Precognition Meta-Analysis

#1
Per Dean Radin's Website:

Regarding the research of Daryl Bem, a meta-analysis of all known implicit precognition studies is presently under review for publication, but because it is not yet published the details cannot be made public. What can be reported at this point is that over 80 replication experiments have been reported by some 30 labs in 13 countries, and the statistical results show to a high degree of confidence that the effect is independently repeatable.

Beyond this teaser everyone will just have to wait for the publication to appear in a journal. When it does appear it is likely to raise a few eyebrows because it forcefully counters the assertion that "this claim isn't true because it can't be repeated!" It will be interesting to see how the mainstream press handles this.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013
I was emailed a copy of this paper several months ago, and the results are relatively impressive. Once the peer-review process is over, I'll post the peer-reviewed finished product on this thread so you all can read.
 
#3
How many of the experiments in the meta-analysis are adequately powered?
I don't have specific data on each experiment meta-analyzed ( I was only given access to the meta-analyzed statistics ), but once I have more info I'll let you know. Bare in mind that the replication attempts by the media skeptics deviated from the protocol that bem put in place, which included mental priming excersizes designed to better prepare people for ' fast thinking '. It was found that slow-thinking reduced the effect of presentiment, while fast-reactionary thinking increased the effect to a higher degree. It's really interesting stuff. Like I said, once I'm given the go-ahead to provide more info than Dean has already provided, I'll let you know.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#4
Hi Iyace,

I think this section of the forum was meant for personal explorations, not discussion of scientific experiments. Maybe your thread should be in the Consciousness and Science forum, or the CD forum (if you want it there! ;)): Re: the rules section of this forum:
This section is geared to personal doing - experiences with delving into, playing with - exploring and implementing - one's own "expanded abilities" and such. Personal anecdotes are welcomed.
  • It is not for scientific approaches, testing, proving, analyzing, measuring, etc. Those approaches and topics are for the Consciousness and Science section
  • It is not for discussing teachers, organized groups, the research of others, etc. Such topics are for the Consciousness and Spirituality section.
  • Sharing helpful tips from one's own experiences is encouraged. Criticizing, challenging, critiquing are verboten.
  • Respectful open-minded questions about others experiences are encouraged.
  • Genuine requests for suggestions about an area one is interested in personally exploring are encouraged.
  • A lighthearted, playful attitude is encouraged. Both in your sharing and in your actual explorations.
http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/rules-for-the-explorers-implementers-section.278/
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#6
It would fit perfectly nicely in the Consciousness and Science sub-forum as well. Precognition, that's consciousness, right? And meta-analysis is science?
 
Top