Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not probative. Males are notoriously oblivious to right brain sensitivities without training and discipline. That the only manifestations between you and your brother are subconscious is quite typical for males. They seldom allow such things to rise to the level of consciousness.
Then again, there is no scientific evidence to support ESP and plenty that refutes it.
"Feeling the Future" and the resulting controversy
In 2011, Bem published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that offered statistical evidence for psi.[12] If "Feeling the Future" is correct, it would provide evidence for psi, significantly altering the assumption of the linear nature of time, challenging the very core of modern scientific thought on the matter. Both the presentation of this article by a highly respected researcher, and the decision of an upper tier journal to publish it has engendered much controversy. Not only has the paper's publication led to a criticism of the paper itself[13], but it also prompted a wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing such a paper to be published.[14] Bem has appeared on MSNBC [15] and The Colbert Report[16] discussing the experiment.
The methods that Bem uses in his experimentation itself has been viewed as controversial as well. According to understood statistical methodology, Bem incorrectly provides one-sided p values when he should have used a two-sided p values.[17] This could possibly account for the marginally significant results that he produced in his experiment. A rebuttal to the Wagenmakers et al. critique by Bem and two statisticians was subsequently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology[18]
Professor of Psychology, member of CSI and Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, James Alcock after evaluating Bem's 9 experiments claimed to have found metaphorical "dirty test tubes", serious methodological flaws such as changing the procedures partway through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. The amount of actual tests done is unknown and no explanation of how it was determined that participants had "settled down" after seeing erotic images was given. Alcock concludes that almost everything that could go wrong with this 9 trial experiment did go wrong. A rebuttal of Alcock's critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer' website and is available from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/ResponsetoAlcock.pdf
One of the nine experiments in Bem's study ('Retroactive Facilitation of Recall') has since been replicated by scientists Stuart Ritchie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman who found no evidence of precognition. Wiseman has also set up a register to keep track of other replicating efforts. The meta-analysis on registered replication efforts will begin on Dec, 1st 2011.[19]. However, at least one other replication of this experiment, also registered on Wiseman's site, successfully replicated Bem's findings.
*****************
"Feeling the Future" and the resulting controversy
In 2011, Bem published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that offered statistical evidence for psi.[12] If "Feeling the Future" is correct, it would provide evidence for psi, significantly altering the assumption of the linear nature of time, challenging the very core of modern scientific thought on the matter. Both the presentation of this article by a highly respected researcher, and the decision of an upper tier journal to publish it has engendered much controversy. Not only has the paper's publication led to a criticism of the paper itself[13], but it also prompted a wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing such a paper to be published.[14] Bem has appeared on MSNBC [15] and The Colbert Report[16] discussing the experiment.
The methods that Bem uses in his experimentation itself has been viewed as controversial as well. According to understood statistical methodology, Bem incorrectly provides one-sided p values when he should have used a two-sided p values.[17] This could possibly account for the marginally significant results that he produced in his experiment. A rebuttal to the Wagenmakers et al. critique by Bem and two statisticians was subsequently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology[18]
Professor of Psychology, member of CSI and Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, James Alcock after evaluating Bem's 9 experiments claimed to have found metaphorical "dirty test tubes", serious methodological flaws such as changing the procedures partway through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. The amount of actual tests done is unknown and no explanation of how it was determined that participants had "settled down" after seeing erotic images was given. Alcock concludes that almost everything that could go wrong with this 9 trial experiment did go wrong. A rebuttal of Alcock's critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer' website and is available from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/ResponsetoAlcock.pdf
One of the nine experiments in Bem's study ('Retroactive Facilitation of Recall') has since been replicated by scientists Stuart Ritchie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman who found no evidence of precognition. Wiseman has also set up a register to keep track of other replicating efforts. The meta-analysis on registered replication efforts will begin on Dec, 1st 2011.[19]. However, at least one other replication of this experiment, also registered on Wiseman's site, successfully replicated Bem's findings.
*****************
You asked. I answered.
No . . . you did not. Your previous stance was unequivocal . . . how do you reconcile it with these current 2011 studies (9 of them) and one successful replication? Did you even read the rebuttals to the entirely predictable critiques. The publication shook up the status quo because Bem is a highly respected Professor in my field with impeccable credentials, integrity and experimental design expertise.
No . . . you did not. Your previous stance was unequivocal . . . how do you reconcile it with these current 2011 studies (9 of them) and one successful replication? Did you even read the rebuttals to the entirely predictable critiques. The publication shook up the status quo because Bem is a highly respected Professor in my field with impeccable credentials, integrity and experimental design expertise.
I question the credibility of anyone who thinks that the brain can communicate with other brains at a distance via some undefined 'spooky' energy source or somehow predict the future at anything other than random chance.
As far as the studies you refer to, did you not read the wiki article I posted a link to? Putting all your marbles on these kind of questionable results is not helping your argument.
Sorry, there is no scientific support for ESP. It has been studied for decades, and repeatedly been found to have no evidentiary support, and plenty of evidence of fraud by those who promote it.
There is no such thing as the supernatural . . . just what is not yet understood. Obviously everything that exists has some basis for it . . . so discovering the basis does nothing but clear up our ignorance about it.
Except some things are just made up by the human mind and do not actually have any basis outside of our heads. Like the placebo effect, we want twins to be "special" so we BELIEVE them to be.
No . . . you did not. Your previous stance was unequivocal . . . how do you reconcile it with these current 2011 studies (9 of them) and one successful replication? Did you even read the rebuttals to the entirely predictable critiques. The publication shook up the status quo because Bem is a highly respected Professor in my field with impeccable credentials, integrity and experimental design expertise.
So now we do the appeal to authority thing? His stats were bad, he had no reason to use anything but a two-sided p-value, and considering his p-value was only 0.011 that is barely significant to begin with.
Good scientists make mistakes, that is why we have peer review and public critiquing. One of the grad students on my grant used the wrong diversity index, these things happen. With statistics using the wrong test or using those tests themselves incorrectly is probably one of the most common mistakes scientists make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
