Skepticism part has a number of weasel words. "The existence of precognition is disputed by some." "Skeptics point to the fact." Who are these people? Mention them by name.

The In fiction section should should be in prose format, not a list. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists. Also, there are many examples of characters who have precognition in fiction, so this article needs an objective way of determining who gets on the list and who doesn't. Look to external reliable sources for this. For example this reference might be used to discuss the character from Next (film).

I'm going to give this article a fail for now. Feel free to nominate it again after improvement. - Peregrine Fisher 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I agree it should fail - one of the external links (I've removed it) linked to a Scottish Government document that appeared to be about precognition but was actually about taking witness statements. Quote from document: "It was apparent that some witnesses would not know what the terms ‘precognition’ and ‘precognition agent’ meant. In designing the questionnaire it was therefore necessary to use straightforward language as far as possible. Whereas the two previous questionnaires had referred to the project as an investigation into “The Work of Precognition Agents in Criminal Cases”, the witnesses’ questionnaire referred to it as an investigation into “Taking Statements from Witnesses in Criminal Cases”." This calls into question all of the references in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirel (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV ?

The article starts in the tone "precognition is a fact, even is there are some skeptics". There is no evidence that precognition is a real existing ability (as far as I know). The article is not neutral in my opinion. --Xerces8 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of criticism

This article repeats the skeptical criticisms twice in the same article. The stuff about selection bias really only needs to be mentioned once surely? I am a bit of a skeptic myself though I would like to maintain an open mind, so let's try and make this one NPOV rather than trying to make a conclusion. Yes, I think it is fair to say that it is not currently accepted by mainstream science, but this does not necessarily mean that it is false or is not a possible existing phenomena, just that the scientific method has so far, inadequately been able to find any evidence using the tools of probability (using statistical significance as a test of evidence is dubious itself to many 'hard' scientists). It does not need an entire paragraph devoted to the skeptics claims in the introduction, just a sentence saying it is currently not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. If there are no objections I will remove the skeptical stuff that is repeated in the second paragraph, whereby it has already been covered in the skeptics main section below? -- Mindeagle (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Precognition versus Clairvoyance

I do not have the research close at hand, but hasn't it been demonstrated that precognition and clairvoyance function through different mechanisms?

I believe that precognition depends on the psychic learning about the perceived event later through conventional means. This would be explained as "remembering the past".

This explains Nostradamus' prediction of Henry II being killed in a joust; this is information that Nostradamus learned about later through conventional means. Dsunlin (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Causality and Paradoxes

Usually precognition happen to events that are too close to happen or the events are imposible to stop or change. So if it happen to be a event posible to change, that isnt precognigtion but something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.77.181.168 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulk changes

I have somewhat radically re-organized the article, and expanded it, from the first para onwards, taking the above lingering issues into account, and not deleting or subordinating/reifying any particular bit of info. The are now three main sections into which the somewhat disorganized prior info have been arranged - evidence, explanations, miscellany. Main additions concern the early evidence by spontaneous cases, experimental studies of the same, details re the card-guessing and REG studies, the Honorton-Ferrari meta-analysis, and extended and novel info re the psychological and parapsychological theorisations (e.g., cryptomnesia, advanced wave, observational theories). Some editors might be concerned that I have dropped the "Skepticism" heading - this info is well represented in the Explanations section (without its repetition, as noted as an issue, above), and I have also more fully and less controversially (I trust) represented the "skeptical" by continually referring to "ostensible" or "apparent" precognition throughout the article, and by adding references to specific studies that have questioned the parapsychological definition of precognition (rather than citing secondary sources of dubious merit) - all according to the basic principle that there are both classical-psychological and parapsychological theories that can be legitimately raised in explanation of the data for precognition (rather than structuring the article on the difference between "skeptical" and "paranormal" positions - which is a polemical debate rather than encyclopedically informative). Rodgarton (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of paranormal category and wikiproject

User:Rodgarton writes that the paranormal "concerns non-psychological phenomena, unlike precognition". I can find no definition which supports this highly unconventional view of the paranormal, so I'm going to replace the category and wikiproject. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to look for a definition; the proof is in what wikipedia lists under "paranormal" - the likes of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, and so on. These phenomena do not mark out a psychological process or experience; which precognition does, in same way as, say, recollection. Forcing associations of precognition and like psychological (including parapsychological) processes/experiences with Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle betrays a less than encyclopedically informative motivation, no? Rodgarton 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Please provide a reliable source for the assertion that paranormal phenomena are non-psychological. The Wikipedia Category does not support this assertion at all. Please also Assume Good Faith. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source of the essential point is Wikipedia - there, the paranormal quite obviously concerns non-psychological phenomena, like Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, etc. It may seek to adopt some psychologically anomalistic phenomena, but that is clearly not intrinsic to its definition, given that the vast majority of its items are of these odd, "Fortean" phenomena. What is required is, on the contrary, a justification for including precognition - a psychological construct - in with the likes of Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle. Constructs such as precognition were specifically marked out to distinguish them as objects of scientific, psychological (even if parapsychological) study in distinction to the naive and cultural fascinations of "Fortean" phenomena; precognition is not the same as "prophecy" or "soothsaying" or "divination", etc., which quite legitimately sit within the Paranormal pages. To attempt to push such attempts to mark out a scientific approach to such phenomena back under the banner of the paranormal is akin to suppressing astronomy in favor of astrology. A quote from an authority on this issue:

"Astrology, palmistry, Tarot-card reading and other systems of divination are not parapsychology, since they depend upon prescribed rules, rather than subjective insight, for interpreting patterns." - Rush, J. H. (1986). What is parapsychology? In H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer & J. H. Rush (Eds.), Foundations of Parapsychology (pp. 3-8). Boston, MA, US: Routledge (p. 6).

In other words, these are cultural practices but they are not psychological processes or constructs - i.e., they belong to the "paranormal", if anywhere, whereas "precognition" belongs to the parapsychological. We are missing a justification to the contrary. Rodgarton 05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been pressed to provide a source, and you've provided one RS which does not mention precognition (the Rush quote) and the other source is Wikipedia. Quite apart from the fact that Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, the Wikipedia category system does not claim that precognition and other psychic abilities are not paranormal- quite the opposite. Precognition is described as a paranormal ability in many secondary sources- do a Google Books search and see for yourself. Your attempt to privilege your own opinions over these sources constitutes original research. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My original point concerned the paranormal as it is represented in Wikipedia, which is what the respondent is hoping to represent this article within; I can not be obliged to go beyond that as this is what the issue precisely concerns - i.e., representation of the precognition article within the family of Wikipedia's paranormal pages. I note no substantive comment addressing this concern, nor explicit justification for including this article within the house of Atlantis, Godzilla, Jedi telepaths, and so on, apart from appeals to "do a search". I present, next, definitions of precognition as given in various authoritative primary sources - from persons and organizations who have actually researched the construct, none of which mention the colorful and loaded term "paranormal"; only one of which even vaguely refers to the same. Please consult the cited references for extended discussion of this issue.

• "Perception or awareness of [a] future event, apart from information or inference" (Saltmarsh, 1938, p. 119).

• "Knowledge of the future, which is not based upon inference from knowledge of the past and present" (Saltmarsh, 1938, p. 3).

• "Extra-sensory perception of an undetermined random future event" (Pratt, Rhine, Smith, Stuart, & Greenwood, 1940, p. 423).

• "Foreseeing arbitrary events in the future that could not by any stretch of the imagination be inferred from the present" (West, 1962, p. 157).

• "Knowledge of a future event which could not have been predicted or inferred by normal means" (Dale & White, 1977, p. 930).

• "Correct prediction of future events when there is no way of inferring what those events will be from the present" (Tart, 1977, p. 46).

• "Access to information that has not yet been determined, e.g., [an individual] appears able to “see into the future” through some direct means rather than through some process of rational inference" (Morris, 1978, pp. 8-9).

• "Foreknowledge of a randomly occurring future event not based on inference from presently available data" (Eisenbud, 1982, p. 4).

• "Situations in which, under psi-task conditions, an organism behaves as if it has information about … a future event" (Parapsychological Association, 1988, p. 353)

References

Dale, L. A., & White, R. A. (1977). Glossary of terms found in the literature of psychical research and parapsychology. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology (pp. 921-936). New York, NY, US: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Eisenbud, J. (1982). Paranormal foreknowledge. New York, NY, US: Human Sciences.

Morris, R. L. (1978). A survey of methods and issues in ESP research. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological Research (Vol. 2, pp. 7-58). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press.

Parapsychological Association. (1988). Terms and methods in parapsychological research. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 82, 353-357.

Pratt, J. G., Rhine, J. B., Smith, B. M., Stuart, C. E., & Greenwood, J. A. (1940). Extra-sensory perception after sixty years. New York, NY, US: Henry Holt.

Saltmarsh, H. F. (1938). Foreknowledge. London, UK: G. Bell.

Tart, C. T. (1977). Psi: Scientific studies of the psychic realm. New York, NY, US: Dutton.

West, D. J. (1962). Psychical research today. (2nd rev. ed.). London, UK: Penguin. Originally published 1954.

It looks to me like these quoted refs settle the issue of whether "ostensible" should be included in the definition. Since you're denying there are secondary sources which list precognition as a paranormal power, then I'll have to come back to this when I have time, but you could have just looked for yourself. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the first relevant results of a Google Scholar search, as promised. There are of course many more:

• "The entire body of existing evidence for precognition (paranormal knowledge of the future)..." [1]
• "Among the seven Paranormal Belief subscales, only precognition and psi beliefs showed non-significant relationships..." [2]
• "This questionnaire assesses the belief in various paranormal phenomena (like precognition, astrology, the existence of flying saucers..." [3]
• "a small but significant correlation between narcissism and the paranormal beliefs of Psi and Precognition" [4]
• "The paranormal section of the DDIS includes sixteen questions inquiring whether the subject has ever had any kind of supernatural experience, then asking specifically about mental telepathy, precognition..." [5]
• "the mind either comes to be in the state it is in (knowledge, belief, etc.) by paranormal means (eg, precognition)..." [6]
• "paranormal beliefs (beliefs in psi, witchcraft, spiritualism, precognition" [7]
• "Is there a paranormal (precognitive) influence in certain types of perceptual sequences?" [8]
• "each of 10 paranormal phenomena: out-of-body experiences, extraterrestrial visitation, reincarnation, precognition during dreams..." [9]
• "Precognition is said to characterize the paranormal dream, as well as telepathy and clairvoyance, the two other forms of ESP" [10]
• See also [11] (precognition labelled as a "paranormal knowledge claim")

