Talk:Precognition

Bias

"Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science. Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause. There are established biases affecting human memory and judgment of probability that create convincing but false impressions of precognition."

It would be hard to write a more biased sceptics perspective. Definitially causes occur before effects. Saying that "precognition would violate" that is an empty circular argument. An encylopedia piece should stand in the middle, not be a sceptics mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.75.109 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Psychiatry Precognition is considered hallucination by mainstream psychiatry.[44]" Very terse. I burst out laughing when I went to the source - a dictionary entry which says no such thing. This article is ridiculous in it's sceptical ardour - and that bits the funniest twisted distortion of something I've seen in a long while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.73.65 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the completely one-sided Physics section:

This is worth a read (just for a start)

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

And this post in particular in a discussion on the physics forum on Time-symmetric quantum mechanics (the subject of that article) expresses rather well how open physics is to future influences.

"Given that all other physics is time-symmetric (other than 2nd law of thermodynamics), surely we would expect QM to be time-symmetric as well? Furthermore, most writers (certainly Price (1996)) on the arrow of time think that the arrow is a psychological projection (e.g. arrow of entropy causes the arrow of memory and this is projected outside the head to be the arrow of time) and that the future exists in exactly the same way as the past and present (and thus backwards causation is not major problem). The time-symmetry of the TSQM is therefore consistent with the likely nature of the arrow of time (e.g. illusory), whereas standard QM is not."

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=483347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.76.151 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't try and change the article and will probably leave my critique here. With the article being such a (comically in places) biased piece of scepticism - it looks the fight for anything resembling neutrality has already been fought and lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.76.151 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone has confused selection bias with confirmation bias. I'm not going to even bother changing it, since this particular article appears to have been written by axe-grinding Morlocks and if someone gets that far down I don't know if they care about the difference between all the different types of biases anyway. 192.0.158.152 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You both are right, unfortunately. This article is a sad example of misunderstanding WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Edoe (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The source does say that precognition is hallucination: it is called Dictionary of Hallucinations for a reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've got the point: intuitions cannot be hallucinations, but only delusions. Accordingly, I have changed "hallucination" to "hallucination or delusion". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I finished the job for you. Hallucinations are similarly held by the mainstream not to be precognitive! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Possibility of Precognition" 07/04/2021 Psychology Today Steve Taylor PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.235.140 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Once we turn the weapons of the sceptic back on the mainstream itself, be it the marginal positives attainable in almost all epidemiological studies and trials (as Taylor discusses), the motives and belief systems of the sceptical researchers themselves, or the dogmas and liturgies of the pseudosceptic brigade, they too fall like snowflakes. But of course that does not exonerate psi advocates from bad science either, and that bit Taylor misses. No doubt once someone has published a refutation of him, he will be seen as fit material to be lampooned in this article. Until then, he is unacceptably unchallenged. I believe this is called a neutral point of view. Meanwhile, we have a wonderful history of precognitive betting yarns to enjoy, from R. L. Mégroz to M. M. Kaye to Sean O'Donnell and many, many more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What a gullible crap article. He even cites Daryl Bem, a notorious and unashamed Texas sharpshooter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

To save others the trouble, it may be found here. It may be judged as gullible crap, but it is Marks and Spencer peer-reviewed gullible crap. Or is Psychology Today already deemed unreliable? It's certainly going to be if it carries on like this, 57% of Americans notwithstanding. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We just need to wait until we known whether that new article turns out to get positive or negative feedback from the psychology community. Adding a new source just because it says what one wants to hear is how articles become WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's only a half-truth; ending up as pro-fringe applies only to believers. If one is a sceptic then adding a new source just because it says what one wants to hear is perfectly acceptable. Although this is in line with our WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy, we should be careful not to stray into pseudoscepticism lest we tarnish true scepticism. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, let's be careful not to follow policies too much. (That was irony.)

