Talk:Precognition

Why is this on wikipedia
This precognition ability would not be accepted by any science circles since it is part of paranormal. Is the world changing where this becomes accepted science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.67.91 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias
"Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science. Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause. There are established biases affecting human memory and judgment of probability that create convincing but false impressions of precognition."

It would be hard to write a more biased sceptics perspective. Definitially causes occur before effects. Saying that "precognition would violate" that is an empty circular argument. An encylopedia piece should stand in the middle, not be a sceptics mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.75.109 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Psychiatry Precognition is considered hallucination by mainstream psychiatry.[44]" Very terse. I burst out laughing when I went to the source - a dictionary entry which says no such thing. This article is ridiculous in it's sceptical ardour - and that bits the funniest twisted distortion of something I've seen in a long while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.73.65 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the completely one-sided Physics section:

This is worth a read (just for a start)

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

And this post in particular in a discussion on the physics forum on Time-symmetric quantum mechanics (the subject of that article) expresses rather well how open physics is to future influences.

"Given that all other physics is time-symmetric (other than 2nd law of thermodynamics), surely we would expect QM to be time-symmetric as well? Furthermore, most writers (certainly Price (1996)) on the arrow of time think that the arrow is a psychological projection (e.g. arrow of entropy causes the arrow of memory and this is projected outside the head to be the arrow of time) and that the future exists in exactly the same way as the past and present (and thus backwards causation is not major problem). The time-symmetry of the TSQM is therefore consistent with the likely nature of the arrow of time (e.g. illusory), whereas standard QM is not."

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=483347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.76.151 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't try and change the article and will probably leave my critique here. With the article being such a (comically in places) biased piece of scepticism - it looks the fight for anything resembling neutrality has already been fought and lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.76.151 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone has confused selection bias with confirmation bias. I'm not going to even bother changing it, since this particular article appears to have been written by axe-grinding Morlocks and if someone gets that far down I don't know if they care about the difference between all the different types of biases anyway. 192.0.158.152 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You both are right, unfortunately. This article is a sad example of misunderstanding WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Edoe (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The source does say that precognition is hallucination: it is called Dictionary of Hallucinations for a reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've got the point: intuitions cannot be hallucinations, but only delusions. Accordingly, I have changed "hallucination" to "hallucination or delusion". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I finished the job for you. Hallucinations are similarly held by the mainstream not to be precognitive! &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Possibility of Precognition" 07/04/2021 Psychology Today Steve Taylor PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.235.140 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Once we turn the weapons of the sceptic back on the mainstream itself, be it the marginal positives attainable in almost all epidemiological studies and trials (as Taylor discusses), the motives and belief systems of the sceptical researchers themselves, or the dogmas and liturgies of the pseudosceptic brigade, they too fall like snowflakes. But of course that does not exonerate psi advocates from bad science either, and that bit Taylor misses. No doubt once someone has published a refutation of him, he will be seen as fit material to be lampooned in this article. Until then, he is unacceptably unchallenged. I believe this is called a neutral point of view. Meanwhile, we have a wonderful history of precognitive betting yarns to enjoy, from R. L. Mégroz to M. M. Kaye to Sean O'Donnell and many, many more. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What a gullible crap article. He even cites Daryl Bem, a notorious and unashamed Texas sharpshooter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To save others the trouble, it may be found here. It may be judged as gullible crap, but it is Marks and Spencer peer-reviewed gullible crap. Or is Psychology Today already deemed unreliable? It's certainly going to be if it carries on like this, 57% of Americans notwithstanding. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We just need to wait until we known whether that new article turns out to get positive or negative feedback from the psychology community. Adding a new source just because it says what one wants to hear is how articles become WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's only a half-truth; ending up as pro-fringe applies only to believers. If one is a sceptic then adding a new source just because it says what one wants to hear is perfectly acceptable. Although this is in line with our WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy, we should be careful not to stray into pseudoscepticism lest we tarnish true scepticism. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's be careful not to follow policies too much. (That was irony.)
 * "Pseudoscepticism" is a bugbear. It's just a meaningless word invented by Marcello Truzzi, who believed in psi, for people who did not share that belief. Can we stop this? It is not connected to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should put that article up for AfD, then. But I guess that's one for over at Talk:Pseudoscepticism. Yes, I think we're done here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Belief section
The belief section stating that belief in precognition is "widespread" is the viewpoint of non-independent parapsychology sources. The statistics were lifted from primary sourced arguments made in various pro-precognition parapsychology papers claiming a majority of people believe they've had a precognitive experience, and presented without context. I've replaced it with what can be sourced to independent sources. If independent secondary sources have found the parapsychology stats notable, we can certainly reinstate them with appropriate "what parapsychologists believe" framing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The response to JB Priestley's TV appeal, discussed later in the article, evidences that many people do believe in precognition and is verifiable. I have edited the belief section accordingly. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation Needed on my changes to Physics section
Someone added 2 citations needed. The first thing is very basic and well known. For the second, I lifted the wording from retrocausality in physics There are about 20 citations for that there. It doesn't seem sensible copying them without repeating the article content. And it doesn't seem sensibe copying the article content either. People just have to go to retrocausality in physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.126.171 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. References are needed and you can't reference another Wikipedia article, since we don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha, ha - yes that bit about Wikipedia not being a reliable source. I've added some of the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.126.171 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It looks like a lot though, do all of those sources say that? Maybe you added too many. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed those sources because 1. None of them mention precognition so it is original research and 2. It was an extreme fringe position with undue weight. Robert the Magician (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert the Magician - you've rewritten the article to make it (even) more totally one-sided. If the article is going to have a claim like. " the phenomena go against established principles of science. Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause." well, then it should have some discussion of that point. If its going to claim (to paraphrase) that it isn't compatible with physics - well that blanket skeptical assertion should be at least tempered by the mention of the physics with which premonition is consistent. But you don't want that.

I'm not going to try adding anything else to the article. Its clearly a waste of my time. I will just say this: All the good work elsewhere on Wikipedia is undermined by articles like this: this page isn't an encyclopedia article - that requires balance. This page its a sceptical diatribe. With anything else removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.226.138 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Assumptions that precognitive dreams would defy causality?
I've personally had precognitive dreams on at least one occasion which I vividly remember, but describing it is only precognitive in hindsight. That is to say, the contents of the dream weren't readily worth noting until the event had taken place, at which point I realized that I had specifically seen the waking life event previously in a dream. There truly aren't real prophecies in the waking life short of self fulfilling prophecies designed against simpler people (reinforcing the immense damage to all causality incurred by the simple act of lying), but the prophetic dreams are more alike a confirmation of an event rather than literally recording an event before it occurs, which could possibly be later confirmed once the event had come to pass. I know what Deja Vu is, but that is more a general and vague "feeling", whereas a prophetic dream can be quite literally a 1:1 visual representation that can be recalled with identical accuracy. It's not about jerking off ones ego either. I am not a prophetic dreamer, i just happened to have a single vividly memorable dream of hundreds of equally memorable dreams which happened to have a specific, unique visual design within it which later became a real invention within the waking world. What's more, to further dissuade any problem thinking, there is no true motive of gain to claim having seen something in hindsight. This isn't about projecting a psychic ego. It's about freeing your own mind and realizing belief only comes to those who believe, while proof paradoxically proves nothing. 24.205.110.111 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions with references to improve the article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I also do not think that precognitive dreams defy causality. I believe that prophetic dreams only show a possible future, not a necessary one. If the course of events is changed enough, the result too can be changed. So a precognitive dream means, that you are tuned to a hidden cause and see a likely effect. So it is perfectly in accordance with causality. It is still difficult to rationally explain, how comes one be tuned to the hidden cause, though. So precognition can be still looked at critically, but I think that the argument that it violates causality is a bad one. Some sources with similar thoughts can be probably found, but here it's more like my personal reflections which could count as original research, so I didn't want to modify the page, but offer this idea for discussion. 94.230.146.247 (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I did the quiz of the week on the BBC news website today. Question 7 was "Which American institution claimed this week that scientists and philosophers thought there was a 20 to 50% chance that we are all living in a computer-simulated world, like that portrayed in the film The Matrix?". The answer is, apparently, the Bank of America via a sharholder release, albeit I cannot find the original article on the BBC. The link to the quiz question is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37374758. I found another article here - www.dolcevita.xyz/society/people/item/465-bank-of-america-analysts-think-there-s-a-50-per-cent-chance-we-live-in-the-matrix. My son is 9. We go to the charity shops quite regularly to source (obtain cheaply) books for him. Sometimes we look at the DVDs. During the summer holidays we went to said shops.

We found a Matrix 1 dvd, we watched it together. There were no copies of Matrix 2 or 3 in the shops at the time, or I would have purchased them (£1 a pop). A couple of weeks later we returned, this time there were no copies of 1 or 3 (and we are talking close to a total of 100O DVDs perused) yet many of 2. I noted this and mentioned to the boy that should we find number 3 on our next visit then perhaps we are living in a Matrix. On Wednesday I popped into the local charity shop. A solitary shop and not one of the prior attendances. It's the first visit since the one's aforementioned. Low and behold there was a Matrix 3. I only write this because, as priorly noted, this article has deep flaws. One might even add that, if we are not in the matrix now, then we are in the process of creating such. 2.24.248.255 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit:
As several have mentioned before, this article reads as seriously out of date scientifically for it's lack of reference to retrocausality as proposed by QM through the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment analysis. (True temporal nonlinearity would of course render the concept of precognition moot, but it would address the phenomena as recorded throughout history.) This article also reads like someone's baby, and I fully expect them to come roaring out of their cave at the scent of an edit. So, I propose the baby is allowed to remain intact, with simply an added section which acknowledges contemporary scientific experiments, results, and discussion. I'll just leave this here for a bit before attempting an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is to find a suitable source for such treatment. The prevailing view is that QM does not enable information to be transferred via such phenomena. To suggest here that any given quantum phenomenon does in fact support the precognition hypothesis would be original research on our part - unless we can find a reliable scientific source which makes that claim. The claim doesn't have to be true, but its existence does need to be verifiably significant, i.e. more than just a sensationalist remark by some journalist. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

u|steelpillow Hello, I'd like to chime in here. There is a citation to 'Discover Magazine' which carries the article about QM which discusses the implications of retrocausation which I've just read. There are clearly unsolved questions in physics that these experiments bring up. So I want to suggest an edit to the sentence that follows the citation; "quantum weirdness' should be deleted. Perhaps quote parts of the referenced text for example:

"Tollaksen sums up this confounding argument with one of his favorite quotes, from the ancient Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva: “All is foreseen; but freedom of choice is given.” Or as Tollaksen puts it, “I can have my cake and eat it too.” He laughs."