Do you question these sources? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the two sets of quotes is between primary sources, and/or those authored by people and organisations who have actually researched the issue, versus, as the respondent describes them, secondary sources which - for the most part - deal precisely with defining the construct of "Paranormal belief", as investigated by questionnaires, which by definition concerns popular perceptions and beliefs about experiences - something which, one should reasonably expect, Wikipedia does not class its articles by when there are primary and authoritative sources from researchers of the construct amply available. Furthermore, it is not possible to find within these scales - and not, moreover, in the uses of the term "paranormal" in these papers - that the authors were intending to associate "precognition", or to qualify its understanding, with such phenomena as the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, Big Foot, etc., which are the topics we find in Wikipedia's family of paranormal pages. This is the issue which I first posed, and which remains to be addressed by the respondent. As the context of my first edit should show, when I wrote of the paranormal concerning non-psychological phenomena, this was the paranormal as it is represented in the pages of Wikipedia, and with which the respondent is seeking to associate the construct of precognition - unlike any of the "secondary sources" he cites above. Again, the issue concerns the housing of an article that informs us about scientific effort to understand a particular construct alongside and within Wikipedia's family of "paranormal" exotica. There is a place in the Paranormal pages for constructs such as prophecy, divination, and so on, but, again, these are not precognition - which scientists have made particular efforts to treat and define as a scientific construct, not associated with paranormal exotica. It is unfortunate to see efforts to use Wikipedia to turn back the scientific efforts in this matter and restore the construct to the cultural and other-worldly. If quotes are still required, let me add another that well supersedes many of those listed above, coming from one of the authors who the respondent has himself cited, and from the concluding paragraph of an often-cited, comprehensive review of the theories of psi:

"One of the most exciting developments in the past two decades has been the growing realization that psi phenomena need not be in conflict with established laws of science" - Stokes, D. M. (1987). Theoretical parapsychology. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 5, pp. 77-190). Jefferson, NC, US: McFarland & Co. (p. 189).

The substantive issue I have raised remains to be addressed by the respondent, after several exchanges, and surely we must shortly assume that the association of precognition within Wikipedia's paranormal pages, alongside Nessie and Big Foot, can not be defended in the context of the arguments and points of fact I have raised, with respect to the content and intended neutrality of the article under discussion. Accordingly, this requires remediation, in the form that, by precedent, was given to the inappropriate Paranormal banner on an article conceptually and materially associated with the present article, viz., Displacement (parapsychology). Rodgarton 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, we cannot base Wikipedia articles on primary sources: that would be a violation of the No Original Research policy. (Not that I'm sure you're using the term "primary sources" in the correct way. Do secondary sources describe precognition as a paranormal topic? Yes they do, both directly and indirectly (via ESP) as has been shown above. That's all that matters: there is no case to answer in terms of Wikipedia policy about whatever other things are in the same topic. Your personal distaste at something being in the same category as Bigfoot does not override multiple reliable sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Polemical versus encyclopedic content

I have had to revert changes that qualified the "Incidence/prevalence" heading with "Alleged incidence" and then proceeded to speak of "Proponents" alleging evidence for precognition. Specifically on this section, it concerns surveys of people's opinions, beliefs, about their experiences - it is false to describe this as alleged evidence for precognition, by proponents or others, in reporting the results. More generally, I trust that similar objectives are being aimed at here, but by different routes, one which I consider to be antiquated and adversarial, another which, I propose, is a more informative offspring of the former. There is, in this article, as I have re-written it, no more of the polemics between so-called "proponents" and so-called "skeptics". It is distressing to surmise, by recent edits, that, bit by bit, such parties will try to restore points/shouts for or against the evidentiality of the construct in question. Note that the definition of precognition now given in this article refers to ostensible or apparent information about future experience, etc. This implies that any incidence or prevalence of precognition, or any evidence for it or explanations of it, concern experiences with such ostensible or apparent components. There is no need to introduce talk about "proponents" who "allege" certain occurrences; that is only to invite others to write of "debunkers" who allege ..., etc.. Yes, there is disagreement in discussing this construct, but that is most informatively represented as a matter of competition between theories, or theoretical frameworks - which I have represented here by outlining classical-psychological and psiological (or parapsychological and paraphysical) accounts of the construct. In order to provide reliable information, in a neutral voice, one does not need to dress all the information, from head to foot, as the opinions of one camp of "proponents" against another of "skeptics". This approach renders Wikipedia host to social-epistemological conflicts, which it surely only need represent in so far as they represent competing accounts, or knowledge, of the same phenomenon (i.e., classical-psychological, parapsychological, paraphysical, etc.; not "proponents" versus "debunkers"). Otherwise, articles on this and like topics offer information with adversarial associations (e.g., "Proponents allege ...", "Debunkers retort ..."), which ultimately suggests the information's unreliability whichever way you look at it. Rodgarton 05:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The incidence/prevalence section gives the impression that precognition is known to be experienced by a lot of the population. This is a serious POV issue. It's belief that's shown to be prevalent, not precognition. Would it be a suitable compromise to rename the first section to "belief"? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a POV issue, it is one identified by the research being cited - which is all POV, all opinion, all belief. I have added "ostensible" to the intro sentence (having presumed, erroneously it seems, that this bit of information would be carried over from the prior paragraphs), which hopefully and swellingly accommodates all sensitivities about the information, while respecting the socio-epistemological concerns I have addressed in my revision of this article (which, BTW, have not been addressed in reply). Rodgarton 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this need the trivia?

Articles on precognition, and like constructs, appear to often include a section - sometimes as their main and most copious section - on various cultural - or rather TV, cinema, and pulp fiction - representations of the phenomenon. This is like attaching A Beautiful Mind or Shine to articles on genius or music. It can also be interpreted as an attempt to either promote or denigrate some social expression of the construct being defined. Is there not some better, aggregate home for such trivia? Rodgarton 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much focus on trivia in articles on the paranormal. What do you think of introducing a sentence in the lead that says "As a device in fiction, precognition has been an ability of many characters in fantasy and science fiction genres"? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. My preference is to ship all these references to silly Buffy, dear Catweazle and sexy Doctor Who off to a home of their own, with a modest link to it from precognition and like pages. Perhaps a page called "Paranormal culture", with sections for "prophecy," "time-slips," and so on, sparing terms like "precognition" and "retrocognition" from the mass. Rodgarton 11:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The term psiological

On a previous edit, my use of this term as a heading was reverted (as I, actually, originally had it) to "parapsychological". Surveying the content of this section, it will be noted that there is initially, some information of the psychological type, but it concludes, most expansively, with information that is more of the physical type - viz., the classical-mechanical Advanced Wave theory, and the quantum-mechanical Observational theories. "Psiological" is an umbrella term for both the (para)psychological and (para)physical. This is not an idiosyncrasy of my own but stems from the biologist-physicist C. B. Nash's textbook on parapsychology - which he subtitled "the science of psiology", and in which the field Nash himself practiced was organized and referred to as psiological, practised by psiologists, etc.. I regret if this term inspires reflexive thoughts about "pseudo-science" - it is only meant to be representative of a broad, inter-disciplinary class of scientific thinking about the constructs of interest. In addition to the Nash textbook, see the article "McConnell, R. A. (1957). Psi phenomena and methodology. American Scientist, 45, 125-136" which long ago reflected on the informative limitations of the term parapsychological, and argued, in fact, for reference to "psychological physics". While I recognize that it is not within the scope of Wikipedia's objectives to "break new ground" or fashion new usages, I suggest that it is encyclopedically useful - even if only for the purpose of economically and accurately organizing information - to use this umbrella term - psiological - that has been suggested within the field under discussion. Rodgarton 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if it has been used in a couple of publications, we cannot expect a casual reader to understand it, hence it's unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. A search for "psiological" on Google Scholar gives you an indication of how widely this is used in academic writing. Also, are there academic departments of psiology, books classified in libraries as psiological etc.? Apparently not. "Paranormal" may be a better replacement than "parapsychological"- if you can get over your aversion to that term. In fact if you're looking for "an umbrella term for both the (para)psychological and (para)physical" that will be understood by readers of this article, then "paranormal" seems to be ideal. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

May the paranormal be recognized - as its use on Wikipedia fully demonstrates - the marking out of a large and rather amorphous mass of "Fortean", anomalistic, supernatural, weird, etc., phenomena, that have no direct relationship to the psychological (incl. parapsychological) study of precognition or like constructs. Setting aside the spurious point of "aversion to the term" paranormal, let me note that I have already volunteered, above, that the term psiological has limited usage, and that I have openly used it for its organizationally functional virtues. If one turns to the discussion of the page Psiology (which I haplessly authored) it is there recognized, by the contributors to the discussion, that the term is one that can be reasonably expected to be used by those who seek information about parapsychological constructs; although it was, in that context, deemed to be substitutable by the term "parapsychological" - but not meriting all-annihilating censorship. Accordingly, with reference to the information on theories additional to the classical-psychological that I have provided in the present article, I offer that there is no reason to remove my use of this term as its sub-heading, and that it would poorly, if not falsely, serve the purposes and understanding of readers to substitute it with a less representative ("parapsychological") or culturally colorful ("paranormal") one. Could, however, the sub-heading "Psiological (parapsychological, paraphysical)" - while weighty and perhaps too earnestly accommodating of all soft feathers - be compromisingly preferred? Rodgarton 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because the term "psiological" is very much more obscure than the term "precognition", so using the former to explain the latter makes no sense. Also, your objections to "paranormal" vary each time and avoid the issue of whether the term is used correctly. The page you've pointed me to, "the discussion of the page Psiology" seems not to exist since Psiology is not an article but a redirect. If Psiology is such an accepted term, why does it not have its own WP page? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The relative novelty of the term is not under dispute; it is used for its semantic, categorical functionality. Please read the first line of the section it marks out, too - it signals that we are now talking about "psi" - psiological explanations, in distinction to others. Additionally, the theories there presented - specifically, Feinberg's Advanced wave theory, and the observational theories - were presented by their authors as fitting quite conventional, normal, and not paranormal, principles in the sciences to which they refer. It would be a disservice and misleading to have them represented as "paranormal", and, arguably also, as "parapsychological" (they have little psychology in them, the proponents are physicists) or "paraphysical". For example, from the article by Feinberg that I cite, he introduces his theory thus:

"the solution with regard to precognition and accepted physical theories is quite different than the above picture [concerning its physical intractability] would suggest. Instead of forbidding precognition from happening, these theories typically have sufficient symmetry (between the past and future) to suggest that phenomena akin to precognition occur in a manner qualitatively, although not necessarily quantitatively, similar to the occurrence of retrocogntion [i.e., recollection]. ... Thus, if such phenomena indeed occur, no change in the fundamental equations of physics would be needed to describe them."

Similar points can be raised from other physicists, but I think Feinberg (and the quote from Stokes, above) adequately make the point for present needs - they are not addressing something that can be drubbed as "paranormal" and set beside the likes of Nessie and Big Foot. (I set aside the rhetorical debating points concerning inconsistency, allegedly denying some point, etc., as not meriting comment.) Rodgarton 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

The intractability overcome: I have revised the content in this section to take account of the seemingly intractable concerns on use of the terms "psiological" - which I have myself considered sub-optimal, albeit functional. I have instead created sections for the "parapsychological" and the "physical" theories - considering that the former would be so considered by most classical-psychologists, and even those who have offered the theories, while the "physical" theories are not "para" anything but have been offered as fitting quite conventional concepts within the frameworks they have been expressed. I trust that this compromise, happily offered, and being appreciative of the press to pursue, will please all parties; but I am keenly prepared to discuss any discomfiture therewith, and to collaborate upon any further revision. Rodgarton 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ostensible precognition

The qualification of ostensible was removed by the respondent as unsupported and contradicted, presumably in the hope of nullifying the points I have raised in discussion, above, which have referred to precognition's self-definitive ostensibility. In support of the fundamental ostensibility of precognition, please refer to the paper by the philosopher C. D. Broad (1937) "The philosophical implications of foreknowledge", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 16, pp. 177-209 - which set the conceptual scope for subsequent reflections and concerns on precognition. Here, Broad makes the convincing argument, by reference to classical psychology and natural philosophy, that there can only ever be ostensible cases of precognition. What is the contrary argument? I also note that the respondent censored - without explanation - the sentence I offered on the basic fact - elaborated in the following sections - that there is academic research on both naturalistic and experimental occasions of precognition (a self-definitive ostensibility) - not only the one monocular perspective that, it appears, by the spree of passing edits, is being given to Wikipedia to promote. Rodgarton 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Here we go again: which reliable source defines precognition using the ostensive clause? The reference given in the article gives "A form of extrasensory perception in which the target is some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present." No qualification there. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Broad's article is sufficiently authoritative. He argues that precognition must always be spoken of as an ostensible experience/occurrence, etc. Let me point out that the definitions I have given of precognition simply define what is meant by "precognition" - so that then we know what we are speaking of when we refer, as we must, to ostensible precognition. The only reason I can see to censor this term and to speak, from the beginning, of precognition as if it actually occurred would be to invite a subsequent point refuting the veridicality of the statement - and so returning this article to its previous polemical and adversarial form. I will add a sentence to the first paragraph - raising the issue of veridical versus ostensible precognition - which, I trust, will make this clear, and responsibly represent the point without inviting adversarial postures. Rodgarton 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

You're privileging one source over dozens of others, in that case. Let's recap: you want this article to define precognition using the word "ostensive" when multiple sources that you yourself have provided show that precognition is not so defined. This is a the same sort of logical error as saying that a "bear" is something that looks like a bear, and that there are two kinds of bears: "veridical bears" which are ursine mammals, and "ostensive bears" such as a man in a bear costume. The words "bear" and "ostensive" do not work that way, and yet this is a precise analogy for what you are trying to do with precognition. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Apologia: Repeated content for non-neutral POV

The addition of the following paragraph, as the second paragraph to the article, moves the article, as re-written, yet again into a non-neutral point-of-view and restores an unnecessary adversarial approach to the construct that is the topic of the article. The substantive points of this paragraph are, in any case, fully and expansively represented in the article by primary sources, not opinion articles and reviews, and do not require privileged highlighting by repetition, just as the psiological/parapsychological/paraphysical explanations and definitions do not merit it. The other points apply, as stated, to ESP research in general. Perhaps a section on methodological explanations is call for to house these points, although one should think that the links to ESP etc., and like more general pages, amply represent them. Rodgarton 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As with other forms of extrasensory perception, the existence of precognition is not generally accepted by the scientific community, because no replicable demonstration has been achieved.[2] Scientific investigation of ESP is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[3] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause.[3] However, there are established biases, affecting human memory and judgment of probability, that can create a convincing but false impression of precognition.[4]
References

2. Scott, Christopher (1987). "Paranormal phenomena: the burden of proof". in Richard L. Gregory. The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press. pp. 578-581. ISBN 0198602243.
3. Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims". in Robert J. Sternberg, Henry J. Roediger III, Diane F. Halpern. Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521608341.
4. Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 78-81. ISBN 978-1573929790.
5. Stokes, D. M. (1997). Spontaneous psi phenomena. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 8, pp. 6-87). Jefferson, NC, US: McFarland.

I grant the informative value and utility of each of these points - I have made them myself in the article. I am querying concern, instead, for the highlighting of these points squarely within the introductory section of this article. It is a difficult issue to address; and much more care must be taken with the practice than simply dumping such points into the article, in a manner that simply repeats what the article already expresses, and without prior discussion.

