Talk:Precognition

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.wikipedia.org/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)