Precognition paper

[bindeweede]

Apparently, one of Bem's procedures has been replicated without getting the same results.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ct_id=1699970&

What do we claim? That we conducted a very close replication of Bem (2010, Study 8) and failed to obtain a reliable result.

What do we NOT claim? That we have disproven Bem (2010). (We are merely trying to add more data relevant to the question.)3

There is further comment from Skepdic.

Members of the American Psychological Association should be embarrassed that Bem's work is being published in one of their journals without requiring him to tone down his claims. He has not shown proof of any psychic power (as he and some commentators are claiming). He's found a slight deviation from chance in his data that is statistically significant. All that means is that the slight difference he found (somewhere between 1.7 and 3%) is not likely due to chance. He's assuming it is due to "anomalous retroactive influence." The reviewers should have required Bem to admit that he does not know why his data are what they are. At best, he is justified in claiming that one possibility is that some subjects some of the time were affected by something from the future. Given what we know about nature, that possibility is not in the least bit plausible. It is disheartening to see this study published in its current form in a respected journal and to read in a blog on Psychology Today that this is "cutting-edge science." [/new]

http://www.skepdic.com/precog.html