---

I have, since the above, created a "Methodological" section under the "Explanations" section which houses the more novel information in the above para, and provides much new information as well concerning particular experiments - to be expanded. I trust this amply and representatively takes care of the POV that is trying to be presented in the above, but in a way which better respects the organization, and the attempted neutrality and non-polemical tone of the article.

If one wishes to appeal to the manner in which "pseudoscience" is represented on Wikipedia, then it will be required to argue how the evidence cited here merits that description, and also to recognize that the pseudoscientific nature of research in this area is itself keenly contested, and to address the same. The issue is best addressed, with its endless complications avoided or at least truncated, by representing all accounts - not necessarily equally, but with appropriate representation that does not exude the polemical and does not represent the adversarial.

Also, the content of the first two sentences is of the sweeping generalisation type that require extended discussion in themselves. What form of replication is being denied? - certainly not the type that is indicated by the cited meta-analysis. And just what "established scientific principles" are being contradicted? - certainly not those which the cited authors of the physical and psychological accounts of precognition have considered. The respondent continues that "precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause" - if this is not just a cultural/logical/semantic limitation, pray - by which "accepted principles of science" is this proposition deduced? Certainly not by the classical-mechanical and quantum-mechanical frameworks informing such theories of precognition about which I have provided information. Nevertheless, I have already, prior to the offering of this paragraph, given this and the point of the final sentence quite ample representation - with an entire section of their own, for each one - under the appropriate "Explanation" section. These points that I myself raised require no special repetition in this intro section, unless the adversarial approach is to be stoked and re-invited, and the article is to lose face validity and reliability as it plays host to polemically charged but inevitably questionable, and so uninformative, content.

It is in these ways that the points are better made more succinctly and less controversially in former and subsequent paragraphs rather than within this apologia. Accordingly, the information presented in this paragraph, being adequately already represented in the article - both in the former paragraph and in subsequent sections, in a manner that ought not to invite further contest or polemical postures, is, by its generality and repetition, an adversarial and non-neutral paragraph that merits deletion.

Rodgarton 03:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

The justification for stating the scientific mainstream position at the outset is the WP:WEIGHT policy: this article must reflect the weight given to different perspectives in reliable secondary literature. "Neutral" is misinterpreted if it is taken as giving equal weight to all points of view: if one is scientifically mainstream, then it needs to be highlighted as such. As for the specific criticisms of what I wrote, they were fair summaries (in fact close paraphrases) of reliable sources. Rodgarton's titling of the paragraph as "Apologia" is not constructive to say the least.

As for "the content of the first two sentences is of the sweeping generalisation type that require extended discussion in themselves." Yes, that was the intention of the having those sentences in the lead. They are supposed to be a quick general summary that draws readers into the body of the article for further explanation.

Can I also set out for the record that Rodgarton deleted that sourced paragraph when it first appeared, and in discussion on his talk page denies that this removal was intentional. If even he cannot explain his treatment of other people's edits, or at minimum apologise when a mistake is made, then that strongly discourages me or other editors from improving the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulk changes #2: And a plea to represent productive skepticism

I note that, perhaps, the approach to writing articles about parapsychological, paraphysical, psiological phenomena that I have introduced in this article is quite novel for Wikipedia editors, and that they find it somewhat confronting and difficult to accommodate in preference to the adversarial approach to which they are habituated (thanks to the much discredited works of the Hansels and Alcocks and Hineses and so on; see, e.g., Child (1985), American Psychologist). I submit that this style is, actually, the manner in which the relevant and most contemporary literature commends and informs us to adopt. So-called skeptics and so-called proponents collaborate, these days, on the same experiments. Theoretical developments have gone well beyond the phenomenological and into the physically fundamental (just as have the pseudo-physical - e.g., "architecture of cognition" - theories in general psychology). Accordingly, we can no longer glibly malign or vacuously define such phenomena as "paranormal" (or "supernatural", etc.), but we must accept that many sciences, as we know them, can - arguably - accommodate such phenomena, and that, in this way, our cognitive frameworks are being challenged - which is surely what we have demanded of, and hoped for, science all the while. Skepticism must take another step. Those who are daring enough to experiment in such fields are, it seems, doing precisely that (granting that it is only doubt that pushes ever onward the empirical quest). Rodgarton 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unconscious perception section

The paragraph that ends "While the findings are arguably too recent to warrant firm conclusion, some experiments of these kinds have yielded data that are suggestive of precognition in a way that requires a parapsychological explanation. These include findings that have been replicated across different laboratories, and collected by different experimenters." and those sentences in particular, seems a blatant case of original research. It is for reliable academic literature, not Wikipedia, to say what has been replicated. The sources given are two papers in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is not a reliable source except for its author's opinions, a conference presentation (a primary source, therefore not acceptable for Wikipedia) and one paper in Perceptual and Motor Skills. This last paper is an RS: however, the fact of there being only one RS means that we are definitely not in a position to say that the results have been replicated.

