[ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology
rpwl at lightlink.com
Thu Oct 21 15:10:05 UTC 2010
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.
You're 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 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?
More information about the extropy-chat