ESP Evidence Airs Science's Dirty Laundry (precognition on verge of being scientifically proven)

Imagine if you will, that Science not only proves that ESP is an actual ability, but can also test it and show proof that anyone can do it. I found this registered user access only article on the New Scientist website that delves into a team of researchers attempting to do just that (in so many words).

The full article will not be accessible unless you are a registered user of the New Scientist website so I am just posting an excerpt and created a PDF copy that you can download if you're interested in reading the full article, which i highly recommend.

A barrage of experiments seems to show that we can predict the future – but they may tell us more about the scientific method

FEW sounds quicken the pulse like the clatter of the roulette ball as it drops. Fortunes can be won or lost as it settles into its numbered slot. Find a way to predict where it will come to rest, and you would soon become the envy of every other gambler and the worst nightmare of every casino.

Michael Franklin thinks he might be able to make that claim. Over thousands of trials, he seems to have found a way to predict, with an accuracy slightly better than chance, whether the ball will fall to red or black. You'll find no divining rods or crystal balls about Franklin's person. Nor does he operate from a murky tent swathed in lace and clouded with the fumes of burning incense; he works in a lab at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Franklin is one of a small group of psychologists who are investigating precognition - the ability to foretell the future. Astonishingly, some of the groups, including Franklin's, are returning positive results. "I still want to see that I can actually win money with this," says Franklin, who rates his confidence in the data so far at about 7.5 out of 10. "As a scientist, I need to be agnostic."

If precognition does turn out to be real, it will shake the foundations of science and philosophy. Few researchers will be putting money on this conclusion, though; most expect that the puzzling results will begin to evaporate as others attempt to repeat the experiments. Even so, that could change science as we know it. Franklin and his colleagues are all using standard research methods that normally go unquestioned. If those methods can lead respected scientists to such startling errors, how many other studies might be similarly flawed?

I present it for discussion to make your own assumptions. Not to take away from the ESP aspect, but one of the more interesting parts about the article that I found interesting was the apparent "flawed" current methods by which science makes a final determination and how the findings therein are ultimately set in stone. That to me is quite intriguing in that there is a good chance that there could be quite a bit more than meets the eye (for lack of a better term) about not only our abilities, but any other "scientific discovery" that has been made.

I think it says a lot to our current way of thinking and reliance upon anything that we don't know yet. Because Scientist A says it's "this" Scientist B, C, & D, the public, the media, and the Government all take it as the complete and unwavering truth and there is not enough challenges being presented.

Perhaps a few second, third, or fourth experiments are warranted in the Science community.

Full PDF Article
 18 January 2012 by Bob Holmes
 Magazine issue 2847

reply to post by UberL33t

Find a way to predict where it will come to rest, and you would soon become the envy of every other gambler and the worst nightmare of every casino.

Since precognition is a spiritual gift, those who try to beat the wheel or the stock market will find it doesn't reliably work for them. Spiritual gifts are not about material gain. A person who seeks to improve their portfolio may find the gift evaporating or some other balancing result, i.e., like I won the lottery then my house burned down and now I can't seem to "see" anymore.

Trying to beat the odds is a poor choice for a scientific proof of precognition. But that's science for you. Instead of using a gift like that to help others they use it to get rich. I mean why not? We need funding for all these dumb ideas. The House knows that and rakes it in anyway.

And you want proof? Proof that the scientists will never accept because it's not objective? Simple enough...

Ask yourself if you have ever thought of someone just before they call you on the phone. Or, have you felt some sense of foreboding and then an accident, injury or death occurs of someone close to you? More rare and a favorite is staying put at a light after it turns green and a car runs it right in front of you (Happened to me).

It's not a skill, it's a gift.

Science is made by humans and can be flawed.
Anyone can make a mistake.

That's why there's peer review.

But this is very interesting.
And it reminds me back to a time in 8th grade.

We were supposed to use scientific observation and record the results of flipping a nickel.
Normally you would get either heads or tails.
However one kid kept flipping the nickel and the dang thing would end up standing on it's side.
I saw the kid do it and so did the teacher.

Taught me a valuable lesson in life.
Sometimes the things you can expect to happen don't.

I would not be surprised in the least if this guy is actually recording some sort of ESP result.

reply to post by intrptr


You make an interesting point. How often do you think Science incorporates spiritual aspects, or more, other aspects that don't fall into a specific preset of experimentation procedures? I would wager not many (no pun intended).

Perhaps what you state is indeed the missing factor in this particular experiment. The one thing they're neglecting to account for (spiritual purpose of the ability) thus is why it's only a 7.5 out of 10 accuracy due to the types of information they are trying to be precognitive of.

reply to post by intrptr


When I was younger I would pick up to phone to call a friend.
Only to find that friend already on the line.

He would call and I would pick up the phone before it began to ring.
Freaky.

reply to post by grey580

Sometimes the things you can expect to happen don't.

Good lesson indeed and imo incorporating the unexpected lacks in some science, not all, but some.

reply to post by UberL33t

Imagine if you will, that Science not only proves that ESP is an actual ability, but can also test it and show proof that anyone can do it.

You equating ESP as an "actual ability" from the contents of this article is similar to equating a mathclub member, buying a Harley Davidson and suddenly becoming a "biker".

This is the person carrying out the studies:

Michael Franklin is an assistant project scientist working with Jonathan Schooler. Michael completed his doctorate training in cognitive psychology in 2008 at the University of Michigan under the supervision of Dr. John Jonides. His main research interests include order information in memory, number cognition, transfer/training effects and executive functioning, semnatic priming, consciousness, and dreams.

Link

However, after reading the article I didn't find anything Earth shattering about it. And the general opposition to ESP, or other "supernatural" abilities is usually saved for the people who claim some jedi-esque power. (And usually seek some monetary reward)

reply to post by grey580

However one kid kept flipping the nickel and the dang thing would end up standing on it's side.
I saw the kid do it and so did the teacher.

Taught me a valuable lesson in life.
Sometimes the things you can expect to happen don't.

Are you sure the kid didn't bring a trick coin into class? We had those when we were kids....

reply to post by boncho


Well a math club member turned "biker" would be Earth shattering I suspect.

I stated "actual ability" on the notion that ESP is a speculative ability and has not been conventionally proven per se. I didn't find the article Earth shattering either but I did find portions of it interesting and felt it was worthy of discussion.

I guess my take-away from your post is that you are not impressed by the researchers credentials and you didn't really find the article of interest.

reply to post by UberL33t

I guess my take-away from your post is that you are not impressed by the researchers credentials and you didn't really find the article of interest.

No. The credentials of the researcher are fine. All of the UC schools are well respected (for the most part). I was linking the researcher only so people would know where the research is being done.

I stated "actual ability" on the notion that ESP is a speculative ability and has not been conventionally proven per se. I didn't find the article Earth shattering either but I did find portions of it interesting and felt it was worthy of discussion.

Absolutely worthy of discussion. I may have misinterpreted "actual ability" as "usable" or "functional" ability. In other words, my take is more to serve as a reality check for those who may enter the thread and start declaring all pre-cognitive abilities real, lauding the "psychics", saying "I told you so."

My apologies as your breakdown is quite appropriate.

To the rest, I say a minimal increase of chance guessing, is no reason to go out and buy a crystal ball.

reply to post by boncho

To the rest, I say a minimal increase of chance guessing, is no reason to go out and buy a crystal ball.

I concur. This article proves nothing and by no means should allow for any "seeeeeee I told you" responses.

As the other posters have mentioned though there are instances that occur that could of course be mere coincidence but the fact that it occurs quite frequently does raise questions as to perhaps there is the existence of some type of precognition.

imo we aren't developed enough as a species to be privy to any "skill" or "ability" of this nature at this point anyway.

ahhhhhhh.....pop science. how I love/hate thee.

naturally, they do not publish the actual findings. this is only a science RAG after all. sure would be nice to be able to form my own opinion about this awesomely speculative topic.

it appears as though the experimental results are "not ready yet". uh-huh.

ring me when the results are in.


BTW, I am certain that it is against ATS T&C to publish your own PDF and post it here.

reply to post by tgidkp


Yes I too would be very interested in the findings. The preliminary 7.5 out of 10 accuracy isn't very promising in regards to the subject and leaves a great deal of room for happenstance.

As far as the T&C's I believe I am in compliance as I followed according to this:
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

I added the Author of the article in the PDF and provided the link to the Source in the OP. For good measure I added the authors name below the link to the PDF in the OP.

reply to post by boncho


A trick nickel that makes the coin stand on it's edge?
Anything is possible.
But I doubt it.

reply to post by UberL33t


you are allowed to publish EXCERPTS with a citation. but I am not the police, so I will shut up now.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by tgidkp

 

Yes I too would be very interested in the findings. The preliminary 7.5 out of 10 accuracy isn't very promising in regards to the subject and leaves a great deal of room for happenstance.

6 out of 10 accuracy would be all that's needed to bankrupt all the casinos in Las Vegas. So 7.5 out of 10 is astonishing. If you didn't see the movie "21" you may want to watch it, it was about card-counting MIT students exploiting a very small edge and raking in lots of money in Vegas, until they were caught and banned.

For more insight into this area of research, I recommend reading Daryl Bem's 2011 paper entitled "Feeling the Future"

In it he also presents peer-reviewed results of precognition of sorts, however he states that such studies, including his own work, cannot be considered as reliable scientific evidence until they are replicated successfully. Several replication experiments are underway for Bem's work and he's expected to publish an update later this year and I'm sure the the replication experimenters will also publish their findings.

As Bem says, if it's not replicated, there's probably something wrong with the original experiment, and there's no shortage of ideas on where Bem's experiment is flawed. But the replication experiments will give us more information.

I've seen mentions of studies into precognition in a number of ways. Depending upon the study, it's limited to autonomous responses (such as unconsciously flinching in anticipation of a flash of light). Most of them don't attempt to span beyond a few milliseconds at a time.

Now, I've had some interesting experiences with what could only be described as "remote viewing" - but that's not really scientific. I can attest that the sensation is different from a 'guess' - it is either prompted by a mental image of something/someone or it is just the nearly uncontrollable urge to blurt something out (such as when one of my friends was playing a game of solitaire while talking to me on the phone).

I don't claim to be "psychic" - and accept that those few instances could simply be subjectively prioritized in my memory as they were instances where I was correct (as opposed to incorrect). The experiences were interesting, to say the least - but really only prompt more questions than answers.

I look forward to the results of this study and the attempts to replicate the results (as well as challenges to the methods). It's always a fun day to be a scientist when you get blind-sided by the discovery and verification of new phenomena.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by intrptr

 

When I was younger I would pick up to phone to call a friend.
Only to find that friend already on the line.

He would call and I would pick up the phone before it began to ring.
Freaky.

There you go. I'll wager that happens more than we are able to reliably track. Kinda cool. You two have(?) an important connection there. One that makes a friendship more important than the ordinary acquaintance, for what reason I can't really say. Just a kind of sign I guess? That phone thing used to happen between me and my mother sometimes.

I would venture to expand on that and say that is just one aspect of a wider range of phenomenon. I knew a girl once who claimed that doors opened as she walked up and reached out for the door knob. I was skeptical until one day I seen it happen right in front of me. She was ahead of me, reached for the door knob and this heavy office door just click click opened right in front of her. To this day, I couldn't reliably interpret that as she did it with her mind or someone was watching over her to that extent. I lean towards it being someone else opening the door for her. She was the nicest sweetest person, maybe she deserved that. If it's a gift to get "insight", then all that other paranormal stuff is a gift too? Dunno...

reply to post by UberL33t

imo we aren't developed enough as a species to be privy to any "skill" or "ability" of this nature at this point anyway.

Interesting point. I was wondering about how different people have different abilities. Not all of these are proven as "psychic" or whatever. Some people are good judges of character or reading peoples minds by interpreting their body english. Some appear to have innate ability. Others are good at figuring out what happened like detectives reading a crime scene for instance. That stuff may appear to be scientific but for some people it's a natural ability augmented by training or study.

Maybe these hints of ability are just the tip of the iceberg as it were. Under each persons persona there is an untapped realm. If you saw the movie "Rain Man", you remember the scene where the tooth picks spilled on the floor and he guessed(?) immediately how many were spilled? That was supposed to be a true part of the story. Maybe people with disabilities have access to real talent that we all have, but haven't yet realized, or haven't yet earned or whatever. Maybe the veils between this world of the physical and the realm of the spirit in us all are scrambled in people like Raymond in Rain Man. Foggy filters and whatnot.

reply to post by intrptr

Maybe these hints of ability are just the tip of the iceberg as it were. Under each persons persona there is an untapped realm.

Great point, I tend to think on the same level. It's funny that you bring up Rain Man as an example as I have used the same movie with a similar idea as yours.

You've heard of "idiot savants", well I think there is some similarities in people who have lost certain senses. For example blind individuals whose sense of hearing become increased due to the loss of the sense of sight. I think a similar thing is occurring with people like Rain Man and the like.

Whereby their otherwise "normal" brain function is incapacitated in some manner, other normally untapped areas of the brain sometimes will show signs of increased activity, like memorizing phone books and such. So perhaps all these areas of the brain are present but we are not at a point at which we're ready to have access to them, perhaps it's evolution, perhaps it's spiritual, who knows?