As a more general point, text like this which states that precognition is scientifically proven is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, as mainstream science has clearly not accepted that conclusion. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done now fixed. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

POV cleanup needed

In July and August of this year, this article was substantially edited by User:Rodgarton (see for example [12]). From his behavior on this and other articles he seems to be a single purpose account, with recurring problems of WP:SYNTH and WP:PEACOCK. After discussion at the administrator's noticeboard, he has been given a week-long block, may face a topic ban and has undertaken not to further edit this article [13]. There remains the task of fixing the damage. The article as he has written it is almost entirely based on pro-paranormal sources, with no citation of the expansive literature that more fundamentally critiques parapsychology. In the above diff, you can see him removing cites to Nature (journal) and The Encylopedia of Parapsychology and Psychical Research, which seem to be reliable sources. The article doesn't convey that the Soal and Rhine experiments are regarded as discredited. Also, there has been raised on this Talk page (above) and in the AN/I thread the prospect that Rodgarton misrepresented sources, so that his summaries contradicted the sources they were apparently based on. Checking sources and re-balancing the article is a huge task- any help welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, until this clean-up issue is fixed, the article is a promotion of one perspective on its subject, to the exclusion of a more mainstream science perspective, and as such is not at all encyclopedic. Hence I've tagged the page. For additional sources, a fair starting point is the list of references on the Skeptic's Dictionary page on the topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

= i have sought to fight for your righteous cause but have been blocked from editing by certain shadows of iniquity! what is becoming of WP when crusading to protect Science from the barbs and foul malice of superstition suffers such ingratiation? lo, the night is long and how the sickness plagues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.92.164 (talk • contribs)

The article does need clean-up and some fixes due to the banned editor, but the way you've done it and without discussing here wasn't the proper way. Because an editor is blocked is not a reason for mass-blanking the article, so that's why editors/bots have reverted you. Continuing this behavior without discussing here is basically edit-warring. Discussion was needed for this kind of change and before the semi-protection, other then MartinPoulter, nobody discuss about what changes to make. Also MartinPoulter didn't suggest to build/re-build from scratch just some clean-up (but big one). So hopefully the semi-protection would be an occasion to discuss solutions. --JForget 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that both Precognitive dreams and Premonition be merged into this article.

• There is such an overlap between the Precognition and Precognitive dreams articles, that if the former were fully expanded it would totally include the latter. Now, maybe it's the case that there are so many sources on precognitive dreams that it could be a huge article in its own right, but looking at it now it seems to have a lot of unsourced material, so it's too big rather than too small.
• Premonition versus Precognition sounds like a distinction without a difference. Are they really separate topics? The articles themselves seem to suggest not. If there are reliable sources saying they are different, I'll back down on this.

MartinPoulter (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Sounds like a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Premonition is a feeling that something will happen, precognition is knowing that something will happen. But they're so similar that treating them together is good. Precog dreams can be spun out if this page gets too unwieldy, you're right about the overlap. Fences&Windows 01:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support so long as article is not too long and good links with dream related topics are established. By all means lose poorly-sourced examples. Redheylin (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support per F&W and Red. Verbal chat 10:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • A clear consensus has been established. Thanks to all contributors. Now I just need to find the time to carry out the merge. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Now done, but in a rough-and-ready way. Lots of clean-up needed. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical "explanations"?

The subsection "Philosophical" under "Explanations" has nothing at all to do with explaining precognition. It should be removed or moved to another section. Phiwum (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense edits?

Does anybody have any idea as to what 120.19.49.155 is going on about? I keep reverting him[14][15][16] because his additions and edit summaries, by and large, don't make "one iota in the eye" of sense to me. But maybe I'm just missing something... Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be Rodgarton, a perma-banned user. He makes regular edits from different 120.* IP numbers, each week restoring the article and talk page to a prior state. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Final Quote/bias

This is a very biased article. Lets look at the final quote:

"Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night, there should be about 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant."

And compare it to the original:

"Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50, though I don't think I've ever had more than 5 or 6 dream themes a night), there should be about 30,000 to 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant. The number is actually likely to be larger, since we tend to dream about things that legitimately concern or worry us, and the data of dreams is usually vague or ambiguous, allowing a wide range of events to count as fulfilling our dreams."

Now, I can't for the life of me work out the flow of logic or how the airplane crash dream figure relates in any way to the final figures. Nor can I relate to having "250 dream themes each night". Most nights I wake up without remembering any dream. But my criticism is this: why has the lower estimate (30,000) has been removed? It puts quite a different complexion on the already dubious logic (if there is any). And the piece edited without ellipses (...) to show the contraction?

KBuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.7.88 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And the second paragraph, perhaps the the most obvious and immediate bias:

The main problem with this is it's placement. The first part of an article belongs to defining the term. It shouldn't be taken over by a one-sided argument against it's existence.

They aren't even terribly good arguments:

"As with other forms of extrasensory perception, the existence of precognition is not accepted by the scientific community, because no replicable demonstration has been achieved.[4] "

This "scientific community" really doesn't exist. There is a physics community, and a medical community and so on, which can be said to have orthodox views. But some community of all science which has taken a collective view on precognition - well, that doesn't exist.

Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[5] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause.[5]

This isn't a 'principle of science' violated. Setting out that precognition is an effect... and the event a cause... and causes always precede effects... therefore precognition violates causality. And so with some arbitrary defining and some circular reasoning precognition is wisped away...!