"Pseudoscepticism" is a bugbear. It's just a meaningless word invented by Marcello Truzzi, who believed in psi, for people who did not share that belief. Can we stop this? It is not connected to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should put that article up for AfD, then. But I guess that's one for over at Talk:Pseudoscepticism. Yes, I think we're done here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article demonstrates a sad violation of WP:NPOV. Most chapters are written like an essay, with a prominent citation concluding the "nonsense" of the subject. Folks, it is not WP's task to divide the world into right and wrong, but to explain what _others_ (scientists, writers, media etc.) wrote about it. Think about rewriting the article, at least separating the subject from the criticism. --Edoe (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ARBPS, for a start. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE specifically.- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fringe? When "37% of Americans surveyed believed in precognition" it seems like an interesting topic for the social sciences, including 'mainstream'. --Edoe (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the cultural fringe and the scientific fringe. Although precognition is basically a cultural phenomenon and at 37% one can argue for mainstream, it nevertheless demands scientific explanation and at that level any claim beyond self-delusion is indisputably fringe. See for example the article on astrology. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

But the fact that 37% of a population believe in a fringe is not a fringe. Understand the difference? There are real facts in this article, but they are subdued under the mission to proove the 'believers' wrong. --Edoe (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, at this point we can only agree on that precognition is not studied and mechanisms are not well understood. It seems something, that has to do with how brains are working and that mechanism might apply not only to humans, but other animals. The issue with that not many people notice that they can precognize is that not all people can remember what they have been dreaming. And for those who can - they also do not have a very reliable way to remember dreams, that works 100% all the time. At this point we are approaching technology, that would allow us to record dreams and what person sees in real-time and that is something that can be used to scientifically prove or disprove precognition. Claiming that precognition is pseudoscience or fringe requires proof regardless of outcome and weight of proof for any cases lies on claimant. 88.111.113.79 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see what the opinion you utter here has to do with the goal of this page: the improvement of the article. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think the present article is constructed badly. For example the article on astrology devotes a lot of space to its historical and cultural aspects, keeping scientific criticism out of the way for readability and then doing the criticism justice in its own section. Though nothing like as extensive, there is a reasonable amount of discussion of precognition in the wider literature to give it significant cultural and historical context. For example Priestley's findings are widely quoted/cited and deserve better coverage here. Significant discussions have also been published by respected authors such as C. D. Broad, G. N. M. Tyrrell and Brian Inglis and these should perhaps be expanded on. Also, as I said in a previous thread, the dream experiments of J. W. Dunne cut right across the current division into separate sections for experiments and dreaming. Might it be better to give a historical account of such discussions and the associated experiments, and then fire the critical guns at it all in a separate section? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, the mixture of subject and criticism is the problem here. --Edoe (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have done some restructuring. I do not really like my subdivision of the history into arbitrary periods, but I can't think of a better way to do it. I am going to let the overall structure settle for a bit before I attempt much in the way of reorganising the criticisms, but please don't let that stop anybody else from doing so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, the article has clearly gained in quality. Thus the 'essay' warning can be removed. --Edoe (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bit more restructuring and rebalancing done, in the end some of the more detailed criticism does belong with the historical events it is criticising. I think the overall impression is acceptable now so I have removed the essay tag. Hope folks like it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, spot on. It definitely violates WP:NPOV. There's no fair and equitable discussion of Daryl Bem's research at all nor later meta-analyses and successful replications. Only mention of failed replications. Nhradek (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just followed up the reference to Aristotle and amended the article accrdingly. Deeply shocked at the cherry-picking of sceptical quotes by a previous editor here. With such disgustingly flagrant bias, it is no wonder that scepticism finds it so hard to gain traction among rational thinkers. Hey you determined sceptics out there, if you want to be taken seriously you have to actually practice the objective rationality that you so vehemently preach. Hypocrisy is no substitute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the issues on gathering scientifical data

