- CRITTER TALK
- NEWS I FIND INTERESTING
Well, would it lend more credence if I mentioned that the research was completed by one of the most respected names in the field of psychology today, Professor Emeritus Daryl Bem of Cornell University?
His research paper, ““Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Effect”, seems to produce experimental statistical evidence that ESP exists.
Professor Bem created nine separate experiments with 1,000 university students. These experiments were intended to find evidence of “psi”–precognition or premonition. Bem defines it this way:
The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. Two variants of psi are precognition (conscious cognitive awareness) and premonition (affective apprehension) of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process. Precognition and premonition are themselves special cases of a more general phenomenon: the anomalous retroactive influence of some future event on an individual’s current responses, whether those responses are conscious or nonconscious, cognitive or affective.
You can view his research paper in it’s entirety .. here
After his research paper was accepted for publication by the respected “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, several mainstream news releases proclaimed the results..
Wired Magazine “Feeling The Future: Is Precognition Possible?”
Guardian UK “Can we feel the future through psi? Don’t rule it out.”
Huffington Post “It’s about time: The scientific evidence for PSI Experiences”
But another paper from researchers at the University of Amsterdam, scheduled for publication in the same journal, comes to a completely different conclusion…
Instead of revising our beliefs regarding psi, Bem’s research should instead cause us to revise our beliefs on methodology: the field of psychology currently uses methodological and statistical strategies that are too weak, too
malleable, and offer far too many opportunities for researchers to befuddle themselves and their peers.
That refuting research paper can be viewed in it’s entirety .. here
As for me, at one time I would have dismissed ESP and “I got this Aunt that got up to answer the phone before it rang” stories as exaggerations of the human imagination.
But other fields of science, particularly in the field of Quantum physics, have already shown experimental results that conflict with thinking about time in a linear way.
Based on the theory known as “Time-Symmetric Quantum Mechanics”, experimental results have shown that measurement events in the future can produce causality effects in the past.
And of course there is also the trickiest slight of hand of them all, the Quantum double slit experiment.
I’m not saying that Quantum Physics can become a “blank check” explanation for some of the “woo-ness” out there. But it has shown, at least on the sub-atomic level, you cannot use preconceived notions for how things behave.
As for the original Bem research paper, I wouldn’t be so quick as to throw it out as balderdash. It definitely warrants further research along the same lines.
Science must always keep an open mind. Skeptical of course, but still open.
If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.