KBuck

explanations

can anybody make any sense of all this crapula? not one sentence flows logically from one idea to the next - the whole lot should be scrapped, its not encyclopedic but personal, ambiguous takes on one idea and then another — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.170.124 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected

Following edit-warring by IP contributors, this article has been semi-protected for the time being. If you want to edit it, please create a Wikipedia account. -- The Anome (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking Daryl J. Bem's recent "Feeling the Future" into consideration

It seems to me that the article should take into consideration this recent paper, along with responses to it and attempted replications: Bem, Daryl J. "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press. Retrieved 2010-12-20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chri1753 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the work by Daryl Bem should be described and referenced as it appears to mark a departure in terms of producing a consistent outcome with a minimum of investigator involvement/subjectivity. And, it withstood intense scrutiny before getting published in a very reputable journal. And, Dr. Bem seems unlikely to be attempting fraud or a hoax.Trigley (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be mentioned, once published, but notable criticism, such as:

• Alcok, James E. (March/April 2011). "Back from the Future: Parapsychology and the Bem Affair". Skeptical Inquirer. 35 (2). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: 31–39. Retrieved March 11, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

should also be noted. On a personal note, as an expert statistician, I support Alcock over Bem as to the proper statistical tests to be used. It's possible that Bem properly corrected the significance for experiments with changing protocols, but there's no evidence of it in the paper. He did not properly correct the significance for the multiple observations (romantic/erotic/positive/negative) within a single experimental run. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arthur - I'm glad to see interest in this article by a statistician. Have you seen the response Bem posted to the Alcock critique? I haven't fully worked my way through the Alcock piece yet, as I am not able to understand all his points without doing more reading. Anyhow, Bem's response is at http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_alcocks_back_from_the_future_comments_on_bem I would be interested to hear what you think of it. My question is, does it matter what the relative abundance of the different image types is, or how they might be characterized (more or less provocative, negative, romantic, etc.), or even whether the image series used was chosen by the subjects, if the point of the experiment is to discern a significant deviation from the expected 50% rate of correctly predicting where the image will appear? It seems pretty valid to me. What do you say? Thanks, Ted. Theodore Rigley 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigley (talk • contribs)

I don't think the change in image choices significantly effects the argument, except that (1) if the number of pictures presented changed during the trial, it would be almost impossible to determine the mean and variance of the theoretical data in the absence of ESP, and (2) it makes it easier to find a significant effect, if there are enough choices of which samples to select from. For examples erotic/negative, erotic/neutral-or-negative, erotic/non-erotic, erotic-or-romantic/negative, etc, could each produce a significant or non-significant result. At the 5% level, if there were 20 potential discriminatory sets, the "expected number" of "significant" results would be 1.

I'll need to look through all the papers again, but I believe Bem's refutation only attacked the change-of-protocol argument, not the significance-due-to-multiple-possible-results argument.

And, my being an expert shouldn't affect what appears on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice how the commentators here have totally ignored the editorial question as to whether and/or how to represent Bem's recent report? Can you people just try to get true to the subject at hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.19.121 (talk • contribs)

Nope. It shouldn't be included without criticism (probably more coverage than actually given the report). I don't think it should be included at all, but it appears to have been accepted by a peer-reviewed publication, although we might wait for publication to be sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you just do some basic googling before you advertize your ignorance and prejudices? The paper is already published, and has already been much discussed: http://www.thewop.org/?s=bem+feeling+the+future . Really, you must set yourself up to a higher standard of reliability and responsibility when discussing these topics than you presently do. Flick-of-the-wrist opinions are ok in comic books, but not on wikipedia, even on topics that you think you know all about on the basis of folk physics. Try harder next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.230.98 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Still not relevant. The (pre-publication) criticism should have as much weight in this article as the published paper. Published post-publication criticism would have even more value, but it's unlikely to be published yet. I particularly like http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201010/not-so-fast-psychic-phenomena-research ; although a blog entry, it appears to be from an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just the first sentence

Just the first sentence is so elongated it's meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.19.121 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Simpler explanation not taken into account, and pseudoscience mentioned

(Written by a physicist, not a psychologist; and therefore, by nature, under cognitive bias)

Regarding the opening paragraphs: Most of the first part of the article focuses on studies regarding post-monitorized asleep test subjects questioned about their dreams. Yet the role of sleep, and particularly that of dreams, has not been scientifically established yet. A theory that is gaining adepts, though still not mainstream (sorry for not being able to provide bibliography, I'm writing through memory alone) is that dreams are a way to process gathered data and mix it with neural white noise in order to determine patterns and assess the future in novel ways, being an adaptive strategy liable to be mistaken for precognition if there exists some sort of cognitive bias. If such a theory regarding dreams, or a similar one, is valid (which, as said, is under study and scrutiny), then most of the precognition explanations should be written taking into account the Occam's razor, and determined to be quite unlikely.

Regarding possible scientific explanations: I see here a lot of pseudoscience regarding Physics. I'm a physicist myself, and can't find any reason for some sections to exist - not only being far fetched, but actually descriving an extremely unaccurate picture of both mainstream theories and new approaches being considered.

Therefore, I would suggest to define this article as "highly innacurate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordissim (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The physics areas, where there is pseudoscience, are areas you could greatly help. As for your theory, while laudable, it would be original research here. We'd all greatly appreciate your cited correction on the physics parts of the article!Wzrd1 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)