Journal Article On Precognition Sparks Outrage

thomst writes "The New York Times has an article (cookies and free subscription required) about the protests generated by The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology's decision to accept for publication later this year an article (PDF format) on precognition (the Times erroneously calls it ESP). Complaints center around the peer reviewers, none of whom is an expert in statistical analysis."

Comments

Prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I predicted this would happen.

Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[eldavojohn]

on precognition (the Times erroneously calls it ESP).

Why is that erroneous? Precognition and premonition are two facets of Extrasensory Perception. From its wikipedia article:

Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was coined by Sir Richard Burton,[citation needed] and adopted by Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as telepathy and clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation as precognition or retrocognition.

So if you were dealing with anything of the above or anything external to our normal senses, I think that qualifies as ESP and calling it ESP. Sure that acronym has a lot of baggage but from the study itself:

... this is an experiment that tests for ESP (Extrasensory Perception).

That's what the tests subjects were told and I don't think the article is erroneous.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[prionic6]

I'd say it is more a case of earth having 4 corners in some kind of a simultaneous 4-day... In only 24 hours of rotation, there are 4 corner days, cubes for a quad earth. No 1 Day God.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[AlecC]

From the summary, the implication is that the data analysis was not proper - or at least, not shown to be proper. Since the claimed effect is a fairly small artifact only detectable by sophistcated statistics, it seems reasonable that the reviewers should include those who have a deep understanding of such statistics - which, it is claimed, they did not.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[ledow]

They failed that one of your hurdles - they didn't do a proper analysis on their data. Basically, their data conclusively shows that the chances of pre-cog existed COMPARED TO it not existing is extremely minimal (actually quite strongly in favour of it not existing). But they specifically chose only certain analyses to conclude that it *did* exist.

There are many rebuttals at the moment, most linked to in these comments, that you can read but basically - to remove all statistical jargon - they didn't bother to take account of how probable their data was by pure chance. Their "error margin" is actually vastly larger than their data could even escape, so they can't really make any firm conclusions and certainly NOT in the direction they did. Statistics is a dangerous field, and whoever wrote and reviewed that paper didn't have a DEEP grasp of it, just a passing one.

If you calculate the *chance* that their paper is correct versus their paper being absolute nonsense, not even taking into account anything to do with their methods or that their data might be biased, their data can ONLY mathematically support a vague conclusion that their paper is nonsense. To do the test properly and get a statistically significant result (not even a *conclusive* result, just one that people will go "Oh, that's odd") they would have to do 20 times as many experiments (and then prove that they were fair, unbiased etc.).

It's like rolling three sixes on a die and concluding that the particular die you rolled can only possibly roll a six. It's nearly as bas as claiming that so can every other die on the planet.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[jason.sweet]

FTA:

In one sense, it is a historically familiar pattern. For more than a century, researchers have conducted hundreds of tests to detect ESP, telekinesis and other such things, and when such studies have surfaced, skeptics have been quick to shoot holes in them.

I always thought the hole-shooting was an essential step in the scientific process. If you can't patch up the holes, you aren't really doing "science."

In science, you tell a story. Then everyone says, "no, that's wrong because..." Then you say, "I'm afraid I'm right, because..." It is an imperfect process because people have biases that are hard to overcome. But, if the empirical evidence is strong enough, you will overcome these imperfections. In the end, you build a consensus by presenting enough evidence that no one can argue with. I'm not sure what is more democratic than that.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[Black Parrot]

I don't understand this. If the researchers did a proper experiment, respected the rules, followed proper procedures, and did a proper analysis of the data they collected, in a scientific way. Why is it a problem to publish ?

Shouldn't be any. However, this case isn't relevant to your question, since they didn't do a proper analysis. (Or at least that's what the rebuttals say; I haven't read the paper.)

One of the most glaring problems is that they (reportedly) went fishing for statistical significance in their results, without making the correction that is required for rigor when you do that. When you find significance at the traditonal 95% confidence level, there's a 5% chance that you're finding meaning in noise. If you test for 20 different effects and then go fishing to see whether *any* of them show significance at the 95% confidence level, you have 1 - .95^20 = 64% chance of finding "significance" in noise.

There are simple ways to fix that problem, e.g. the Tukey HSD "honestly statistically different" test. Apparently the authors were either ignorant or dishonest, and the reviewers were either ignorant, dishonest, are careless.

Re:Why Is It Wrong to Call This ESP?

[ae1294]

Wait, you've lost me here... what about human beings can't be explained with classical physics?

2 girls 1 cup

Great response paper

[246o1]

For those who haven't seen it, here's a pretty sharp takedown of this paper, as well as some notes on statistical significance in social sciences in general: www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakersetal_subm.pdf

Re:Great response paper

[Anonymous Coward]

And for those who still haven't seen it, here's a proper link.

Re:Great response paper

[ledow]

Ouch. Taken down by two Bayesian tests on whether it's more likely that the paper is true or not. They didn't even need to get out of bed or dig out a big maths book to basically disprove the entire premise of the original paper using its own data.

As they hint at in that rebuttal - As a mathematician and someone of a scientific mind, I would just like to see *ONE* good test that conclusively shuts people up. Trouble is, no good test will report a false result and thus you'll never get the psychic / UFO / religion factions to even participate, let alone agree on the method of testing because they would have to accept its findings.

Never dabble in statistics - the experts will roundly berate you and correct you even if you *THINK* you're doing everything right. When PhD's can't even work out things like the Monty Hall Problem properly, you just know it's not something you can throw an amateur towards.

Re:Great response paper

[Burnhard]

But isn't that simply applying the maxim: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I.e. it is not asserting the evidence doesn't exist, only that the evidence isn't strong enough to make the assertion that the hypothesis is true with any confidence. There's a subtle difference.

Re:Great response paper

[wonkavader]

Dabbling is fine when the results are good. He had 53%. If he'd had 65%, dabbling would have worked. But dabbling is just the start, and that's not just the nature of peer review, it's the nature of collaboration and a University setting. You find something neat by dabbling, and you walk down the hall to visit someone with more stats experience to get some clarity before you publish.

He had 53%. He knew that if he walked down the hall, he'd get told he had squat. So he didn't walk down the hall.

There's dabble initially, and that's fine. And there's dabbling (ONLY) and calling it done. That's not.

Seems like the paper was written by a dabbler, then reviewed by a respected team of dabblers. And not one of them looked at 53% and walked down the hall. Bubbleheads.

Research Funding

[MoonBuggy]

I haven't yet had a chance to read the paper fully (it's 50 or so pages), but if they are actually that confident in their evidence that precognition has been found, the James Randi Foundation has a million dollars waiting for them.

Re:Research Funding

[Rob Kaper]

Any evidence for precognition instantly takes precognition into the scientific realm and out of the paranormal, supernatural and occult.

Re:Research Funding

[dkleinsc]

I'm not sure they're that confident in their evidence. Nor should they be - they did a study, they publish their findings, lots of other scientists either put down rebuttals (as has already happened), or repeat the study and see if it's accurate enough to be true. That's the way science is supposed to work.

What's not supposed to happen is "Scientist A does an apparently sound study that appears to demonstrate something that scientists B,C, and D consider silly, and scientists B, C, and D stop scientist A's work from ever seeing the light of day."

Re:Research Funding

[MoonBuggy]

Oh, absolutely, but the rules state:

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

Within the Challenge, this means that at the time your application is submitted and approved, your claim will be considered paranormal for the duration. If, after testing, it is decided that your ability is either scientifically explainable or will be someday, you needn’t worry. If the JREF has agreed to test you, then your claim is paranormal.

I'm sure that if a bunch of scientists came along and said "we have statistically significant evidence of precognition, and not a damn clue how it works", the Randi foundation would jump at the chance to test them.

I don't believe for a second that these people actually do have any legit evidence, but on the off chance that they are for real then this will be a massive breakthrough. Of course, it will be explainable by science in time, and perhaps "supernatural" is a poor choice of word, but if you read through the entire FAQ you'll see that the foundation sound entirely reasonable, and I don't doubt that they would be willing to test something on the basis that it runs quite counter to currently accepted theory.

Their aim (and one that I applaud) seems to be to either disprove paranormal claims, or to prove them in a scientific manner. Sure, doing so will, by definition, destroy their 'paranormal' status, but it could also revolutionise scientific thinking. As I said though, it's probably a moot point, since I see no reason to believe this paper any more than the thousands that came before it.

Re:Research Funding

[elrous0]

If they exist, I want them arrested immediately for aiding and abetting terrorists on September 10, 2001. Obviously, they all willfully stayed silent.

Re:Research Funding

[geekoid]

But when A doesn't do a sound study, then B,C,D should say something.

Even if it was a good study, there findings are the same you would expect from random chance. I.e. well within the margin of error.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many types of ESP, covering different aspects of life. Each is differentiated by a letter.

For example, the 14th type of ESP covers sports. It is called ESPN.

Reminds me of this hoax...

[LordNacho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Basically, a physicist made up some BS and got it published in a journal called Social Text about postmodern cultural studies. He then came out later and revealed the hoax, embarrassing the reviewers and the journal. Lack of intellectual rigour seemed to be the target. This time, it seems to be more specifically aimed at the lack of understanding of statistics in certain subjects.

Re:Reminds me of this hoax...

[SoVeryTired]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

The hard sciences aren't immune to this kind of thing either. The Bogdanov affair wasn't as serious as the Sokal affair, but it's still in the same ball park.

maybe...

