Is this REALLY proof people can see into the future?

[S.F.]

www dailymail co uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1#StartComments

Do some of us avoid tragedy by foreseeing it? Some scientists nowbelieve that the brain really CAN predict events before they happen

Professor Dick Bierman sits hunched over his computer in a darkened room. The gentle whirring of machinery can be heard faintly in the background.

He smiles and presses a grubby-looking red button.

In the next room, a patient slips slowly inside a hospital brain scanner. If it wasn't for the strange smiles and grimaces that flicker across the woman's face, you could be forgiven for thinking this was just a normal health check.

But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future.

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.


What's up with this?

[Ashles]

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.
Your guarantee of hard science at work - secretly releasing results to newspapers before anyone else.

It's hardly peer review is it.

ETA: Link to article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/article.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1965&in_main_section=&in_sub_section=&in_chn_id=)

[Phil]

I have not read the article, but given a set of stimuli and a good analysis of them, we may be able to anticipate events about to happen very accurately, and perhaps occasionally on a subconscious level. But that's called paying attention. Not generally referred to as seeing the future.

[S.F.]

He is currently a professor at the University of Cambridge where he is the head of the mind-matter unification project in the Theory of Condensed Matter research group. He is also a fellow of Trinity College.

Josephson is one of the most well-known advocates of the possibility of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Josephson is also a supporter of David Bohm's notion of implicate order and that it may someday lead to the inclusion of God within the framework of science.Dean Radin is a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology. He is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, in Petaluma, California, USA, on the Adjunct Faculty at Sonoma State University, on the Distinguished Consulting Faculty at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, and four-time former President of the Parapsychological Association.[1][2]

Daaamn, that's the worst article I've read in aeons.

[Fnord]

Looks to me like an attempt to appeal for more publicity (and thus, more funding). A little "Cherry Picking" music, please...

"But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future."
Meaning: No results yet, but we anticipate Great Things.

"Such amazing studies - if verified..."
Meaning: No current verification.

"So far, the evidence seems compelling... "
Meaning: This is our favorite interpretation of what we've seen.

"In fact, it's not clear in physics why you can't see the future. In physics, you certainly cannot completely rule out this effect."
Meaning: You can't prove that our claims are not true.

"All of these stories suggest that we can pick up premonitions of events that are yet to be."
Meaning: We are suggesting that anecdotal evidence is sufficient proof.

"And the results suggest quite clearly that seemingly ordinary people are capable of sensing the future on a fairly consistent basis."
Meaning: We are suggesting that a few obscure 'experiments' are sufficient proof of our claims.

"I believe that we can 'sense' the future, we just haven't yet established the mechanism allowing it to happen."
Meaning: My beliefs are sufficient proof of my claims, in spite of the lack of meaningful evidence.

"The fact that we don't understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen."
Meaning: Science doesn't understand everything, so our claims are not invalid.

"The problem with presentiment is that it appears so nebulous that you can't rely on it to make reliable decisions."
Meaning: Here's the obligatory disclaimer, provided so that skeptics won't think we've gone totally woo-woo.

[Ersby]

It's discussed here as well

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81536

One thing about the article is that it's hard to tell when the journalist is speaking and when the parapsychologists are speaking.

The first time I read it, I assumed that Bierman was putting forward the urban myth regarding less passengers on doomed transport (especially re. 9/11) as supporting evidence, but then reading it again I realised that this part probably had nothing to do with Bierman at all.

I'll wait for the peer reviewed paper to see what the claims actually are.

[Warge]

Tell me about this again when it hits a real scientific magazine instead of a tabloid.

So far nothing seems to have been proven.

[davidsmith73]

Your guarantee of hard science at work - secretly releasing results to newspapers before anyone else.

It's hardly peer review is it.

ETA: Link to article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/article.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1965&in_main_section=&in_sub_section=&in_chn_id=)

No, its not peer review but I also don't see any formal methods or results of the experiment in that article. The Daily Mail says the results were exclusive to them. Firstly, this is not true since the results of Biermans fMRI presentiment experiments are described in Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds", and secondly, where are the results in the article? This is obviously a case of a newspaper reporter not understanding the difference between an interview where Bierman describes his latest set of presentiment experiments and a peer reviewed scientific report, the latter of which is evidently not in the hands of the Daily Mail. The fact that the Daily Mail confuses general information with scientific publication does not mean that Bierman is responsible for the words of this reporter. And lets not forget that quite a few peer reviewed presentiment experiments have been published that are very similar in design to the fMRI. I await the publication of the fMRI experiemts, but methodological detail is already available at Biermans homepage for those interested to look past secondary sources such as tabloid newspapers :rolleyes:

[davidsmith73]

[B]Looks to me like an attempt to appeal for more publicity (and thus, more funding).

Fancy that! A scientist looking for more funding! Whatever next.

[strider]

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.

So why were the results not shown? All we have is speculation, as far as I can see.

[Solus]

No.

[Monza]

Looks to me like an attempt to appeal for more publicity (and thus, more funding). A little "Cherry Picking" music, please...

"But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future."
Meaning: No results yet, but we anticipate Great Things.

"Such amazing studies - if verified..."
Meaning: No current verification.

"So far, the evidence seems compelling... "
Meaning: This is our favorite interpretation of what we've seen.

"In fact, it's not clear in physics why you can't see the future. In physics, you certainly cannot completely rule out this effect."
Meaning: You can't prove that our claims are not true.

"All of these stories suggest that we can pick up premonitions of events that are yet to be."
Meaning: We are suggesting that anecdotal evidence is sufficient proof.

"And the results suggest quite clearly that seemingly ordinary people are capable of sensing the future on a fairly consistent basis."
Meaning: We are suggesting that a few obscure 'experiments' are sufficient proof of our claims.

"I believe that we can 'sense' the future, we just haven't yet established the mechanism allowing it to happen."
Meaning: My beliefs are sufficient proof of my claims, in spite of the lack of meaningful evidence.

"The fact that we don't understand something does not mean that it doesn't happen."
Meaning: Science doesn't understand everything, so our claims are not invalid.

"The problem with presentiment is that it appears so nebulous that you can't rely on it to make reliable decisions."
Meaning: Here's the obligatory disclaimer, provided so that skeptics won't think we've gone totally woo-woo.

Excellent analysis, Fnord! Unfortunately, there are too many people that will read the article and see proof a "sixth sense". The lack of a general undersanding of the scientific method in our society is alarming. Because, if it is in the Daily Mail, it must be true.