[ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology

[Richard Loosemore]

RESEND.

Arrrgggghh  I said "You're" instead of "your".

Time to call my brain surgeon for an oil and filter change.



Isabelle Hakala wrote:

> Also, so far as I can see, the purpose of the experiment was to see if 
> people can see the future. However, these experiments actually could be 
> evidence that people EFFECT the future. And are more likely to effect it 
> when a positive stimulus is used. does that count as psi as well? I 
> think it does, but again, it shows flawed thinking on the part of the 
> scientists if they have assumed it means that it means the PRIMING is 
> working. It could mean that their decision is effect which thing is 
> selected for priming.

Your point is well taken, but please restrain the urge to shout it :-) 
because this issue has been discussed in the research parapsychology 
community at least as far back as the early 1980s, when I was active in 
the field.

The situation is this.  People have to talk about the results of these 
kinds of experiments using the simplest (occam's razorish) explanation, 
so they might refer to the experiment as a test of precognition, but 
they (and all the professional researcher reading the paper, who are 
familiar with the field) know full well that other explanations (like 
affecting the future rather than seeing it) are possible.  It is just a 
convention that they talk in terms of the simplest model, that is all. 
It makes for more sanity all around.

And besides, doesn't Bem try to be neutral on this issue?  Doesn't he 
refer to it as "anomalous information transfer", or some such?



Richard Loosemore