A paper to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year will feature a paper in which the author presents strong evidence for extrasensory perception, or the ability to sense future events:

www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp...

One scientist calls extrasensory perception 'craziness, pure craziness,' and another thinks this sort of thing is 'an embarrassment.'

Of course, over the years, many researchers have done endless experiments with ESP and other so-called 'paranormal' abilities, and skeptics have always denied that such research is genuine. 

And this time around, the skeptics are no different.  But, the author of the article, Professor Daryl J. Bem of Cornell, has accused critics of 'misunderstanding his paper' and speaking from their own bias.

Whether or not Dr. Bem is onto something here, the topic is a fascinating one nevertheless, and worth looking into.

Jan 12, 2011 -- 10:19PM, solfeggio wrote:

A paper to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year will feature a paper in which the author presents strong evidence for extrasensory perception, or the ability to sense future events...

I have absolutely no doubt that this "paper" will contain all the same mistakes, faulty protocols, and outright lies, that all of the "papers" about ESP have had. I also have absolutely no doubt that no matter how much this guy is proven to be absolutely wrong, the believers will still believe. Nothing can change their beliefs.

One scientist calls extrasensory perception 'craziness, pure craziness,' and another thinks this sort of thing is 'an embarrassment.'

It is. There is, never was, anything to this but pure beliefs.

Of course, over the years, many researchers have done endless experiments with ESP and other so-called 'paranormal' abilities, and skeptics have always denied that such research is genuine.

That the believers  have failed miserably at offering any kind of proof, or even evidence, what so ever speaks loudly. It's just that some refuse to listen.

And this time around, the skeptics are no different.  But, the author of the article, Professor Daryl J. Bem of Cornell, has accused critics of 'misunderstanding his paper' and speaking from their own bias.

Which is exactly what one would expect him to say.

Whether or not Dr. Bem is onto something here, the topic is a fascinating one nevertheless, and worth looking into.

Not really. It just encourages more BS masquerading as science.

Jan 12, 2011 -- 11:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

I have absolutely no doubt that this "paper" will contain all the same mistakes, faulty protocols, and outright lies, that all of the "papers" about ESP have had.

I think you're wrong here. This time, the guys doing the research seem to have followed all the appropriate procedures.

So, if they find something, it should be attributable to the 'file drawer problem' of having numerous similar, unpublished studies that were just not published because they were not getting any results.

I.o.w., this particular research is likely to be a chance result, and replications of exactly the same experiment should prove that. The nice thing about science is that there is a community with shared procedures, and no single researcher's claims and results ever amount to convincing evidence.

For those interested in the science and statistics, here (for some links: again - as they were linked in the NYT article as well) the relevant texts:

here a link to Daryl Bem's original study:
      www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

here a critique of the statistical techniques used, by some colleagues from Amsterdam:
      www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakers...

here another crtique by Jeff Rouder and Richard Morey:
      pcl.missouri.edu/sites/default/files/rou...

and here a failed replication attempt by Jeff Galak and Leif Nelson:
      papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...

On a personal note, I don't think this kind of stuff is "fascinating" at all. Bem's strategy of mixing primeval pornographic motivation with esoteric future-knowing is too similar in its ingredients to Marion Zimmer Bradley type new age fuzziness to have any positive connotation for me.

Jan 13, 2011 -- 2:59AM, CharikIeia wrote:

I think you're wrong here. This time, the guys doing the research seem to have followed all the appropriate procedures.

Apparently they didn't. If they had they would not have come to the conclusion they did.

So, if they find something, it should be attributable to the 'file drawer problem' of having numerous similar, unpublished studies that were just not published because they were not getting any results.

Not getting any results is a result. The problem is that some people want to believe this and when it's a researcher that desire shows up in their results.

I.o.w., this particular research is likely to be a chance result, and replications of exactly the same experiment should prove that. The nice thing about science is that there is a community with shared procedures, and no single researcher's claims and results ever amount to convincing evidence.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of such claims by researchers in this area have been found lacking as has the latest claim.

For those interested in the science and statistics, here (for some links: again - as they were linked in the NYT article as well) the relevant texts:

here a link to Daryl Bem's original study:
      www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

here a critique of the statistical techniques used, by some colleagues from Amsterdam:
      www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakers...

here another crtique by Jeff Rouder and Richard Morey:
      pcl.missouri.edu/sites/default/files/rou...

and here a failed replication attempt by Jeff Galak and Leif Nelson:
      papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...

All support what I've been saying.

On a personal note, I don't think this kind of stuff is "fascinating" at all. Bem's strategy of mixing primeval pornographic motivation with esoteric future-knowing is too similar in its ingredients to Marion Zimmer Bradley type new age fuzziness to have any positive connotation for me.

I don't find anything in this field to be fascinating except for the psychology involved in the need for some people to believe this stuff. No method has been found where information can travel through time or across distances yet some people firmly believe it can. All I can say is show me proof.