Scientific Evidence for Precognition?

By | November 14, 2010

So here’s the deal: a psychologist is about to publish results of a battery of tests conducted over a number of years which seem to demonstrate a small, but apparently statistically valid, tendency for some test subjects to accurately predict the future:

It describes a series of experiments involving more than 1000 student
volunteers. In most of the tests, Bem took well-studied psychological
phenomena and simply reversed the sequence, so that the event generally
interpreted as the cause happened after the tested behaviour rather
than before it.

 The guy is a real scientist and he’s publishing in a real scientific journal . And the story, as you saw if you followed the link, was published in New Scientist.

None of that makes it true, of course. It does appear that the researcher, Darryl Bem of Cornell University, has taken great care in trying to create a valid test and ensuring that the results are real.

So what does this all mean? You tell me.

Results here. (Use links to see results for all questions.)

Use the blog comments to provide additional thoughts. If you have trouble logging into the commenting system (apparently some do) you can also use your Yahoo, Google, or Facebook account.

  • Phil

    Anticipating the future is a key survival skill, so I think the evolutionary advantage of being a good guesser is true, but “guessing” correctly in circumstances such as these requires more of an explanation. What is the mechanism that lies behind being able to guess accurately?

  • stephentg

    When I read about this research I was immediately reminded of the scene in the movie Spider-man that talked about the spider that ended up biting Peter Parker.

    “It shows evidence of precognition.”

    A pretty cool techno-jargon explanation for Peter’s subsequent spider-sense, but not to be taken seriously. Right?

    If it were true, it would be profound. Proof that effect influences cause. That time doesn’t work they way we perceive it. Quantum weirdness intruding into the macro-world.

    But I’m REALLY having a tough time taking this seriously. Even the researcher’s choice of using erotic images in the study looks more Dr. Peter Venkman than Dr. Stephen Hawking.

    “Dean Yeager: Doctor… Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!

    Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us!”

  • stephentg

    More about that spider here.

  • bowermaster

    On the use of erotic imagery, I wonder if that was Bem’s innovation? The article says that he took existing experiments and reversed the time sequence. Scientists doing prior research in memory may have found that such images are more easily retained (go figure) or that their use generally keeps test subjects more engaged in the experiment (again with the go figure.)

  • bowermaster

    Besides, wasn’t Hawking famosuly involved in a wager that had a subscription to Penthouse as part of the stakes?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager

    (See last item in list)
    :-D

  • jpgaga

    The precognition is just one of the many “powers” of the human being. The problem with the science is that science pretends to explain something unexplainable. http://findalloffers.blogspot.com/