Scientific evidence for precognition? Bem publishes follow up to "Feeling the future"

Having foresight and precognition myself, I can see where these scientific studies can be useful in learning about these inherent sixth sense powers so we can be conscious of it and learn how to use it like external apparatus. Nothing is more annoying than having a power beyond the majority but being unable to control it to your own fulfillment.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Did you miss my links where ONLY he was able to get those results?? No other lab/test ever produced similar results. It seems to me that Dr. Bem here produced data, which is not very scientific of him.

I did read the stories at both links. The articles are specifically about two groups replicating his experiments; Chris French, Stuart Ritchie and Richard Wiseman in the first article and Jeff Galak, Robyn LeBoeuf, Leif D. Nelson and Joseph P. Simmons in the second (the group whose experiments I referenced in my last two posts).

I don't know how you arrived at "No other lab/test ever produced similar results" based on reading the linked articles (or even the papers they reference). Your statements aren't supported by either and of course, the topic of this thread is the just published meta-analysis of a total of 90 experiments in which Bem and co-authors assert that various statistical analyses reveal variations beyond mere chance that are in-line with those initially reported by Bem. It would be perhaps more useful to read the paper and let he and his co-authors make that case for themselves.

On contrary, as Dr. Sagan once has said - extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence... which Dr. Bem failed to provide.

Not to nitpick but Sagan was quoting Marcello Truzzi.

And once no one could replicate his experiments... what then? World is full of 'new age' scientist, some of them making big bucks by selling para-science to masses... If you don't trust me, check Dr. Chopra's net worth... People are buying into this just because they like to believe there is something 'more'.... but as you can see, experiments just prove there is not...

You're missing big pictures... nobody except Dr Bemmy was able to replicate his experiments... and that is enough for me and rest of the world...

Sorry, but that is just how science works...

Daryl Bem isn't playing New Age guru to celebrities and pitching paperback supermarket checkout fodder so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to smear him by comparing him to the likes of Deepak Chopra. I'm not saying that he's correct but the man is engaged in legitimate scientific inquiry, a fact that isn't lessened by your opinion of the subject matter.

You seem to be emotionally attached to a position which precludes objectivity. If you think that's "how science works" then you're wrong. I'm all for calling woo what it is and being brutally skeptical but I'm also open to considering new information and updating my beliefs when necessary. I personally remained unconvinced but I think it's an interesting idea and worthy of continued study.

This reminds me of teachers believing that full moon effects kids in school - which is proven wrong (there is actually a study and someone even did PhD on the topic) and still if you ask majority of teachers... they will tell you it does...

I'm sure there's been more than one study and why not? Ever heard of circadian rhythm? Seasonal affective disorder? I'd be highly skeptical that there'd be any link between lunar cycles and behavior excepting perhaps abnormal human psychology (clinical lycanthropy) and indirect effects such as variations in ambient light correlating to increases/decreases in crime rates (are people more likely to steal on a moonless night out of less fear of discovery or perhaps the opposite or maybe neither?) but just because something seems like lunacy () doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically.

originally posted by: TechniXcality


I'm upset this sounded so promising! I too felt cautious even saying anything, just because there's not a lot if any reproducible evidence and so i optimistically wait, intuitively know what is already true. Factually having to deny its reality : /

Ah, I am disappointed too.... I have a very scientific mind but there are things that are still unexplained... or maybe there are a few things I'd love to be true: precognition, time travelling and UFOs... I am a sci-fy movie buff!! lol

And I am with you, I also optimistically wait....

a reply to: theantediluvian

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you both for your replies, I'll re-read your posts again tomorrow, my brain doesn't work well at this time, I'm too tired.

a reply to: theantediluvian

What an awesome bit of information to share. Very impressive thread. I've never heard of this social psychologist or this research. I'm excited to delve into it. It'll make a great winter research project.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
A failed experiment is - A failed experiment...

Sources:

This has nothing to do with science, as it is actually debunked. Sure, Dr. Bem has impressive bios, but his research is not worth anything as long as it is not repeatable.

Anything 'new' from him is just not worth the time or space here.

originally posted by: Agartha

Yes, you are correct, unfortunately it is a failed experiment as other scientists in three different universities were not able to replicate it... I was just coming to post exactly what you posted, I'm so disappointed.... oh well, maybe one day someone will be born with a 'super power'... I think I have watched too many XMen movies! lol

skepdic.com...

While Ritchie and colleagues failed to replicate Bem’s experiment, there’s definitely more to the story.

Firstly, as PublicOpinion and theantediluvian correctly stated before, they didn’t follow the exact same procedure that Bem had used in his experiments. Four of them were done online, and the images they used were not the same images that Bem used.

Secondly, these replication attempts were based on studies that were pre-registered in an online registry set-up by Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt. The problem with that is:

1) They put a short deadline on the replication attempts, which meant that most replication attempts would not be included (since most serious researchers working on their own stuff are not going to instantly drop everything they’re doing and immediately do a replication).

2) They didn’t include three other studies that had been completed and submitted to the online registry in time. Two out of those three studies actually had significant results replicating Bem’s.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Did you miss my links where ONLY he was able to get those results?? No other lab/test ever produced similar results. It seems to me that Dr. Bem here produced data, which is not very scientific of him.

Sorry, but that is just how science works...

This reminds me of teachers believing that full moon effects kids in school - which is proven wrong (there is actually a study and someone even did PhD on the topic) and still if you ask majority of teachers... they will tell you it does...

Of course, if nobody could replicate Bem’s results, then it would just be considered a fluke (or at worst, fraud). You have to give researchers time, though.

Furthermore, that’s exactly why Bem conducted his latest meta-analysis – to show that at least other researchers from other laboratories have replicated his results. You are misinformed when you say that Bem was the only one who was able to get those results.

Science is a method of inquiry, and Bem has been transparent and scientific in everything he has done. He even provides the exact resources to replicate his experiments (that’s more than most scientists provide, trust me).

To say that this isn’t how science works is to misunderstand what science is. It isn’t a worldview, and just because you believe that something isn't possible doesn’t mean that science shouldn’t be used to test such hypotheses. That's what science is for. How else do you think science could progress if we only tested what we thought we already knew was true?

I would love to know what sort of a diet someone like Edgar Casey ate. I am guessing he had simple tastes and was likely deficient in a great many areas. Autism spectrum is probably a different animal that may aid or suppress natural psychic abilities I would imagine depending on the severity and type. A proper diet could only help develop latent talents. I met a guy in Florida one night who could guess 9/10 times what beer brand you were thinking of and man that was uncanny. He was Puerto Rican and had grown up in new york so I am guess he was a beans and rice with some plantains kind of guy.

Personally I am not some badass psychic but I have my moments and I was definitely mineral deficient in that I was lucky to have anything nutritious or anything at all sometimes.

So despite a sparse diet lacking in what we now consider essential nutrients can probably stunt a persons abilities to some degree but is not the biggest factor in how strong ones talents can manifest.

If it were true, casinos would have went out of business long ago.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
If it were true, casinos would have went out of business long ago.

Not necessarily. If it were real, many players (even unknowingly) may be trying to use psi to their individual advantage, with the net effect being that nobody's psi is noticeably productive. Also, in experiments where psi is supported, the deviation from chance is very small. In fact physicist Nick Herbert calculated that the odds on even the most favorable casino games are about 100 times larger than most of the deviations from chance observed in PK experiments.

It should also be noted that even if psi could tilt the odds in a player's favor, it is unlikely to occur in the real-world since a casino is designed to be distracting and to prevent careful thought and concentration (whereas experimental conditions are designed to be as psi-conducive as possible, e.g. quiet and relaxing with few distractions). This is why experimental sessions are usually limited to 15-30 minutes (to stop boredom and fatigue). To win at the casino over the long run, people would need to perform consistently at an optimal level, perhaps over a period of months or even years. In theory, it could be possible, but who would really be able to do this with the bright lights, loud music, scantily clad women, and free alcohol.

On top of all of this, the actual house take is usually much larger than its theoretical advantage. This is because people rarely play consistently, and they often reinvest their winnings.

So yes, if psi were true, it would be theoretically possible for an individual to beat a casino (if they understood the strategies of each game they played, consistently played according to those strategies, stopped when they were ahead, and consistently applied strong, reliable psi). But most people still wouldn't beat a casino. So I don't think it's the case that casinos would have gone out of business long ago if psi were real.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I did read the stories at both links. The articles are specifically about two groups replicating his experiments; Chris French, Stuart Ritchie and Richard Wiseman in the first article and Jeff Galak, Robyn LeBoeuf, Leif D. Nelson and Joseph P. Simmons in the second (the group whose experiments I referenced in my last two posts).

I don't know how you arrived at "No other lab/test ever produced similar results" based on reading the linked articles (or even the papers they reference). Your statements aren't supported by either and of course, the topic of this thread is the just published meta-analysis of a total of 90 experiments in which Bem and co-authors assert that various statistical analyses reveal variations beyond mere chance that are in-line with those initially reported by Bem. It would be perhaps more useful to read the paper and let he and his co-authors make that case for themselves.

Exactly what you said - 90 experiments in which Bem and co-authors statistics worked, while all other tries did not produce those results. It is just funny that he was able to 'produce' results that support his claim, ask others to do, and now that all other research show his research being flawed, you trying to grasp a straw.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Not to nitpick but Sagan was quoting Marcello Truzzi.

