Subsequent to my earlier article on Bem’s precognition studies, Steve Novella has written an excellent piece on Bem’s research, which explains the issues far more eloquently than I did. This report also reports the concerns of the science community over the publication of his findings.
An important extra dimension raised by Steve is the general issue of how these studies turn up seemingly positive results – and refers to an editorial on the subject entitled ‘Why Psychologists must change the way they analyse their data‘. The gist is worth repeating:
When research finds positive results for an apparently impossible phenomenon, this is probably not telling us something new about the universe, but rather is probably telling us something very important about the limitations of our research methods.
In my opinion, Steve’s post and this last reference tell us everything we need to know about ‘psi research’ and why I believe Randi’s million dollars will never be collected.