13

A meta-analysis came out recently:

It was authored and reviewed by researchers from reputable universities and the consensus appears to be that premonition to randomized stimuli is possible and reproducible.

This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect

This is of interest because it goes counter to standard conceptions of cause and effect. The question is, where is the problem with this paper? Or must we take this as evidence of a novel phenomenon?

The best explanation I have come up with is that when there are various unreported biases and errors in studies of this type they tend to accumulate in favor of the appearance of predictive prestimulus effects. I am interested whether a more satisfactory explanation is possible however since this is not a very satisfying refutation and could easily be erroneous.

  • 1
    It is worth mentioning the final line: The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined. – Oddthinking Oct 26 '12 at 5:42
  • 5
    I've removed some of the bias in the question. As skeptics, we should remain open to the idea that the meta-analysis is not flawed, and the studies it depends upon are not flawed... as unlikely as that may be. – Oddthinking Oct 26 '12 at 5:45
  • 4
    Only 26 reports in 32 years? From studies that can be done in about a day? Of a phenomena that would have great economic, cultural, and scientific interest if it were true? That's pretty unimpressive, I gotta say. Sounds more like a meta-analysis of a field with a heavy publishing bias than anything else. – Tacroy Oct 26 '12 at 18:12
  • 2
    Given that the US Govt had an entire program devoted to this that they canned after not getting anywhere, I really do doubt the findings. Actually scratch that, the report itself concludes: "The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports." So they haven't really concluded anything yet. – Tim Scanlon Nov 1 '12 at 7:00
  • 1
    @called2voyage, no, I was referring to a more recent Naval Research project on premonition and intuition. And the quote was from the meta analysis cited. time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23109927 – Tim Scanlon Jan 25 '18 at 6:51
-1

Referring to D Samuel Schwarzkopf's 2015 critical analysis of predictive anticipatory activity/presentiment which was researched in the metanalysis conducted by Mossbridge and colleagues in 2012, effects to occur before its cause in biology are extremely improbable and time symmetry is physically implausible.

If presentiment really only depends on the strength of the subsequent response and arises due to some elusive time symmetric effects in neuronal processing, it should be observable also for such simple neurons in the early sensory cortices or even in the peripheral nervous system. To my knowledge such evidence has never been reported. Even the very small precognition effects (51-53% correct) in these experiments are orders of magnitude greater than what one would expect to occur due to time symmetry.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .