• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"New" study by Julia A. Mossbridge.

Lukas1986

Critical Thinker
L
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
302
Lukas1986 said:
Hi

According to Skeptiko here is a new study by Jullia A. Mossbridge:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971164/
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146/abstract

The interview on Skeptiko can be found here: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...k-with-psychic-abilities-288.2552/#post-77659

I had no time to look at it but I would like to know what you people think about it. Thanks for your time and reading this and I wish you a nice day.
Click to expand...

So, you want us to do your work for you.

Tell you what, you go away and read it, then come back here with a summary, and a critique, and we'll have a conversation.
 
MikeG said:
So, you want us to do your work for you.
Click to expand...

Nope. This is work for you??

If you do not want to read its fine. Look I would love to have a look at it but my real life and mostly my work life is getting in between.

I just posted this that people can have a look at the study and comment if they want or not. Its nothing "paranormal" here that people post studies about the paranormal here and ask others what they think of it without a summary or critique.
 
Last edited:
Lukas1986 said:
.......Its nothing "paranormal" here that people post studies here and ask others what they think of it without a summary or critique.
Click to expand...

Whenever they do this, they receive a response similar to the one I just gave. OPs along the lines of "Here's something someone said. I haven't read it, nor got any ideas on the subject myself, but what do you think?" will get far more responses about how not to start threads than they will about the content.
 
It is about predictive physiological response, before a stimuli occurs, in other word supernatural woo. Basic physic causation law preempt this. So the level of evidence required to pretend this also happen the other way around would have to be very very strong indeed.

A few stuff is mentioned like the brain confusing the event and the trigger thus mistakenly thinking it happened after. Or quantum.

Basically it is just a summary article no new evidence.

*shrug* it is unlikely to make wave around. The level of evidence is so weak that I can only shrug. They have radin 1995 in it and don't put it in the QRP column so IMHO that say it all.
 
MikeG said:
Whenever they do this, they receive a response similar to the one I just gave. OPs along the lines of "Here's something someone said. I haven't read it, nor got any ideas on the subject myself, but what do you think?" will get far more responses about how not to start threads than they will about the content.
Click to expand...

Sorry if that is the case. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

I did read it in a fast like way but I have really little time to have a normal look at it because I have really little free time now.

I apologize once more if I did something bad. Sorry again.
 
Thanks Aepervius for a quick look. Thanks a lot. I would also like to ask if there is way to make a donation to this forum to keep it up and running for your help and opinions in the years.
 
There was a response printed to it in the same journal by someone sensible. What a great title "We should have seen this coming"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034337/

Key points

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).
Click to expand...

You can find such responses to most controversial papers by googling around or by looking in the "Cited in other articles in the PMC" section on the right hand column of the NIH site where all of these kinds of studies are mirrored. See here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971164/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom