Abstract
The possibility of precognition has fascinated humanity since ancient times making it a recurring theme in fiction and mythology. It has also been a topic for scientific investigation. While the majority of such parapsychological studies have been ignored by the larger scientific community, several recent studies of purported precognitive phenomena were published by major international psychology journals. A widely publicized study by Daryl Bem claimed to have found evidence of precognition (Bem, 2011). In its wake have been discussions about the appropriate statistical approach for testing these effects (Bem et al., 2011; Rouder and Morey, 2011; Wagenmakers et al., 2011), and it caused a wave of replication attempts most of which, at least those conducted by researchers skeptical of precognition, have failed (Galak et al., 2012; Ritchie et al., 2012; Wagenmakers et al., 2012). More recently, two articles in Frontiers in Psychology and Frontiers in Human Neuroscience reported a meta-analysis of experiments on “predictive anticipatory activity” or “presentiment” (Mossbridge et al., 2012, 2014). In that paradigm participants are exposed to a series of random stimuli, some arousing (violent/erotic images, loud sounds), others calm controls (neutral images, silence). Apparently, physiological responses evoked by the two trial types prior to stimulus onset predict the upcoming stimulus.
Highlights
While the majority of such parapsychological studies have been ignored by the larger scientific community, several recent studies of purported precognitive phenomena were published by major international psychology journals
In its wake have been discussions about the appropriate statistical approach for testing these effects (Bem et al, 2011; Rouder and Morey, 2011; Wagenmakers et al, 2011), and it caused a wave of replication attempts most of which, at least those conducted by researchers skeptical of precognition, have failed (Galak et al, 2012; Ritchie et al, 2012; Wagenmakers et al, 2012)
Two articles in Frontiers in Psychology and Frontiers in Human Neuroscience reported a meta-analysis of experiments on “predictive anticipatory activity” or “presentiment” (Mossbridge et al, 2012, 2014)
Summary
While the meta-analysis briefly discusses this implication (Mossbridge et al, 2012), the authors are seemingly unaware of the far-reaching consequences of their claims: they effectively invalidate most of the neuroscience and psychology literature, from electrophysiology and neuroimaging to temporal effects found in psychophysical research. The results of this and other similar meta-analyses on psi effects are highly significant under commonly used inferential statistics and in many cases strongly supported by Bayesian inference.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