[TheCarp]

Maybe this is a hack. They say he has a sense of humor.... think of this... he did design his studies well, at least the ones that I have read about. The effects of this "time leaking" are fairly small. Perhaps the entire point...is to make a point about statistics.

Added bonus? Put the ESP issue to bed. Him doing this, and specifically doing it so publicly and getting it passed peer review and publication, ENSURES that these studies are going to be replicated by numerous people, for the next several years. That, in and of itself, could produce enough evidence against ESP to really put the issue to bed :)

Say what you want about his paper, the effects reported are as large as many "well accepted" study results. Which may be the scariest part of all.

That said, I am no ESP believer (that may be obvious) but, some of the statements that are made against it are ridiculous too. "Why aren't people winning the lottory with their perfect precognition". The effects he is talking about here are on the order of a few percentage points better than random... which is more than the house advantage at many casino games (assuming optimal play)

-Steve

Erotic Pictures a Necessary Element

[eldavojohn]

Why settle for just 1M? Play the lottery for a few weeks and you don't even have to bother writing an article to be rich.

So I realize a lot of people aren't going to read the article but here's the meaty parts for you statistics snobs (and really, the Bayes folks are going to be all over this one):

Across all 100 sessions, participants correctly identified the future position of the erotic pictures significantly more frequently than the 50% hit rate expected by chance: 53.1%, t(99) = 2.51, p = .01, d = 0.25.3 In contrast, their hit rate on the nonerotic pictures did not differ significantly from chance: 49.8%, t(99) = -0.15, p = .56. This was true across all types of nonerotic pictures: neutral pictures, 49.6%; negative pictures, 51.3%; positive pictures, 49.4%; and romantic but nonerotic pictures, 50.2%. (All t values < 1.) The difference between erotic and nonerotic trials was itself significant, tdiff(99) = 1.85, p = .031, d = 0.19.

There's a lot more about eliminating random number generators (by using this little guy) leading to prediction as well as running more tests where they are asked to pick a preference of two identical images. The most interesting part is that these results seemed to hinge on pornography. The individuals only exhibited this "precognition or premonition" when they were picking erotic images or rewarded with erotic images (albeit from the International Affective Picture System).

The skeptic in me is very pleased and excited about this part of the paper:

Accordingly, the experiments have been designed to be as simple and transparent as possible, drawing participants from the general population, requiring no instrumentation beyond a desktop computer, taking fewer than 30 minutes per session, and requiring statistical analyses no more complex than a t test across sessions or participants.

Grad students across the country: get to work!

But you would have to have the lottery involve some sort of erotic pictures containing the known numbers in order for this edge to be garnered. Which would be impossible unless the lotteries changed how they worked. Maybe play blackjack with a set of playboy cards? :-)

Journal Article On Precognition Sparks Outrage...

[knewter]

The headline SO should have been:

Journal Article On Precognition Sparks Outrage BEFORE IT'S PUBLISHED.

That is all. I expect more out of an editor.

Re:Peer review only provides weak prescreening

[gweihir]

I have a PhD in CS.

You can also have good science rejected by getting three incompetent reviewers. Happened to me several times, the worst one when the program committee attached a note that showed they had not read or understood their own call for papers. I suspect a direct lie to keep me out. Published it later unchanged somewhere else and those people were surprised it got rejected earlier.

In addition to incompetent reviewers, there are also those that are envious or want to steal your ideas. Peer-review is fundamentally broken. One friend who has a PhD in a different CS area thinks 70% of researchers are corrupt, reviewing things positively when they know the authors, no matter the quality and negatively otherwise. Lying in application to research grants is also quite common. The final result is that good researchers have trouble working and often leave research altogether, which may be an explanation for how glacially slow some fields move.

The problem with this article is it will cause

[jolyonr]

Mass Hysteria, Dogs and Cats living together, etc.

Concur.

[Peter Trepan]

It's a compelling model that addresses a lot of tricky questions very neatly.

For instance, if you combine this with many-worlds theory, you can eliminate the paradox of free will - that is, when I make a decision, what internal process prompted me to make that decision? And what prompted that? And so on.

If you think of the universe as a static object that at every instant in time (or "the fourth dimension," if you prefer) branches off into multiple possible realities, then you can think of yourself as having made every possible decision, but being able to remember only one, because the state of your brain in this particular branch of the decision tree is only consistent with one past.

It works the same way as the anthropic principle. Why is the universe perfect for supporting life? Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have asked. Why did I make that particular decision? Because you're thinking about the decision from the perspective of a universe in which that particular decision was made. This also explains why consciousness appears to have a special place in quantum collapse. It's really an illusion, and there is no "collapse" - you have just chosen a particular viewpoint that is only consistent with one specific observation.

Problem is, this hypothesis may be nondisprovable.