Either way, you got the meaning, right?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Daryl Bem isn't playing New Age guru to celebrities and pitching paperback supermarket checkout fodder so I'm not really sure why you feel the need to smear him by comparing him to the likes of Deepak Chopra. I'm not saying that he's correct but the man is engaged in legitimate scientific inquiry, a fact that isn't lessened by your opinion of the subject matter.

You seem to be emotionally attached to a position which precludes objectivity. If you think that's "how science works" then you're wrong. I'm all for calling woo what it is and being brutally skeptical but I'm also open to considering new information and updating my beliefs when necessary. I personally remained unconvinced but I think it's an interesting idea and worthy of continued study.

I'm sure there's been more than one study and why not? Ever heard of circadian rhythm? Seasonal affective disorder? I'd be highly skeptical that there'd be any link between lunar cycles and behavior excepting perhaps abnormal human psychology (clinical lycanthropy) and indirect effects such as variations in ambient light correlating to increases/decreases in crime rates (are people more likely to steal on a moonless night out of less fear of discovery or perhaps the opposite or maybe neither?) but just because something seems like lunacy (

) doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically.

Only people who are attached emotional to this research are the one believing there must be something - wishful thinking, and you are right, that is not how science works.

Dr. Bem made a claim, since then all research to reproduce his claim have failed, yet he continues to brings more on previous flawed claim?!

This is actually funny... and as someone mentioned, casinos would run out of business by now...

a reply to: theantediluvian

I read Bem's meta-analysis today and I also read about Hedge's effect size as I didn't know anything about it (the info about Hedge's is available on many websites). Once I understood the basics I went back to the abstract of the paper.

A small effect for Hedges g is anything under 0.2. From Bem's abstract:

We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09.

The overall effect of 90 studies is 0.09 g.... isn't that really small?

Also (still taking data from the meta-analysis) we have 90 experiments, 33 labs, 14 countries and only 18 studies had good results (to prove precognition) whilst 72 didn't.... doesn't this show once again that the results are not really controversial and that they can't really prove precognition?

Even ignoring the failed replication experiments and the bias I can see in both 'teams', I still think the results are not good enough to convince anybody with this data alone.

Like I said before, I'd love to prove precognition is real, but Bem's results are not convincing evidence.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Exactly what you said - 90 experiments in which Bem and co-authors statistics worked, while all other tries did not produce those results. It is just funny that he was able to 'produce' results that support his claim, ask others to do, and now that all other research show his research being flawed, you trying to grasp a straw.

Only people who are attached emotional to this research are the one believing there must be something - wishful thinking, and you are right, that is not how science works.

Dr. Bem made a claim, since then all research to reproduce his claim have failed, yet he continues to brings more on previous flawed claim?!

This is actually funny... and as someone mentioned, casinos would run out of business by now...

I've responded to why it might not necessarily be the case that casinos would be bankrupt if psi were real. Again, implying that 'this isn't how science works' completely disregards the fact that Bem follows the scientific method to a T. Although the topic being explored may not fit with your pre-existing beliefs, it is still part of science, as science is merely a method of inquiry. You need to stop treating it as a worldview or else we'll never get anywhere (in terms of scientific progression).

Your claim that only emotional people using wishful thinking believe the results of Bem's research ironically highlights your emotional bias on the topic. Yes, some people believe Bem's results, but this is because they have actually looked at the scientific evidence he has produced. This is far from an emotional decision. On the other hand, you vehemently deny any of his results without actual evidence (or knowledge) about the scientific method, so it seems as though it is you that is being emotional here.

You also lack an understanding of what a meta-analysis is -- it is a combination of results from multiple studies. So when you say "Bem and co-authors statistics worked, while all other tries did not produce those results", you make absolutely no sense. Yes, Bem and colleagues conducted the meta-analysis using accepted scientific techniques. Yes, some of those individual studies used in the meta-analysis were conducted by Bem. However, there were also a lot of other studies included that were conducted by other researchers. In total, the experiments in the meta-analysis originated in 33 different laboratories located in 14 countries. So by no means have all other tries not produced results.

And if you're talking about the meta-analysis itself when you made that statement, then of course other tries have not produced these results -- because this is the only meta-analysis that has been conducted on these experiments. If you can find me another meta-analysis on the replication attempts of Bem's latest experiments, then your statement might make some sense. I doubt you can though, unless you've secretly been working on one over the last year that you haven't told anyone about. So what is actually funny... isn't the topic, but you.

originally posted by: Agartha
The overall effect of 90 studies is 0.09 g.... isn't that really small?

Yeah, it's definitely not a big effect. But really there's no reason why people, on average, would differ from chance at all. So even a small deviation from chance is still theoretically interesting and bizarre.

originally posted by: Agartha
Also (still taking data from the meta-analysis) we have 90 experiments, 33 labs, 14 countries and only 18 studies had good results (to prove precognition) whilst 72 didn't.... doesn't this show once again that the results are not really controversial and that they can't really prove precognition?

Where did it say that only 18 had good results and 72 didn't? If that is the case though, I would assume it'd be in reference to each individual p-value. And if so, then that wouldn't necessarily tell the whole story, as there are many other things to consider that sometimes carry more weight when looking at a bunch of studies (such as effect size, confidence intervals, variability). The goal of a meta-analysis is to give an overall effect of something found in individual studies, so reducing it to something like 18/72 wouldn't be a fair representation of the data. If it is 18/72 then that would be testament to the strength of the results of the 18 and the overall pattern of the dataset of all 72 experiments.

Still, if it is the case (18/72) then that would make it easier to say it can't really prove anything as well, as it would show that it is not always replicable (although this might be due to methodological differences/lack of power rather than the actual effect being non-existent). Also, you would never expect all replications to show an effect (even if there were something going on) because although there is always the chance that you might get a significant result when there isn't an effect, there is also the chance that you will get no result when there is something going on. This can actually happen quite often, depending on the threshold you apply.

originally posted by: Agartha
Even ignoring the failed replication experiments and the bias I can see in both 'teams', I still think the results are not good enough to convince anybody with this data alone.

Like I said before, I'd love to prove precognition is real, but Bem's results are not convincing evidence.

I agree -- I think both sides have their points, but it is hard to be swayed into believing Bem's results as it has such huge implications. As Michael Franklin suggested in his latest paper, what would be needed to convince people of this phenomenon is to show tangible effects applied to real-world settings. If someone were able to devise an experiment where participants showed that they could predict things in the real-world at a greater than chance level (e.g. casino, stock-market), then the significance of the paradigm becomes self-evident.

I'm not buying it. It's a form of escapism to believe in magic of this kind. I've had enough experiences sift through my good sense to realize some people have sharper instincts and/or greater intuitive capacities than others. They can appear as if magic to the dull witted. Not much else going on than that best I can tell.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I have no doubt they will replicate the human brain. Our brains are like computers x1 billion.

We know immediately by the odds. Your brain is an extremely advanced organic computer.

You know things you don't know you know. But, you know

Here's my thoughts on it. Precognition on the level shown is useless. Here's a different theory, each of us are living in our own personal version of the universe that conforms to our thoughts. Have you ever had psychic experiences? I've had a bunch where I simply get knowledge on what people are doing from miles away. Have you ever noticed that good things tend to happen to people who are optimistic and expect good things? Have you ever noticed the opposite with pessimists?

Instead of the person having precognition, is it not possible that they are altering their own future to match their preconceptions?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Definitely relate..

a reply to: fluffy

Oh fluffy, that was a beautiful response

a reply to: SuperFrog

Perhaps it has to do with how the scientists approach the experiments. The scientists own thoughts, if negative, could influence the experiments and make them fail.

Here.

Stanford Scientist: Vast, Powerful Realm Between Particles Influenced by Human Consciousness

In Beyond Science, Epoch Times explores research and accounts related to phenomena and theories that challenge our current knowledge. We delve into ideas that stimulate the imagination and open up new possibilities. Share your thoughts with us on these sometimes controversial topics in the comments section below.

Stanford University Professor Emeritus William A. Tiller has been researching a level of physical reality hitherto undetectable with conventional measurement instruments.

He says two kinds of substances exist:

1. The electric atom/molecule level: Substances on this level can be measured with traditional instruments. We can measure them because they are electric-charge based.

2. The magnetic information waves level: Tiller explains in an introduction to his research on his website: “This new level of substance, because it appears to function in the physical vacuum (the empty space between the fundamental electric particles that make up our normal electric atoms and molecules), is currently invisible to us and to our traditional measurement instruments.”

This second type of substance has great power, and it is affected by human thought.
...

www.theepochtimes.com...

Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities beyond Normal Limits
Better vision, stronger muscles—expectations can have surprising effects, research finds
By Ozgun Atasoy | August 13, 2013

There seems to be a simple way to instantly increase a person’s level of general knowledge. Psychologists Ulrich Weger and Stephen Loughnan recently asked two groups of people to answer questions. People in one group were told that before each question, the answer would be briefly flashed on their screens — too quickly to consciously perceive, but slow enough for their unconscious to take it in. The other group was told that the flashes simply signaled the next question. In fact, for both groups, a random string of letters, not the answers, was flashed. But, remarkably, the people who thought the answers were flashed did better on the test. Expecting to know the answers made people more likely to get the answers right.
...

www.scientificamerican.com...

Or here.

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Date:
February 27, 1998
Source:
Weizmann Institute Of Science
Summary:
One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

or.

Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.

There are a number of different ways that of why the other experiments could have failed, and it has nothing to do with the findings of the paper this thread is about being wrong.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Convenient way to make your claims unfalsifiable.

"Didn't work? You just didn't believe hard enough!"