There are many people that claim, that they do not have precognition from dreams, because: 1. they do not recall dreams 2. very quickly forget the dreams 3. do not keep memory of dreams for long These people are unable to provide any data to research, so the pool of source is limited - even biased as it is limited only to those who are experiencing precognition... unless it is possible to gather dreams without requiring subjects to remember their own dreams, as it looks that dreams are significant part of the phenomena

However, from those who remember, there seems to be no reliable (in other words - repeatable) system on how precognition works(that does not mean that it undermines observed phenomena - it only means, that there are no reliable ways to repeat experiment - because there is no way to "reset" a human being and since it is unknown what causes dreams, then it would require "resetting" of whole universe - that simply means, that researcher has to be outside of known universe to repeat experiment or something else has to be observed instead of what is being tried to be observed): 1. it is not something that can be reproduced at will - it seems to be a mix of various factors involved: dream generation, memory factors to remember dreams(seems to be usually from last cycle) right after awakening, and keeping those memories as long-term 2. time of occurence of precognition varies wildly - it can happen after awakening and can happen after years 3. there does not seem to be significance of those events - they are more like a fragments of memories about future and that's it

The main issue with phenomena is mainly in establishing what are mechanisms behind it(because at current stage there is still battle going on in deciding if it is real or not), as that raises more questions, than gives answers. Quite a lot of those questions can be explained only in pair with something like Simulation Hypothesis(which itself seems to be only a beginning of something that is more serious on topic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.113.79 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What change to the article are you suggesting? If you are not, you are in the wrong place since this is not a chatroom. If you are, you will need reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Precognition Support

Despite some editors, @Hob_Gadling for example, reservations there is considerable evidence for precognition using meta-analysis statistical techniques from Bem and Tressoldi et al. and despite claims he is a "hack" he did pass peer review in his original article. Nhradek (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not regard Daryl Bem as a reliable source. There is too much controversy over his work, and most mainstream sources reject his results. Our policy on pseudoscience does the rest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? He has multiple studies showing effects, he was a tenured psychology professor nobody has proven he's a fake. This just idiotic. Stop your bullshit. I could equally argue wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. That's what most college professors have told me. Nhradek (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source. It works on a consensus basis thrashed out in discussions like this one, and the most important consensus decisions are enshrined in policy. One does not have the option of disagreeing with the consensus, for better or worse it is how Wikipedia works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't generating novel content, so the question of reliability is based on how well it summarizes reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But is it really doing that if there is supposed consensus which doesn't exist in the scientific world. The biases of the "skeptics" don't allow for debate other than claims of fraud which are unfounded. Nhradek (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

They're not really skeptics. Pseudoskepticism Nhradek (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think what Steelpillow meant to say is that editors discuss which sources are WP:RS, WP:FRIND, WP:DUE etc. and how best to summarize them. They use WP:CONSENSUS for such discussions. They don't WP:CONSENSUS to come up with new scientific ideas in opposition to what reliable sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes but editorial bias by skeptics violates WP:Npov. It's pointless because some think Bem and Tressoldi, etc. are frauds and some don't think they are. No consensus can be reached over that. Nhradek (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Even psychology has this problem because some say the methods are broken but Bem's experiments were published in journal of personality and social psychology and passed peer review multiple times so either the entire field is broken or the assumption by "skeptics" is wrong. I think the latter is correct and the entire field isn't broken. Nhradek (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The same is true of the UAP and UFO field by recent disclosures have changed this. The kneejerk "skeptical" of everything position is cynicism and not skeptical inquiry that should be cited. Following the evidence is WP:Npov not we just reverting whatever I don't like immediately because it doesn't fit my pet theory that Bem is a fraud. Nhradek (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Following the evidence means in this case a smoking gun, which AFAIK does not seem to exist. It does not mean a whole litany of weak correlations. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a meta-analysis conducted by Tressoldi, et al. If Bem is faking it so must Tressoldi then. The evidence that Bem is a "hack" is lacking and it violates WP:Npov. It's pointless to argue if you all have your minds made up that Bem is a fraud entirely despite passing peer review multiple times. Nhradek (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Our minds do not matter. Convince the scientific community, according to organized skepticism. Remember: scientific community first, and Wikipedia will follow. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The scientific community does not agree entirely, there is no direct consensus. I have no allegiance to organized skepticism and most modern "scientific skepticism" is WP:Pseudoskepticism. When there's no consensus, WP:NPOV dictates we present both sides of the argument. For and against precognition yet the article is inherently biased against Daryl Bem and other precognition researchers. Nhradek (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I was reverted within minutes despite posting valid meta-anlyses by multiple precognition researchers including Daryl Bem. Why the retraction since retracting violates a supposed core principle? Nhradek (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You can always take a quote out of context. It ignores everything else he's done or said. Nhradek (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: how many scientists doubt the existence of electrons? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Because electrons are a well-known phenomenon, known for centuries. There is plenty of controversial science like vaccines and climate change on WP that have controversy and doubt within science. Precognition is well established enough by the SPR and various precognition researchers using meta-analyses statistical techniques to identify it as a real phenomenon. Not pseudoscience like is claimed. To argue otherwise and constant revisions of this extra research violated WP:NPOV because it violated sacred cows of "skepticism." Wikipedia is not an idealogical front for "skeptics" but a neutral dictionary. Nhradek (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that precognition is more credible and has more support within the scientific community than climate change or vaccination shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It has as much support as many scientific findings do with multiple meta-analyses and studies. Nhradek (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Daryl Bem literally said, If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, 'Will this replicate or will this not? That is, he admitted that what he does is not science. He fakes it.

Behind every positive result in parapsychology, there is a weirdo like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Where did he ever say that? Where? Nhradek (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I too would be interested in checking out that source. It sounds fascinating! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I found it here, if that helps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know he was a competent mentalist. Ouch! But then again, to play devil's advocate, the piece also mentions sceptic James Randi, who was a stage illusionist. I am not prepared to accept any results from either of them - the parapsychologist or the sceptic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You missed the other part of the quote and put it out of context. He just said he's not the one to do rigorous peer review, he prefers to leave that to other scientists. That's what he meant, he prefers to be an experimentalist and just conduct research. Nhradek (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Other scientists have already tried to replicate his bad studies and failed. That is because his results were based on the faulty method of p-hacking. Wikipedia should not cite refuted studies as if they had merit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Bem's study isn't reliable for what you want to cite it for (i.e. "considerable evidence for precognition"). See Daryl_Bem#"Feeling_the_Future"_controversy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There's meta-analyses by Bem and Tressoldi et al that show otherwise. Nhradek (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:LUNATICS and WP:UNDUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUMB Nhradek (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is part and parcel of WP:NPOV policy. If you do not want to obey it, take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But it's not pseudoscience. This is a democratic platform, not controlled by "skeptics." You guys and gals keep violating Wikipedia:NPOV repeatedly. I will take this to arbitration if you want me to. Nhradek (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a democratic platform—wrong, see WP:DEM! I took it to WP:AE. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We're discussing this is a democratic forum with various arguments for and against inclusion like in the ancient Greek agoras. Thus it is a democracy regardless of what {{WP:DEM}} says, by technicality of semantics. Nhradek (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No: the majority of the public, and even the majority of editors, do not make the call. Making the call has been outsourced to the scientific community, AKA organized skepticism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The "scientific community" is not organized skepticism. Who let's you make that pronouncement and often "organized skeptics" aren't skeptical at all but dogmatic. You accused me of disruptive commenting but you're just as culpable. I'll end this conversation here unless the editors wish to reinstate my edit. Nhradek (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See Mertonian norms. That definition is older than me. In fact, it is older than my mother. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is this on wikipedia

This precognition ability would not be accepted by any science circles since it is part of paranormal. Is the world changing where this becomes accepted science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.67.91 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)