Or more simply:

"“The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake,” Aharonov says."

I think if you look at this field and read what is going on closely, what they are actually saying is that information IS being transferred 'backwards in time' but in any single situation you cannot see it clearly. This was the purpose of the weak measurement series. I'll come back and take this on at some, ahem, future juncture. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, here we are seven years after the creation of this discussion. In that time, quantum retrocausality has continued to gain scientific traction; see for example Adam Becker; "Blast from the Future", New Scientist, 17 February 2018, pp.28-31 (except, this online version has a slightly different title). While mainstream science has done little if anything to apply it to psychic phenomena such as precognition, fringe writers such as Eric Wargo (Time Loops, Anomalist, 2018) have increasingly tried to fill that gap. There is now a verifiable body of literature on the implications of retrocausality for precognition, but unlike Becker's article it is not mainstream science. How should Wikipedia address this? My working assumption is that we should, as a responsible encyclopedia, acknowledge the notability of the literature as a social phenomenon, while maintaining a sceptical stance on its scientific truth. That's a tightrope I have sadly little time to walk. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with that approach and I'll have a look at the Becker article and see what else I can find. The one liner on QM is clearly insufficient now. I avoid Wargo personally but may be worth citing as social phenomenon. This is also useful recent thinking on time https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/301/301539/the-order-of-time/9780141984964.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Dare I suggest that the recent edit-and-revert illustrates the difficulty of tightrope-walking. A book such as Wargo's can not really be mentioned in the article, except insofar as it might be usefully discussed in other reliable sources. Dunne's book is one of very few which pass that test. JB Priestley's Man and Time might be another, if one needed support for something he discusses. Also, such mention would most likely fall into the cultural section rather than anything to do with arguments of fact. Does Rovelli The Order of Time (per the above "useful" link) mention precognition? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be continuing. I am easily put off. Leave the article in 1990s where only special people have such 'psychic' powers. But everyone knows WP not a reliable source. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither in the 1990s nor anytime else has there been a scientific consensus that n people can do this with n > 0. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless there is something of a resurgence of it in popular literature and more serious literary studies these days: I can cite you forty or so references to Dunne alone in the last 10 years, some in mainstream publications (some of those are already cited here). It would be useful to capture a little more of that, though obviously in a wider context than Dunne. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainstream of what? Literary studies? How is that relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Checkout the subsection on Literary reference, especially the cites. If that doesn't help answer your question, then I can't help you either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the fluff-and-fantasy section. It says nothing about whether only special people have such 'psychic' powers, just about how the concept is treated in fiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, dear boy. You asked about the literary aspect so I answered about the literary aspect. Now, had you asked about the scientific (or otherwise) aspect, might I just conceivably have answered about that? You appear to be trying to imagine up enemies from within your own team, may I recommend that you focus instead on improving the article (which I see you have done something about, thank you). Meanwhile, I think we can be done with this absurd conversation. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you should not have changed the subject from lack of reference to retrocausality as proposed by QM and later only special people have such 'psychic' powers to something else without clearly saying so, but while making it sound like a contradiction ("Nevertheless"). Talking about "mainstream publications" is misleading when the subject of the article is precognition and not precognition in fiction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Further proposed editing
I propose the following edits to take out some of the bias and to enhance readability.

I would like to argue for "Prescience" instead of "Precognition" as a title for this article. The ability concerns the knowing/ sensing/ perceiving of future (possible) events, not the ability to have thoughts about future (possible) events. The definition of cognition by Meriam-Webster: "conscious mental activities : the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering". None of the experiments describe a counscious mental activity - all describe a mode of perception.

I would like to propose that the lines "As with other forms of extrasensory perception, there is no evidence that precognition is a real ability possessed by anyone.[5][6][7][8] However it still appears within movies, books, and discussion within the parapsychology community, with claimed precognition of earthquakes sometimes covered by the newsmedia.[9]" are removed. It isn't established that prescience or precognition is an extrasensory perception - in fact: a few of the experiments mentioned in this article argue that it is an inate sense. Nor is it established what the "other forms" are and how they relate to prescience. That it appears in art, media and discussion is not related to its existence nor to its mechanisms.

I would like to propose that the lines: "Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[10] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause.[10] There are established biases affecting human memory and judgment of probability that sometimes create convincing but false impressions of precognition.[11]" are removed. Reference [10] does not support the claims. Neither does the phenomena of prescience (if indeed it exists) need to conform to pre-established ideas of how time works. An article on time can establish such things claims. The second line is misplaced and would be better placed in the 'experiments' section, amongst other experiments that support or negate the hypothesis of the existence of prescience.

Also, I would like to propose that the subtitle of '"Feeling the Future" controversy' is changed to '"Feeling the Future" experiments', to eliminate the bias from this subtitle.

I would like to propose that the meta-analysis of 90 experiments is included in the "Feeling the Future" section: http://w.dbem.ws/FF%20Meta-analysis%206.2.pdf (2014).

I would like to propose that the section on "Scientific reception" is removed. The conclusions of experiments and/or responses to experiments can be included in the  "Experiments" section to enhance readability. The causality problem is interesting, but not relevant to this article. As I have said before, the phenomena of prescience doesn't have to explain how time works. If the editors of the article feel that the article does necessitate an explanation of the way time works, then I agree with a previously proposed edit: please include the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments in this article as well.

I would like to propose that the Dunn experiments are placed in the Precognitive Dreams section.

I would like to propose that the item "lists of topics characterized as pseudo-science" is removed from the "See also" section. The works that are cited in this article are scientific, not pseudoscientific. No topics should be labeled 'out of boundary' for science to investigate. Pseudoscience concerns methodology, not content.

It is my experience that an edit of this extent is better left to the original editors. I hope my advice has been helfpul!

AnneloesF (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the proposal to edit the subtitle of '"Feeling the Future" controversy' to '"Feeling the Future experiments", to eliminate the bias from this subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosi4 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On the article title, I do not think that dictionary hair-splitting is the way to go. For example my Collins dictionary defines precognition simply as "foreknowledge". The Google ngram stat counter shows "prescience" to be over twice as common as "precognition", with "prevision" also rivalling the latter. However all the books I have seen on the psi phenomenon refer to "precognition", I am not sure where the other words are more commonly used. I think we would need to find extensive use of "prescience" in the parapsychology literature before we could consider changing the article title. Meanwhile, I agree about the bias and I have tried to reduce it. I hope you agree that I have moved it in the right direction. 19:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On Dunne, the article looks to me as if the sections respectively on experiments and on dreams were created on the assumption that the topics were separable. In the case of Dunne's dream experiments this separation is manifestly inappropriate. Rather than struggle to fit him in to what is there now, it might be better to review the structure of the article as a whole. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other proposals, I do not think they stack up. Simply removing cited scientific criticism is unacceptable. There are plenty of sources for it, so if [10] is ill-chosen then substituting a citation tag would be the better change. The argument that innate is not extra-sensory misunderstands the meaning of extra-sensory. It merely implies a path outside of the known physical senses, and most ESP phenomena are claimed to be innate. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
This article demonstrates a sad violation of WP:NPOV. Most chapters are written like an essay, with a prominent citation concluding the "nonsense" of the subject. Folks, it is not WP's task to divide the world into right and wrong, but to explain what _others_ (scientists, writers, media etc.) wrote about it. Think about rewriting the article, at least separating the subject from the criticism. --Edoe (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:ARBPS, for a start. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE specifically.- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fringe? When "37% of Americans surveyed believed in precognition" it seems like an interesting topic for the social sciences, including 'mainstream'. --Edoe (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between the cultural fringe and the scientific fringe. Although precognition is basically a cultural phenomenon and at 37% one can argue for mainstream, it nevertheless demands scientific explanation and at that level any claim beyond self-delusion is indisputably fringe. See for example the article on astrology. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But the fact that 37% of a population believe in a fringe is not a fringe. Understand the difference? There are real facts in this article, but they are subdued under the mission to proove the 'believers' wrong. --Edoe (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, at this point we can only agree on that precognition is not studied and mechanisms are not well understood. It seems something, that has to do with how brains are working and that mechanism might apply not only to humans, but other animals. The issue with that not many people notice that they can precognize is that not all people can remember what they have been dreaming. And for those who can - they also do not have a very reliable way to remember dreams, that works 100% all the time. At this point we are approaching technology, that would allow us to record dreams and what person sees in real-time and that is something that can be used to scientifically prove or disprove precognition. Claiming that precognition is pseudoscience or fringe requires proof regardless of outcome and weight of proof for any cases lies on claimant. 88.111.113.79 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what the opinion you utter here has to do with the goal of this page: the improvement of the article. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think the present article is constructed badly. For example the article on astrology devotes a lot of space to its historical and cultural aspects, keeping scientific criticism out of the way for readability and then doing the criticism justice in its own section. Though nothing like as extensive, there is a reasonable amount of discussion of precognition in the wider literature to give it significant cultural and historical context. For example Priestley's findings are widely quoted/cited and deserve better coverage here. Significant discussions have also been published by respected authors such as C. D. Broad, G. N. M. Tyrrell and Brian Inglis and these should perhaps be expanded on. Also, as I said in a previous thread, the dream experiments of J. W. Dunne cut right across the current division into separate sections for experiments and dreaming. Might it be better to give a historical account of such discussions and the associated experiments, and then fire the critical guns at it all in a separate section? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, the mixture of subject and criticism is the problem here. --Edoe (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done some restructuring. I do not really like my subdivision of the history into arbitrary periods, but I can't think of a better way to do it. I am going to let the overall structure settle for a bit before I attempt much in the way of reorganising the criticisms, but please don't let that stop anybody else from doing so. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article has clearly gained in quality. Thus the 'essay' warning can be removed. --Edoe (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Bit more restructuring and rebalancing done, in the end some of the more detailed criticism does belong with the historical events it is criticising. I think the overall impression is acceptable now so I have removed the essay tag. Hope folks like it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, spot on. It definitely violates WP:NPOV. There's no fair and equitable discussion of Daryl Bem's research at all nor later meta-analyses and successful replications. Only mention of failed replications. Nhradek (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just followed up the reference to Aristotle and amended the article accrdingly. Deeply shocked at the cherry-picking of sceptical quotes by a previous editor here. With such disgustingly flagrant bias, it is no wonder that scepticism finds it so hard to gain traction among rational thinkers. Hey you determined sceptics out there, if you want to be taken seriously you have to actually practice the objective rationality that you so vehemently preach. Hypocrisy is no substitute. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite?
"Specifically, precognition appears to violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause."

This needs reworking as it is unclear whether this valid in light of empirical evidence in quantum systems. Any cyberneticists around these days? This seems inconsistent with Gregory Bateson's thinking.
 * See discussion above. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is written under Bias
Even though Precognition can be considered bias it is not widely considered pseudoscience. There are vastly number of scientific articles trying to bring light into the subject, either demythifying it or trying to tie it together to any scientific theory. The critics against it are under two main grounds which are fairly tied to studies against Parapsychology, while the second one does not cite sources or surveys, that is not how science work guys. While there are more scientific evidences against precognition, there is no section which explains how it would be possible by either philosophical discussions or scientific discussions, the article simply points it toward parapsychology and done. Eduemoni↑talk↓  13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also added a maintenance tag that this article needs more source, while in the scientific grounds and claims, citing majority psychology studies. However, psychology is not science and it should not be used as sources in scientific experiments, since psychology evaluations, tests and studies tend to have a large human-error or lack of external control than rigorously scientific studies. Edue<b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 13:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, as it was used inappropriately. With over fifty inline citations and half the bibliography being pro-precognition, your thesis is not wholly tenable. Also, there are other templates for article-wide tagging. I agree the article needs more scientific discussion, but it needs it at the highest level of scientific debate. Personally I'd try to flesh out the historical debate more, and use that to highlight material which can be used as a foil to the criticism section. But be aware, our community's "woo detectors" are lethal once triggered. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article cites psychological studies, they are not scientific and do not serve as proper reference to the article. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you just say psychology is not a science? And further above, that we should just point to parapsychology and delete all which is critical of it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"scientific mechanism"
In the section 'Scientific criticism' there is a quote stating "There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition." This is attributed to Wynn, Wiggins, 2001.

The phrase 'scientific mechanism' has little if any meaning these days nor did it in 2001. Try looking it up in a reference work. Mechanistic reductionism is very old-hat, and very misleading for the unwary.

Science doesn't have 'mechanisms', although those using the phrase (perhaps usually not scientists) have repeated it for very many years as a hand-waving dismissal. If it is true that science can't find any evidence for precognition -- or anything else, for that matter -- then it therefore can't frame a hypothesis. That does not mean that the phenomenon doesn't exist. It means that science can no way confirm nor deny it's existence. This is not a criticism of science, it is a recognition that science has nothing to say about it.

I'd suggest a careful and more ... learned source to prove that this is a 'SCIENTIFIC criticism' rather than just a skeptical attitude. We owe that to people who actually trust Wikipedia's assertions.

To finish with a quote from Nobel physicist Richard Feynmann (I believe it's taken from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out): "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.". Twang (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make a positive suggestion as to what to say here, and whom to cite in its support. The current wording at least has the benefit of WP:VERIFIABILITY. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's obviously short for something like "mechanism scientifically confirmed to exist" or "scientifically plausible mechanism". Of course there are mechanisms within the scientific worldview, but they are only etymologically related to the mechanistic worldview. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Updating
Hello, I have made a few edits to start to bring this page up-to-date, especially with reference to recent thinking in quantum mechanics. Please review. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of WP:COI policy at Wikipedia and are you in any way related to Wago? jps (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

u|jps Thanks. Yes of course and no. Why have my edits been reverted with no comment here? To explain, some may call precognition a "psychic" ability but the wikified link is not using that word as an adjective. It is saying that people who experience precognition are psychics - noun. As, for example, JW Dunne is the author of widely cited work on the subject and does not call himself a 'psychic' the term is misused in this context. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether someone self-describes as a psychic or not is hardly our concern. The general umbrella term for people who claim abilities that defy physics is paranormal, but in the context of "seeing the future", this is the purview of psychics. Some who claim this ability may not appreciate being lumped with fortune tellers, palm readers, tarot card aficionados and the like, but all the reliable sources which discuss precognition identify it as part and parcel to claimed "psychic" abilities. Until there is a reliable demarcation provided, this is as good as any other word we may choose to use and it is in line with the sources we have in our article. jps (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dunne would have been most annoyed to be described as a psychic, as if it was something out of the ordinary; he believed that he was perfectly normal in this respect. The modern psi/paranormal/ESP terminology came only later with the Rhines, largely because they also disliked the connotations of existing terms such as "psychic". But some writers happily kept the old habit of describing precognition as a psychic ability. There has never been a fully agreed terminology, it has always been fluid with different writers defining their terms in different ways. For Wikipedia, as long as the gist of the sentence is clear in any given instance, and usage within a given article not inconsistent, that is all we can hope for. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've returned only to say that Britannica avoids the term. It is a loaded word in my view, emphasised in conjunction with the word 'seeing'. 'supernormal knowledge' is neutral language. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Britannica does not seem to be interested in really documenting this idea in a serious fashion according to the popular notions either. I am not sure why you think psychic is a loaded term. It was initially coined by Flammarion to try to provide an empirical basis for his beliefs in the amazing abilities of the mind to do these very things. I think we may be a bit on the euphemism cycle whereby a new word is adopted to avoid old problems only to find this word suffering from a similar taboo due to the old problems persisting or being reapplied. I don't think that we need to take Dunne's feelings (as we see them) into account when writing this article. Our goal is to describe things plainly and as understandably as possible. jps (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If our goal is 'to describe things as plainly and as understandably as possible' then the word 'psychic' is entirely misleading, not least because it is wikified. (there's a grammatical error there also) Reading that page, the term is used to describe 'professionals' the list including famous 'clairvoyants'. Priority in the lede is given to psychokinesis and apportation not precognition. The image that appears when you hover is a shop. Something I think is remarkable about that page is that it mentions dreaming not once. I acknowledge this article is titled 'precognition' not 'precognitive dreams' but at the present time I am certain that the majority, including sceptics, would agree that the phenomenon is commonly reported by ordinary people with no claim to 'psychic' powers. WP is making a partly false or misleading assertion.

I had replaced the word 'see' with 'perceive' now reverted. 'Precognition' is defined by its word root, translating 'cognito' to 'seeing' is WP:SYNTH - the reason I deleted it. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "see" is often used in the cognitive sense, as in "I see what you mean". English is not a pedant's playground, it is a working language and we take it as we find it. This was a lesson the Victorians tried to bury, but ultimately failed. I see (sic) little hope of burying it here, either. The phrase "flogging a dead horse" is beginning to come to mind. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sources which claim that those who think their dreams portend the future have "no claim to 'psychic' powers". Indeed, as most skeptics doubt that "psychic powers" exist, it is not outrageous to say that people who believe in their own ability to dream the future have just as much a claim to "psychic powers" as any other claimant. jps (talk)`
 * Sources do indeed exist. Dunne was adamant that his theory of precognition was a scientific one and that no special psychic woo was involved. For example The Serial Universe extensively discusses Relativity and QM as then understood. His final written notes on his theory, published posthumously as an Appendix to Intrusions?, set out his mathematical reconciliation of it with Special Relativity (that analysis may not be tenable, but he certainly believed and claimed that it was). The sceptics differ from him only in denying that any precognitive mechanism can be a plausible explanation for the events which he and others have recorded. There was some discussion published in Nature by adherents of the various positions. There is no doubt that the term "psychic" has carried those connotations of extra-physical "powers" for so long that your "not outrageous" interpretation is at least questionable. However, since the sceptical view occupies the scientific mainstream in matters of reality (though not necessarily the literary mainstream in matters of culture, if I might clarify with reference to another discussion), there is little point in losing sleep here over such niceties. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this analysis is the assumption you made that "psychic powers" is "woo". While skeptics, I'm sure, agree wholeheartedly with that analysis, there isn't any independent source I know of that tries to demarcate between Dunne and the other arguments. Arguing that Dunne in his Appendix provides a text that allows us to make this distinction requires a level of original interpretation that we have no way of accessing at Wikipedia. In short, I see no source that shows how this belief can be separated from those held by the storefront psychics down the street. jps (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of RS out there to make the distinction, but this exchange is not aimed at improving the article. If you really want a reading list, you can always contact me off-wiki. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You admit all through this talkpage that Dunne's approach is marginalized by skeptics and scientists. I haven't seen any explanation of how this marginalization should be considered to be any different than other marginalizations of people making similar claims. But, fair enough if you think this won't help, I'm happy to drop it. jps (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could explain why you think that, assuming I can cite sources, it would lead to a better article. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking here. I do not distinguish between different pseudoscientific approaches, but I have noticed that fans of some pseudoscience tend to disdain being grouped with other pseudosciences. jps (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am asking if you have ideas to improve the article. Judging by that last little speech, I take it that you have not. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an idea: "Because OR (and ORCH OR) phenomena are fundamentally non-local, the coherent superposition phase may exhibit puzzling bi-directional time-flow prior to self-collapse.(....) We equate the pre-collapse quantum computing superposition to pre-conscious processing. This could explain the puzzling "backwards time referral" aspects of pre-conscious processing observed by Libet et al (1979)." https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf Is that citable for 'violation of natural law'? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Further citations re. quantum processes and macro phenomena are here photosynthesis see 'efficiency'. I'm suggesting the dismissal of quantum processes in this article because they 'cannot carry information at a macroscopic level' is incorrect. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Copenhagen interpretation with its wavefunction collapse is not "natural law".
 * Please stop your WP:OR and WP:FORUM. This page is about improving the article Precognition by using reliable sources talking about precognition, not about photosynthesis or other stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fully appreciate your point, please note I am NOT editing and the talk section is the correct place for suggestions for improvement which this article requires to become 'good'. Therefore research is called for and I fully realise the governance provided by WP:OR for articles. To address your point, the Copenhagen interpretation is not what is proposed by Hameroff/Penrose, it challenges it. In respect of WP:FORUM I am sticking to my point about one sentence which appears from many views to be incorrect, as argued above. Macro phenomena DO arise from quantum processes in photosynthesis, so the generalised statement that they do not is at the very least contentious. We might indicate this? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Quantum effects have a lot of macro consequences: lasers, radioactivity, chemistry, and so on. But that is not what the article says. It says, "quantum weirdness", even if it is shown to exist, cannot carry information at a macroscopic level. That refers to something like this, something astrology-like (as above, so below - here, as midro, so macro).
 * Macro consequences of micro effects have no connection to the subject of the article, and we should not mention any of them. The "weirdness" quote should be sourced, yes. Probably reworded. But it should not be replaced by something that says the opposite. The Hameroff-Penrose paper, published in one of many weirdo-subculture journals, is not a useable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in general agreement that "quantum weirdness" is the wrong term and your link clarifies that - no doubt why it was used in quote-marks. Macro consequences of quantum effects is part of this article - the only reason the subject is under discussion and why the statement in the article must be correct. 'Quantum Weirdness' is not a proper term and in any case is not what is being proposed in the citation so the 'even if it shown to exist' is redundant. The Hameroff/Penrose model is published in a great many reputable publications: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2288228-can-quantum-effects-in-the-brain-explain-consciousness/ and many many more. Quantum processes are very much part of the present discussion in precognition and we should reflect this. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly know of no reliable sources discussing the application to precognition, of reappraising macroscopic consequences of quantum-level phenomena. The article on retrocausality is reasonably well sourced, but as far as I am aware that discussion has to stop there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You are right, but I am not certain that it needs to. The examples I provided are illustrations of the current debate on quantum processes in consciousness to support my argument that the sentence I am concerned with should be updated. Perhaps it could read "However the application of such principles to precognition is a matter of current scientific debate." The current sentence is WP drawing its own conclusion I would say.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is not a matter of current scientific debate. There are people who think like "I don't understand precognition, and I don't understand quantum, so maybe they are connected - otherwise there would be two things I do not understand, and I like I-do-not-understand-only-one-thing better", but what those people say is not a scientific debate. There will be no such sentence in the article without multiple top-quality sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave the unsourced sentence then. This is purely about WP making its own assertions. Psychology, neuroscience all discuss the issue (quantum processes in mind) as I have shown. My last offering then, it should read "However, whether quantum processes operate in human experience/consciousness is the matter of current scientific debate" Thanks everyone. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With multiple top-quality sources, yes. Without, no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8205007/ WP should acknowledge the discussion.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one is by Daryl Bem, one of a very few well-known living parapsychologists, who has been promoting silly ideas for decades, including bad meta-analyses. Of course he will write stuff like that - but why in F1000Research, a journal specialized in life sciences, which do not include psychology? Daryl Bem discusses exactly this, and there is heavy criticism of the methodology. Bem is quoted as saying, "I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it" - which disqualifies him immediately. This is not a top-quality source by any reasonable standard. And it does not even mention the word "consciousness", so it is not even a source for your claim.
 * The second is a primary source. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think that there should be some reference to retrocausality in the article: our article on retrocausality does mention precognition, and an Internet search on precognition and retrocausality brings up an awful lot of published discussions. Perhaps there is something reliable out there to support a mention, insofar as it is a current topic of discussion among parapsychologists? (Not that a cursory glance has revealed anything significant to me, and I strongly support the view that there is little if anything worth detailing within those discussions). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to show, there is not only discussion but quite possibly what we'd term 'heated debate'. It reaches as far as the tabloid press. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6726143/Scientist-says-future-dreams.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's the problem: the Daily Mail is about as unreliable as published sources get, what we need is reliable sources. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am only showing that there is public debate, the Mail is a perfect source for that. That is the problem with this article, we're trying to squeeze everything into the wrong headings, and I am not interested in proving anything - does it need to be peer reviewed science every time? We state in the lead it's pseudoscience and again under Scientific Criticism. To get this article to 'good' I'd propose either a new heading or to write more under "Cultural Impact" to include what can be called the 'populist' literature which is so conspicuously absent. It is ridiculous that an encyclopedia entry portrays nothing of the clamour around this subject.


 * The Bem article is a revision from 2015 - an update to what's here. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The heading 'Violation of Natural Law' is bizarre to me. I don't know what 'natural law' means. It appears to refer to classical physics, if so that should be made clear. The jury is out on whether the second law of thermodynamics operates on dreams. But the classical view really must be shown to be at odds with the quantum mechanical view if we are to be thorough, so let's put retrocausality under 'see also'. My attempts at more neutral language have been reverted. I thought I had used actually more precise language also. Precognition is reported by 'some people including those who claim to be psychic' is accurate. The lead is now uncited. We need consensus to improve this article. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Natural Law is a thing. I've edited the heading to make sense of it.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this very good summary from 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/ which is good to cite I think but having trouble using the template.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice find. I never worry about the details of citation formatting. Just bung down something like the following and let some relentless bot or other sort it out as it sees fit:  &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which has led me to: Bohm, D. (1986). "A new theory of mind and matter". Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 80, 113–135. Probably not suitable to reference here, but Bohm was a famous and respected physicist who proposed a somewhat mystical "implicate order" underlying quantum weirdness, so we might be able to find some comment on it by secondary RS. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There's this https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/7/493/htm which begs a much bigger question. We have to deal with physics as classical physics has been cited as reasons for the pseudoscience claims. I've updated that section with the above ncbi reference. The article, I think, should avoid any lengthy discussion of ideas about mind but not avoid it altogether. Bohm and Penrose are leading figures but referencing the controversy (which never mentions precognition) needs some groundwork, some QM scene-setting. Chewy. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A statistical meta-analysis of Bem's experiments and their replications was published yesterday https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/feeling-future-precognition-experiments Long established psi publication with a very well qualified author. I'd like to cite it to show that Bem's results are 'controversial' and the subject is far from concluded as the section that deals with it suggests. Probably get shot down in flames for suggesting a psi subject might cite a psi source. However, this is an article about statistics. (the conclusion would be quoted) Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Professor Roe is the current President of the SPR, the organisation which publishes the Psi Encyclopedia. Members of that organisation may believe and say what they will. Thank you for drawing attention to his article there. He himself is also the subject of a biopic there. It lists four contributions to the encyclopedia from him, all of which are broadly sympathetic to the psi hypothesis; in the paper you cite, he gives weight to his conclusion that "The more recent meta-analysis claims that effects can be replicated statistically". (What I find intriguing is that, like James Randi, he is a time-served stage magician and illusionist, yet the two old entertainers' attitudes to psi research could hardly be more different). WP:NPOV not withstanding, you will be lucky to get anything he says cited here as anything other than a cultural phenomenon, so if you do wish to add anything about Bem and see if it sticks, I'd suggest you try putting it in that section. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I put it under 21st Century with the rest of the Bem citations for now and provided update without citing Bem's actual 2015 revision. Previously it said the controversy 'continued until 2012'. If I move it to 'cultural..' can I put 'see cultural..' under the 21st C section? A statistical meta-analysis is not what I would normally think of as 'culture'. Yes it may present WP:NPOV problem but was also a problem the way it read before, more neutral now I think. Didn't know Roe was a magician! Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some (especially sceptics who click through and read it) might question why the independent review needs to be mentioned. Now it's there I'd be inclined to leave it and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, that is the time to compose a cultural remark. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I'm not entirely happy with it. My thoughts are towards an expansion of 'Cultural Impact'. It should be a much larger section. This is really the right heading for dealing with the particular impact of quantum physics, 'quantum biology' and all of the populist literature that has mushroomed - since Bem especially. If anything has 'cultural Impact' it's QM. Penrose/Hameroff should be here but there is other serious 'quantum mind' research (notwithstanding what I said about theories of mind being slightly off-topic). This example from 2020, good paper for quantum process in nature but 'off topic' or is it? Probably primary source though. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-020-00396-0?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn6CA8O7S9QIVH4BQBh37xwGoEAMYASAAEgLtvfD_BwE Would 'Continuing controversy' or 'Speculation' be a suitable and proper subheading? Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are seldom useful in establishing cultural significance (only if the source itself has gained some notoriety, over and above its subject matter). Similarly, speculation needs secondary/tertiary RS which establish the cultural impact of that speculation. Quantum theories of mind are indeed off-topic here, unless the sources explicitly discuss precognition and meet the above criteria. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find sources I'm sure. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Put under 'popular belief' - I think cites are good.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture
Does this subsection really add anything to the subject? Even if it were referenced, what does an arbitrary collection of plot lines have to offer the reader of an encyclopedia? Unless independent RS do establish the significance of any examples (as they do for some literary occurrences), I'd suggest it be deleted. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's somewhat random. Delete. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that a new heading replaces it "Precognition in Different Cultures". My searches have led me to stumble on New World Encyclopedia - wiki - quite different and broader take on the subject.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The pic
Saw the request so found this here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Казимир_Малевич_—_Важке_передчуття.jpg Good image I think with great title for the article. The image upload is a nightmare -if anyone can sort out the Russian and put the details in I'd be very grateful. Thelisteninghand (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks for that, the title appears to have changed -should I alter it or is there a reason - lost in translation? It's all looking better and yes I know Bohm but not that paper, will have a look.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just copy-pasted the Russian into Google Translate and then copyedited it for Wikipedia. Has the meaning changed in (mis)translation? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok - I've added the title.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Presentiment" is not used in the main article and is not the same thing as precognition, it is merely an uncomfortable feeling that something bad will happen. If it is the accurate translation (synonyms include "premonition", "foreboding" and "apprehension"), then the image is not suitable here after all. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes true but I think the terms are broadly similar - it's just a title of a painting and specifically 'complex presentiment'. I read your objection in the cn and thought 'presentiment' should be included, 'future-vision' deleted. Just an opinion really - I like the painting which has a good visual impact. I've added to the lead to cite Bohm's ideas from RSS (I hope).Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC) NB Presentiment redirects here, I rest my case!Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My several English dictionaries disagree profoundly with you. There is every difference between a vague feeling and a precise prevision. I see no chance of bridging that gap. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I found the image under a wiki search for images under the term precognition that's all. I prefer it to a portrait of Nostradamus. As wiki directs presentiment here that's two wiki reasons. I understand your objection on the other hand. I'd argue it should really rest on visual impact. A clock might be an alternative? The article is 'looking good' and it helps. CheersThelisteninghand (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead
The lead needs tidying up. To deal with the nomenclature problem I wonder if ALL terms might be listed that indicate 'senses' before 'event' in the broadest terms. Also that these terms are not referred to as synonymous ie NOT 'also called x' but 'which may include x'. Or is that too vague? The list should include the words which cause re-directs to this article, or those words should be removed from the tag.

The last line refers to 'discussion within the parapsychology community'. The discussion goes further than that, as the citations in the article indicate. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just read the peer review of this article. Worth a look - 2007! I'm hoping it can be resubmitted for 'good' status (at least). Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The revert to 'see' the future, is unhelpful to explain the phenomenon to the reader. The deletion of other academic disciplines, especially philosophy, involved in discussions is unhelpful to the reader. The current statement is too narrow. Comments welcome. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

21st Century
This section only deals with Bem. Under 'late 20thC' we have an entry about Priestly for 2014. Re-jigging and more required.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Spufford was commenting on Priestley's study of the late 20th century, he was not offering anything new. So it belongs with Priestley. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put physicist, Prof Brian Josephson under 'popular belief' because he's 'fringe'. That's 'fringe' with a Nobel Prize like Roger Penrose. He is extremely relevant if this article is to deal with the subject of science and the paranormal. The Royal Mail stamp controversy opened the debate publicly at the beginning of the 21st Century. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/sep/30/robinmckie.theobserver However, it's covered in his biog so wouldn't go here. Having difficulty sourcing criticism. Don't think this counts: https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/10/john-benneth-brian-josephson-and-an-absurd-talk-at-cambridge.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thelisteninghand I had a look through some of your edits, sorry but they are some of the worst I have seen on here, you are promoting pseudoscientists and crackpots like Deepak Chopra and Brian Josephson. Wikipedia is not the place to promote pseudoscience. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If only people would get the idea out of their heads that Nobelists are some sort of scientific Popes...
 * They are just people who had one good idea in one specific area. In general, they are not smarter, not more knowledgeable and not more competent than other scientists, just more famous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. While some of Thelisteninghand edits were acceptable improvements, there were many others that were pushing equal validity for fringe viewpoints. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I'll pause. I'm pleased (emotion notwithstanding) that my efforts to improve are noted. I think an RFC is in order. 2.103.32.155 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Errors
Please be careful and read what you revert. I've just reverted the recent edit to the title of the painting. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I see Christianity and Buddhism have been removed from Precognition in religion. You may improve the references, simply deleting them may be seen as prejudice. I'm moving to RfC Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical and cultural significance
The recent mass revert helps to illustrates why I believe that we should approach parapsychology topics like this one as historical and cultural phenomena rather than pseudo/scientific debates. A parallel example of this principle is the way we present the various conflicting dogmas and mythologies of the world's religions (not that I am suggesting parapsychology is a religion!). The huge amount of literature on the subject, which continues to appear, gains sufficient comment to merit notability. Where RS can establish sufficient significance for a work or investigator, that deserves to be covered.

I should like to see the section on cultural significance expanded, which inevitably would require much reference to proponents of the phenomenon without judging their beliefs, just as the article on say Christianity refers to lots of Christians, who believed - and often still believe - many unscientific things. The trick is not to present them as pseudo/scientific advocates, any more than we present prophets or churchmen as such, but rather to document the history and development of the field.

Obviously, the scientific criticism and pseudoscientific status are a key part of that story (more so than with, say, most religions), and it and its dogs of war must therefore be given adequate prominence here. But it is absurd to build an entire article under the constant disclaimer that it is talking rubbish, or to censor significant investigators, who are notable enough for their own biographies here, when they are the specific targets of those dogs: after all, we do need to be able to verify what those dogs are pulling down.

I tend to find that the real woo-merchants soon decide that I am a diehard sceptic in sneaky disguise, and I have seen more than one such editor off this encyclopedia. I also find that the diehard sceptics likewise assume I am a woo merchant in sneaky disguise. So I like to think that my approach, as offered here, is closer to NPOV than some editors. But I don't want to waste hours of my time here, only to be mass-reverted because there is no consensus for the approach. So the question is, is it a viable approach to parapsychology articles such as this one?

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You state the reason why I was placing almost everything under that heading. We should properly document the cultural impact but that cannot be done if we cannot cite, or refer to 'beliefs'. If we rest on the "science" it will always be a short article that will never become 'good'.  I use 'science' in quotes as recent reversions have completely scrambled any notion of scientific criticism - back to 'utter nonsense'. If science is cited (as reason for precognition not to exist) it must be correct.  Classical physics is repeatedly used, modern physics is ignored in a way I call censorship. Nowhere does this article mention time - I would say a necessary requirement, but I could be accused of OR.  So, the question you pose is the right one - the restrictions amount to a kind of 'Catch 22' and prevent proper exposition of the subject. I have plenty of time to waste here and will. I'll go to dispute resolution or RfC (which?)- the article has been reverted to ignorance and the ridiculous.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Science does not necessarily need to be "correct" (many scientists say that it is never more than a working guide) but, in general, it does need to be consensual. Wikipedia takes (or aspires to take, ahem) much the same view. If I may say so, I held back from editing during your session because I knew the revert was going to happen; you moved too fast and too radically for our community to absorb and judge the individual edits, and some edits such as deleting sceptical sources were, to put it kindly, red rags to a bull. I'd suggest that you take it much slower, make only a few changes each day and if anything you want to do is clearly controversial then discuss its details here first.
 * Meanwhile I found a couple of intriguing sources in my historical slushpile:
 * Antony Flew; A New Approach to Psychical Research, Watts, 1953. Flew was a highly respected philosopher, logician and broadcaster; reliable sources do not come much better than this popular exposition. His book is an astutely critical but even-handed overview of the field to date, taking no prisoners on either side. He notes that the emergence of psychic phenomena in the brain is no less arguable than that of consciousness; the problem is to do good science to find out. Roe's current work, alluded to in an earlier discussion, echoes the typical sceptic's lack of rigour and the need for even-handedness. Both make sufficient reference to precognition to be useful here.
 * Arthur W. Osborn; The Future is Now: The Significance of Precognition, The Theosophical Publishing House, 2nd Imp. 1964. Osborne was something of a mystic and took precognition for granted. It carries an Introduction by Eileen J. Garrett, President of the Parapsychology Foundation. Besides being bang on the nose for topical relevance, the study contains some useful summaries of various ideas within the development of the discipline, and its endorsement by two major societies of the day helps establish their notability. It is thus a useful secondary or tertiary source to cite, though Osborn is (as far as I know) not otherwise significant. At least he can be used to explain what the sceptics are aiming at.
 * Both also contain some excellent quotes which illustrate various aspects of the field, I'll have to try and introduce them. It is important not to bring up any scientific aspect in all this, or it will certainly fall foul of WP:FRINGE (just as discussing the scientific aspect of, say, Christian resurrection would be out of place). WP:Fringe may only be a guideline and not a policy, but it does enforce a necessary discipline on us. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. A constructive approach to this article is exactly what is needed. Do feel free to intervene - I knew this was coming also, I've been here before! The talk page is vital to the way I proceed and I am in it for the long-haul. As for 'correct' science - yes it's another vague consensus. (science is actually in total crisis right now) The nonsense I am referring to (see below) is calling telepathy a scientific mechanism. Thoughts? Ha ha ha! I understand your point about fringe science but I do not take that easily. It's WP's self-made problem and the points we discussed before need fighting over at policy level. You have it when you said "we do need to be able to verify what those dogs are pulling down.." that's the built-in bias in this article. Notable author's should not be banned simply because they are sympathetic. It would make a case for not having an article on precognition at all - as you intimate. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits last night
Last night I reverted edits made by Thelisteninghand. Now I have more time, I will explain why these edits were problematic.


 * This edit is very dishonest, a paper was added "Quantum Mechanics and the Human Brain. New Properties of Consciousness". Firstly this paper was not written by a trained physicist, the author Andrey Molyakov specializes in computer science. More importantly the added text "Controversial hypotheses for quantum mechanics operating in the human brain, including Orchestrated objective reduction, are cited as a possible explanation for precognition and other paranormal phenomena" is not supported by the paper, so this is original research and is a failed citation. The paper is online in full, it does not mention precognition or paranormal phenomena so  Thelisteninghand is adding misinformation onto the article. It should also be noted that the paper also says "Most researchers believe that the idea of orchestrated objective reductions was debunked by a study published in 2000". It is unlikely that Thelisteninghand read all of this paper.
 * The other link cited in the above edit is an article in The Guardian . Now The Guardian is used on Wikipedia and I believe it can be a reliable source (I have cited it before on many articles), but this article is not. The author is not a physicist or scholar. The text added by Thelisteninghand "The advent of Quantum biology has stimulated further speculation for a scientific explanation for precognition" again actually fails to what the source says. The only mention of quantum biology in this source is "Radin says studies in quantum biology show that entanglement-type effects are present in living systems (academics from Oxford have successfully entangled bacteria) and he believes the human brain could in turn have quantum properties." Firstly Dean Radin is not a reliable source for anything, secondly this sentence does not mention precognition. Lastly the article does include some skeptical coverage (mentioning Michael Shermer etc) but this has obviously been ignored.
 * Text added by Thelisteninghand "Christianity contains many accounts of prophetic dreams and visions, such as those of David which give rise to debate over free will" and a link to the cited source . I have no problem with this paper being cited but the paper does not cite the visions of David. If you look at the paper, David is cited twice on p. 293 but this is original research to claim "prophetic dreams and visions, such as those of David", click on the paragraph and read it in context and I think any user would agree with me.
 * Text added by TheListeninghand citing Brian Josephson which is undue and off-topic "These developments may lead to an explanation of processes still not understood within conventional science such as telepathy". This article is not on telepathy. Also citing a 2002 Physics Essays piece is not a reliable source.
 * Deepak Chopra is not a reliable source, we should not be linking to his books on articles like this
 * Thelisteninghand seems to be continuing an anti-skeptic POV

I rarely criticize other users on Wikipedia, and I rarely revert edits (other than vandalism) but sorry these are some of the worst edits I have seen. This is original research, fringe material, sources being taken out of context etc. Please read the sources before you cite them on Wikipedia. Thelisteninghand says they want to open an RFC. OK, Sure but do you really want admins looking at your bad edits? I think you should just own up and admit you have done some bad editing here and move on, its no big issue. Your edits were not improving the article so I reverted them. I apologise for calling them "crap", but these were not good edits. It is bad editing I am afraid. Take care. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As advised above, perhaps I have been moving too fast. It is a shame no one made any comments or joined the discussion but simply dived in and carelessly blasted everything away. The article needs improving, - no edits for about five years, so I spent considerable time on it. I am not intentionally taking an anti-sceptic view, I am aware of NPOV, this article lacked neutrality, contained serious errors, sexist language, duplication and nonsense.  Some of these problem have now returned.  Read the article and deal with the duplication. My other edits could have been improved not deleted - especially on religion, a heading I created which was sorely absent and which extends the scope of the article, I look forward to further contributions on this section.
 * I had deleted this, now reverted: "There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition. It appears to require either action-at-a-distance or telepathic effects.[31]" Would the editor who feels this is a good sentence please explain what on earth it means. Precognition does not require 'action at a distance' but action across time.  Telepathy, as far as I understand it, is another psi phenomenon usually called mind-reading. I have never seen it used as an 'explanation' for precognition and it is not a 'scientific mechanism'.
 * It is simply wrong to say there are no known 'scientific mechanisms' which 'allow' precognition. Be certain - we are not saying they would prove the existence of, we are saying allow. Of course t-symmetry does allow retrocausation so that IS a 'scientific mechanism' which 'allows' backwards-in-time transfer of information - implying a possible mechanism. Awkward scientific fact? Or ? Furthermore it is actually the mechanism frequently speculated to play a role in precognition by a number of notable (banned) authors. The citation for this is not filled out and I can understand why. It is "Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction. Where real science ends and pseudoscience begins" Publicity seeking sceptics handbook "UFOs and the extraterrestrial life.. out of body experiences..astrology" Unreliable source imo. Delete. Again.
 * Apart from these calamities, I accept points about 'fringe' authors. But this is the nub of the problem as outlined in discussions above. The argument has moved in the 21st C into conjecture about quantum biology. Any reader coming to this article will find it strangely absent. There should be, must be, a way of indicating this.  Nearly all my refs. to QM taken out. So how to make this 'complete' without 'fringe' being a problem, is 'catch 22'. Precognition is a common and persistent social and cultural phenomenon and the article should be constructed and governed to allow proper exposition of the subject.
 * I'll hold on the RfC or other interventions and give the article some time for improvement, but it won't be acceptable as 'good' the way it is now. (granted, maybe not before either, but some aspects have been improved) Looking forward to seeing some contributions. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, can I ask you to please learn how to indent your comments so that the flow of discussion is intelligible to other editors. If you are unsure, you can first check the wiki markup code used by other editors, or if that doesn't make sense you can always ask.
 * To answer your points on "There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition. It appears to require either action-at-a-distance or telepathic effects.[31]". The first sentence is correct, but the second is garbage. Precognition breaks temporal causality, in that the precognised event causes an effect in the subject prior to the event itself. There is indeed no known scientific mechanism which would allow temporal causality to be broken at the macroscopic level, quantum speculations notwithstanding. However, as noted parapsychologist J. W. Dunne among others have theorised, precognition is of a subsequent personal experience and not of the external event experienced, thus action-at-a-distance is not involved. Similarly, he regarded telepathy as a much rarer event, involving as it does two minds not one. So the second sentence is transparently wrong. I do not have the cited source to hand, but I'll bet it is not that stupid. For now I'll update the bullet point accordingly and tag it in place of the suspect citation. It should be easy enough to cite the problem of causality; probably Burge or Hyman would do, as cited in the longer explanation which follows after the bullet list, but I don't have those either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the article and deal with the duplication. @Thelisteninghand, not sure what duplication you mean. If you mean statements in the article body being duplicated in the article lead, that is the function of WP:LEAD: to summarize important points contained in the article body. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thelisteninghand you inserted the text "Experimental evidence from high-energy physics suggests that this cannot happen except for states of special equilibrium where T-symmetry or 'time reversal' is shown". This is not supported by the source, the source does not mention T-symmetry or time reversal. John Taylor's book can be found on archive.org pp. 82-83 does not support what you added. I understand you want to improve this article but you are not reading the sources, we can't add in stuff that is not in the sources, that would be original research. As for Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction let me find the source and see what it exactly says. Someone may have mispresented it but it does appear to be a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK accepted. I didn't write "experiments in high energy.. etc" I modified it believing the ref to WP page would suffice. Apologies.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll answer some of these points, but I don't wish to become a bore. While I do 'own up' to some bad edits, I take exception to being called 'very dishonest' so I am forced to clear my name. The alleged 'very dishonest edit' contains a citation to a paper. 1)The author is a computer scientist - I thought that was good as he is outside of the 'paranormal' 'fringe' and would be acceptable. 2) It's from 2020 and therefore reflects current thinking in an excellent brief summary of three hypotheses. 3)The paper does not mention precognition but it does say "But at least they demonstrate that a strange quantum theory makes us think about strange things." An intelligent reader will understand the implications and it is necessary, in my and other's views, that quantum mind theories must be aired within this article as they form the bulk of the sympathetic arguments now. I read the paper in full before I cited it of course. The assumption that I did not is very offensive. I described the theories as controversial, not least because of the reference in the paper which is quoted at me above. Orch OR continues to be researched today. In vitro results may be published later this year.


 * The Guardian is an excellent source often used here. I am using it to demonstrate that the discussion around QM in precognition happens, and it happens in popular public forums. (NOT just among the 'parapsychology community') It is a good article written by an established reporter. It states exactly the argument that WP appears to be desperate not have shown. The fact that the article contains quotes from both Josephson and Radin is not a good reason to delete it. I stand by its inclusion. If more needs to be said on it, then edit, don't delete without discussion.


 * The bulk deletion has caused further problems in this article which are still now to be sorted. The re-inclusion under 'Popular belief' of the sexist and irrelevant passage on belief in magic is more off-topic than anything I have added. This is not an article about magic or superstition.  Nowhere do we call precognition any form of magic, nor do we say it is superstition. The passage is offensive, sexist, off-topic and irrelevant. It must be deleted. My apologies for 'banging on' but we're nowhere near 'good' yet.


 * In conclusion I'll say that it is necessary to tack close to the wind with this subject and perhaps I've capsized. I am willing to do that in pursuance of balance. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right that the gender-specific allegations are far from the mainstream (originating from a lone and unconfirmed primary source), thank you for pointing that out. I have deleted them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the remark that "Some studies have been carried out on psychological reasons for such a belief," I notice that there is a growing trend these days to carry out studies on psychological reasons for holding sceptical beliefs. Touché! &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Re your last point, can you cite something? Also precognition is most certainly discussed in religion, philosophy, re reverts in the leader. CheersThelisteninghand (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is one that I have noted. I recall seeing others in passing. I would not advise attempting to cite it on Wikipedia!
 * Etzel Cardeña; "The Unbearable Fear of Psi: On Scientific Censorship in the 21st Century", Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(4), 2015, pp.601-620.
 * As for religion, precognition is not a thematic thing, in the way that it is in much imaginative literature. Philosophical discussions go on about everything imaginable (and sometimes also the unimaginable), but that does not mean the philosophy is especially relevant to the topic. The odd philosopher or so appear in the discussion and citations here, and that is enough. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction
Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction is a scientific skeptic book but was being misused on the article. This line was added onto the article (I have not checked which user added it yet) "There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition. It appears to require either action-at-a-distance or telepathic effects". The latter is quite deceptive because the claim of "telepathic effects" is not supported by the source but even the first part should be considered original research because the page number given does not mention precognition it seems to be talking about psychokinesis. In the book Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction it says on p. 165 "One of the reasons scientists have difficulty believing that psi effects are real is that there is no known mechanism by which they could occur. PK action-at-a-distance would presumably employ an action-at-a-distance force that is as yet unknown to science... Similarly, there is no known sense (stimulation and receptor) by which thoughts could travel from one person to another by which the mind could project itself elsewhere in the present, future, or past." There is no mention of precognition and the claim or "telepathic effects" is false. It appears someone has been adding in original research to the article, I would be interested in knowing who added the "telepathic effects" claim because it seems to have remained on the article for a few years. It makes the authors of this book sound like idiots when they are not, so whoever added this bit was probably trying to discredit the source. This is what happens when references are not properly checked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Perhaps you can understand why, when I came across the article I frowned and edited. This page was an embarrassment, I was bold, it has led to improvements. I am grateful.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I meant to add this "Information passing backwards in time would need to be carried by physical particles doing the same." More nonsense I think which I had deleted. It appears to be a veiled reference to Tachyons and has no place in this article. Information passing backwards in time is now T-symmetry. Not citable so why is the archaic version cited? Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is believed to be correct. Nonlocal quantum phenomena alone have never been found to carry information at the macroscopic level, and there are various theorems (i.e. unarguable mathematical truths) about why not. The only known way to achieve that is to send an actual particle over. You are right that, at this level of physics, precognition implies tachyons, which we believe do not exist. But the grammar of the statement is such that that does not invalidate it, it invalidates precognition. T-symmetry is not an inviolable law. It is violated by some quantum interactions, and by the thermodynamic law that entropy never decreases. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. We mustn't get bogged down but I don't think you are right. Post-selection data are macro phenomena. (or else we wouldn't know about it..) I'll stop there. I'm arguing the statement is the wrong type of reasoning/evidence as it is referring to tachyons. The reader will likely know that such a theory has been debunked long ago or just be confused. I'll try to check the source and I'd welcome any further views on this.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Source unavailable. NB it's J Taylor again.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Delusion"
Strong word which does not appear in the citation. Suggest it be deleted.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have substituted the descriptor used in the cited source. If other editors wish to restore the stronger term, they are welcome to find sources for it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks but the citation is wrong and 'irrational' doesn't appear in the text either. The citation is duplicated and is the Greenaway paper on control found under 'Popular Belief' and is not about psychiatry but psychology. There is no medical context for the sentence. Precognition is not a medical condition (we don't say it is). Who is saying this?  It is uncited opinion . NB This sentence appeared on the page shortly after my first edit. I don't wish to cast aspersions but I believe there may be another reason why it's there. Been trying to use the edit review tools to find out more. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "irrational" is used several times in the cited source, e.g. "It seems strange considering humans are more scientifically and intellectually advanced than ever before, that irrational beliefs about precognition can persist and be maintained" so it could not be more clear that mental health professionals consider belief in precognition irrational. However this should be framed within the overall context given by the source, i.e. the premise of the paper: "We posit therefore that belief in precognition is a predictive control strategy that people can turn to when feeling low in control. As a result, we hypothesize that loss of control will cause an increase in belief in precognition". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I take the point about the cited source not being aimed at clinical practice. Its context is in psychology, so I have amended the article accordingly. I would caution that in my experience it is very seldom that Machiavellian evil explains an edit on Wikipedia where plain thoughtlessness also offers an explanation. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The previous sentence starts "Precognition contradicts" and is followed by a quote from the cited paper which actually reads: "While the meta-analysis briefly discusses this implication (Mossbridge et al., 2012), the authors are seemingly unaware of the far-reaching consequences of their claims: they effectively invalidate most of the neuroscience and psychology literature, from electrophysiology and neuroimaging to temporal effects found in psychophysical research. Thus, it seems justified to ask for extraordinary evidence to support claims of this magnitude (Truzzi, 1978; Sagan, 1995)." So, the quoted statement is about claims made by Julia Mossbridge, NOT about precognition -. Interestingly, at the conclusion the paper states "Not only does our present understanding fail to explain everything about the universe, we must accept that we will never explain everything. Importantly, this also means that we must always remain skeptical of any claims but especially our own" (There's more on Bem there from 2014, not concluded in 2012 as article states) Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add this is all under 'Violation of the laws of Physics' which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Can it be moved? Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Medicine and psychology are part of science, so I've added a subhead for clarity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The citations in this section are to primary sources. We should not base claims of universality on them alone. I am particularly concerned that the quoted criticism by Schwarzkopf also applies, at least in part, to quantum retrocausality, which is an accepted scientific thing. Of course this does not validate precognition, but it does invalidate that part of Schwarzkopf's arguments against it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Certainly primary source. My problem with it as a citation is that it doesn't say what we're saying it says, it's being misappropriated. It's a very nuanced observation of statistical analysis. The quoted statement is actually about numbers not precognition. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed we now have a duplication problem, caused by the citation. The 'control' study reference is already under 'popular belief'.  The citation is duplicated. Sorry to bug anyone.  And thanks LuckyLouie for rejig - looks a bit more sensible. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dupe cite fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the point it makes is duplicated. Worse, its argument assumes that the norm is scepticism, so therefore it cannot be used as evidence to that effect. One could equally well conclude from its specific findings that scepticism arises in people who feel secure in their future and are afraid to have it challenged. If that had been the conclusion, you can bet the detailed findings would have been attacked by the sceptics. Whether the actual conclusion is right or wrong, without secondary/tertiary support it looks too much like handwaving bollocks. Scepticism really does not need this kind of spurious speculation to make its case, it is better served standing on its true merits. I'd suggest both mentions of this claim be deleted - which rather suggests the whole Medicine and psychology subsection should go the same way. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a mainstream psychology paper published in PLOSone, I wouldn't expect it to treat precognition as a real phenomenon. Mainstream science journals treating ESP, mysticism, and other paranormal concepts as unproven and unlikely has nothing to do with scepticism. It's just mainstream science. Regarding the text duplication, yes, I agree the duplicate mention in the "popular belief" section should be removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it is technically mainstream science as one would expect. But it is a lone unsupported primary source and the interpretation of the results which it offers is fundamentally speculative. When I count the number of times that sceptics have levelled such criticisms at sympathetic primary sources as justification for censoring them (I have used it myself in countering EHS woo papers), it is really not tenable to pick and choose one's censorship criteria based on whether one likes the conclusion or not. Scepticism deserves better. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether it's mainstream or not. It's analysis of Bem's work and belongs there if anywhere. The editor has chosen the word 'CONTRADICTS' and that is my main objection because the paper says: "Statistical inference, regardless of whatever form it takes, only assigns probabilities. It cannot ever prove or disprove a theory." This statistical meta-analysis is simply yet another speculative opinion on Bem's experiments. Put it there or delete. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC) NB There are a total of FIVE cites to meta analysis of Bem's paper.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Article Structure/Due and undue weight
I think the structure of this article may not be respecting NPOV by its structure. The guidelines say:


 * 'Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'

and


 * 'Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.'

'Scientific Criticism' falls foul of this rule I think. But to call it 'scientific debate' probably goes too far, I'd suggest 'Science'. The material really needs representing in a neutral manner, so I am giving this some further thought. Some of the science is seriously out of date also, which I'm researching now and will come back to. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with some of what you say. Looking at other articles on parapsychology subjects, "Scientific reception" is typically used; I'll change it here accordingly. Most also put the science near the end, with the "pseudoscience" verdict as often as not discussed in a subsection of that. So I wonder whether a useful start here might be to merge the section on Cultural impact back up into the main History section. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a solution, but what would the section heading be then? I can't see an easy route to merge. On Cultural Impact, the claim that premonitions have changed the course of history is uncited and my cn was removed.  I can't think of a single example (the paradox problem) - seems an unexplained mystery. Heading is an improvement.
 * Many parapsychology topics have a definitional section at the beginning. How about adding it as "Precognitive phenomena" and including the first part of the cultural impact, along with the subsection on religion? Dunne can be merged into his bit of the History. The Shakespearean and F&SF fancruft can usefully drop out of sight, though perhaps Philip K Dick is notable enough to find his place in History too. Not sure about Olaf Stapledon; he is among those who explicitly namecheck Dunne but is only modestly supported by secondary sources. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this, would 'Social phenomena' be good I wonder. The famous that come to my mind that a reader might expect - Nostradamus, Titanic, Lincoln's death dream, 9/11. Questions arise no doubt. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, "social phenomena" is no substitute for "History", I have reverted it. Maybe as a new section in between the history and the science, but I think we'd need to see how the history pans out first. Also, this "same as foresight" thing is just wrong; foresight is about wise thinking ahead - proactively thinking through an abstract vision, precog is about psychically seeing what is ahead - passively experiencing a concrete vision. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Great improvements to header - I was fishing for what else might be included, is there anything we are obviously missing (like Nostradamus)? And why has 'literature' vanished? Not that I care. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nostradamus was more about prophecy than direct precognition; I'd leave him to the more appropriate articles. As for the literature, several references had induced little literary discussion, and those that had seemed to fit better into their respective historical periods than collected outside them, so I moved them there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Still wondering what to do about the tachyon bollocks. This is short and concise but not a cite for here,https://www.21stcentech.com/time-run-backwards/ Cheers! Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. Run away and hide. It is nothing but - well, what you just said. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No! Citation is Taylor 1980 discussing QM theory of the 1960s. It must be updated or deleted, so it could be an RfC for science editors. Information passing backwards in time does not rely on a superluminal particle. It's wrong. Apart from that, the tachyon theory was an attempt to explain backwards causation which was already a problem. I take on your suggestion above, I'll try to do that. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Generally Considered Pseudoscience - what we may say
Precognition is not in the top category of 'obvious pseudoscience' but the second category 'generally considered pseudoscience':

"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorised as pseudoscience."

The article may contain the relevant information. This would include 'further reading' and potentially some of the material deleted by Psychology Guy. Without casting aspersions I believe there may be an element of pseudoscepticism in the history of this article. That may account for why nearly every heading on this talk page is about bias. If we aim for it to be a good article the voices of respected psychologists and other notable authors with a sympathetic view must be referenced. Again "May properly contain that information". What, then, are we missing to get this to 'excellent'? (the blank space that is '21st century'?) Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All that quote from the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE policy says is that such an article may state that the topic has a following but is generally considered pseudoscience. The policy also expands on the requirement that "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight.". What potentially throws a spanner in the pseudosceptical works is the WP:FRINGE/QS guideline which states "Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.". Is that the case with parapsychology? Academic debate demonstrably continues on in the 21st century, but is it a "reasonable amount"? The ArbCom ruling at the top of the page takes precedence over such mere guidelines. It defers to the US government's National Science Foundation, which decrees that parapsychology is full-blown pseudoscience. The fact that other US government agencies, at the front line of research, sometimes disagree is lost on ArbCom and therefore also on Wikipedia. But we should still represent NPOV as set out in the banner here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) [Updated 09:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)]
 * nearly every heading on this talk page is about bias I think you need to read WP:YWAB, especially the references. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "It is not recommended to reply to another editor with a link to this essay (for example WP:YWAB)." (I note this in wry humour, not in anger, and I hope that it will be received as such). To be fair, individual articles do sometimes exhibit excessive bias, but yes it is easy to confuse our systemic policy with bad editing. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly I need to learn how to do green writing.

The discussion is about due and undue weight really. In the 21st century the entire debate on precognition has moved into the field of quantum biology and quantum mind. Such hypotheses are postulated by Nobel prizewinning physicist Sir Roger Penrose and neuroscientist Prof. Stuart Hameroff among others. The books I cited discuss at length the implications of these hypotheses for precognition in much the same way as in the 20th C, Dunne discusses Serialism. These hypotheses have substantial following (and funding) and there is a reasonable amount of debate. Precognition may not be like other paranormal experiences insofar as it appears to affect a large proportion of the population and it has always attracted sustained scientific interest which continues to this day. We cannot simply call every sympathetic author fringe and refuse to allow them a voice. The article is comical for the way it abruptly ends at 21st C. We close down the debate by citing quantum physics from 1960. There's no tachyon therefore precognition doesn't exist, Ha Ha Ha. Any reader who has a remote idea would simply laugh. There should be at least one paragraph noting the current research hypotheses and the detractors and drag this article out of the last century. For editors who are carrying out improvements, it's looking and reading much better. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have made all these complaints before and been answered. If you don't like the community consensus imposed by our highest authority, the Arbitration Committee, then you will be better off putting up your material elsewhere (as I sometimes do: I am as sceptical of the pseudosceptics as I am of the fruitloops, and they don't like that here). Keep Wikipedia content within its imposed bounds, and you will be fine. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wonder if you read that paper. No it didn't mention precognition, it mentioned psi and quantum physics with particular reference to causality, which was the proof of the sentence I wrote. It was written by a physicist. As for my complaints being answered, they haven't. Rules are for challenging, envelopes for pushing. ArbCom might well be interested in these arguments, being more rational than some of this page. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Linking that lot to precognition without a direct source for the link is original research and forbidden on Wikipedia. If you imagine that Arbcom will give you the time of day on this, you have an unpleasant surprise coming. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I read some interesting logs about pseudosceptic editors and there remains some doubt in my mind. Thanks for the advice. The article is greatly improved now and I'll try a submission for 'good'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reading the GA nomination process and the review from last time. Interesting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Precognition/archive1 I'll wait a few days to let the article 'settle' and allow any further tweaking. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deja Vu
We have Déjà Vu as an 'alternative explanation' for precognition. I don't consider that correct as it is another form of precognition phenomenon, not an explanation. Are we saying that temporal lobe epilepsy is an alternative explanation? Confusing to the reader I think and needs clarifying or deleting. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked our article on deja vu and Britannica on paramnesia and confabulation; what conceptual muddles and confused writing! Fortunately, this paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry is of an altogether higher standard. It lists eight English-language synonyms for deja vu, going on to suggest "reduplicating paramnesia" as yet another -- and explicitly excluding it from being "actualized precognition" (meaning that "the subjective impression that the present situation has been foretold"). So, a flat contradiction of what Britannica claims. At the very least, our bullet point is really two - one each for deja vu and identifying paramnesia. The latter certainly has a place in the list. Deja vu might too, though it will need a positive citation for the claim, if it is to stand up to its debunking in Sno's paper. Maybe cite both the sources I have used here, and point out that this explanation is contentious? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now done. Even if the deja vu "explanation" is spurious, it needs keeping (but questioning/rebutting) as it has been offered often enough by pseudo/sceptics. I also tagged some other uncited explanations. I think all the list entries could usefully be expanded with examples, along the lines of the Nostradamus analysis. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Deja Vu is an alternative explanation for precognition? I don't agree. I think it is an entirely different phenomenon with its own explanation (and article) which is largely unrelated to precognition. Deja Vu shouldn't be in this section but moved to 'see also'. I also read some of the other explanations as being extremely similar - memory bias, retrofitting and paramnesia all have very similar wording. There may be nuances which I am overlooking but I wonder what the reader can make of this. I'd prefer a merge of some points but maybe I'm wrong. I don't think the coincidence argument has ever stood on two legs - just a blanket non-explanation of anything, but I realise it is offered by science. It is more wacky than suggesting Orch OR in my opinion. We have a lot of cns now. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about deja vu, as does Sno writing in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Deja vu and precognition have distinct and incompatible phenomenological qualities. But the more ignorant sceptics have touted it often enough to deserve discussion here. Funnily enough, I lack the enthusiasm to go dig out an ignorant but reliable sceptical reference. When someone does, we can add Sno as a counter-claim to it. I think you have a point about the others, too. But we must be careful not to suggest equivalence of false memory mechanisms; even though they are essentially one and the same criticism in marginally different guises, saying so would be original research. Maybe something like, "False memories, such as [specific mechanisms], where the memory of a non-existent precognitive event is formed after the real event has occurred." &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Retrofitting did not fit with the others in the end, it is more about false interpretation of the record than a false memory as such. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, the word quagmire comes to mind. I'll have a look for citations on deja vu. You've used the word 'incompatible' and I'd agree, they are two very different things. And I agree about trying to differentiate memory syndromes, I pity the poor reader though. Your last sentence raises a wry smile. Cheers! Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Oh! Done. It's good. Will come back to other cns. cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Medicine and psychology
Is this subsection justified? The first sentence, on contradicting most of the neuroscience and psychology literature, is just a consequence of the violation of causality, it even invokes "temporal effects". The second, on irrationality and control freakery, is more an alternative explanation than a scientific criticism. (sub)sections for both of these already exist. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the heading does not describe the content well and neither citation is particularly helpful. The Greenaway paper is worth a read as it does not overall, give the negative impression quoted but says that 'believers' benefit from their belief - there's the psychology. I did think about changing the quote. The first citation contains this gem “Science is not about finding the truth at all, but about finding better ways of being wrong”. It too deals with Bem again - both the cites in 'lack of evidence' are also about Bem so that's not good. I think the heading can go and the control freakery put under alternative explanations as you suggest. The first sentence is repetition and looks more like something to go in the lead if anywhere. (Having trouble finding sources for those cn'd alternative explanations.) Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, as best I can. The Greenaway paper is quite bizarre, one of those "sceptics really should be able to do better than this" exercises; I'd better not start as it will not improve the article. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't it. My guess is it was stumbled across while an editor was at ncbi. It says more about belief than precognition but that's Ok. I just rejigged the first para under 'antiquity' which was a word mess. It still mentions premonition which we've said above isn't precognition - I don't have the source so I left it. Also I wondered whether we should define precognition as one aspect of ESP - it's mentioned later and wikified but could be in the lead? Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * List of psychic abilities has 'precognition or premonition' under ESP. I've left it unchanged. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have brought it in line with the definition of premonition on the disambig page. I'll dig out Inglis when I get time and see what he actually says. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick scan of Inglis has found no mention of "premonition". Looking at the article, it is mentioned alongside dreams and trances. I'd suggest that all three - premonitions, dreams and trances - usually do not involve precognitive experiences, but that they all can do on occasion. The fact that Inglis does not explicitly use one of these words is of little concern, I have no doubt that other sources can be found. So I see no need to change the current text. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

US Defense Department
This may be worth including under 21st C. Time magazine 2017: The U.S. Military Believes People Have a Sixth Sense "[Are] there ways to improve premonition through training" Lieutenant Commander Brent Olde. https://time.com/4721715/phenomena-annie-jacobsen/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that this is about precognition - the article mentions the P word only once and does not attribute it. The program is arguably more about brain processes such as unconscious perception, biofeedback and cognitive training, to enhance intuition and instinct. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In religion
Does the section on religion add anything to the article? It just echoes the ambivalent attitude of cultures generally. Should it be cut? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

On the issues on gathering scientifical data
There are many people that claim, that they do not have precognition from dreams, because: 1. they do not recall dreams 2. very quickly forget the dreams 3. do not keep memory of dreams for long These people are unable to provide any data to research, so the pool of source is limited - even biased as it is limited only to those who are experiencing precognition... unless it is possible to gather dreams without requiring subjects to remember their own dreams, as it looks that dreams are significant part of the phenomena

However, from those who remember, there seems to be no reliable (in other words - repeatable) system on how precognition works(that does not mean that it undermines observed phenomena - it only means, that there are no reliable ways to repeat experiment - because there is no way to "reset" a human being and since it is unknown what causes dreams, then it would require "resetting" of whole universe - that simply means, that researcher has to be outside of known universe to repeat experiment or something else has to be observed instead of what is being tried to be observed): 1. it is not something that can be reproduced at will - it seems to be a mix of various factors involved: dream generation, memory factors to remember dreams(seems to be usually from last cycle) right after awakening, and keeping those memories as long-term 2. time of occurence of precognition varies wildly - it can happen after awakening and can happen after years 3. there does not seem to be significance of those events - they are more like a fragments of memories about future and that's it

The main issue with phenomena is mainly in establishing what are mechanisms behind it(because at current stage there is still battle going on in deciding if it is real or not), as that raises more questions, than gives answers. Quite a lot of those questions can be explained only in pair with something like Simulation Hypothesis(which itself seems to be only a beginning of something that is more serious on topic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.113.79 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What change to the article are you suggesting? If you are not, you are in the wrong place since this is not a chatroom. If you are, you will need reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Precognition Support
Despite some editors, @Hob_Gadling for example, reservations there is considerable evidence for precognition using meta-analysis statistical techniques from Bem and Tressoldi et al. and despite claims he is a "hack" he did pass peer review in his original article. Nhradek (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not regard Daryl Bem as a reliable source. There is too much controversy over his work, and most mainstream sources reject his results. Our policy on pseudoscience does the rest. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What nonsense is this? He has multiple studies showing effects, he was a tenured psychology professor nobody has proven he's a fake. This just idiotic. Stop your bullshit. I could equally argue wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. That's what most college professors have told me. Nhradek (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source. It works on a consensus basis thrashed out in discussions like this one, and the most important consensus decisions are enshrined in policy. One does not have the option of disagreeing with the consensus, for better or worse it is how Wikipedia works. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't generating novel content, so the question of reliability is based on how well it summarizes reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But is it really doing that if there is supposed consensus which doesn't exist in the scientific world. The biases of the "skeptics" don't allow for debate other than claims of fraud which are unfounded. Nhradek (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not really skeptics. Pseudoskepticism Nhradek (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what Steelpillow meant to say is that editors discuss which sources are WP:RS, WP:FRIND, WP:DUE etc. and how best to summarize them. They use WP:CONSENSUS for such discussions. They don't WP:CONSENSUS to come up with new scientific ideas in opposition to what reliable sources say. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but editorial bias by skeptics violates WP:Npov. It's pointless because some think Bem and Tressoldi, etc. are frauds and some don't think they are. No consensus can be reached over that. Nhradek (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even psychology has this problem because some say the methods are broken but Bem's experiments were published in journal of personality and social psychology and passed peer review multiple times so either the entire field is broken or the assumption by "skeptics" is wrong. I think the latter is correct and the entire field isn't broken. Nhradek (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The same is true of the UAP and UFO field by recent disclosures have changed this. The kneejerk "skeptical" of everything position is cynicism and not skeptical inquiry that should be cited. Following the evidence is WP:Npov not we just reverting whatever I don't like immediately because it doesn't fit my pet theory that Bem is a fraud. Nhradek (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * means in this case a smoking gun, which AFAIK does not seem to exist. It does not mean a whole litany of weak correlations. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just posted a meta-analysis conducted by Tressoldi, et al. If Bem is faking it so must Tressoldi then. The evidence that Bem is a "hack" is lacking and it violates WP:Npov. It's pointless to argue if you all have your minds made up that Bem is a fraud entirely despite passing peer review multiple times. Nhradek (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * do not matter. Convince the scientific community, according to organized skepticism. Remember: scientific community first, and Wikipedia will follow. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The scientific community does not agree entirely, there is no direct consensus. I have no allegiance to organized skepticism and most modern "scientific skepticism" is WP:Pseudoskepticism. When there's no consensus, WP:NPOV dictates we present both sides of the argument. For and against precognition yet the article is inherently biased against Daryl Bem and other precognition researchers. Nhradek (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was reverted within minutes despite posting valid meta-anlyses by multiple precognition researchers including Daryl Bem. Why the retraction since retracting violates a supposed core principle? Nhradek (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can always take a quote out of context. It ignores everything else he's done or said. Nhradek (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: how many scientists doubt the existence of electrons? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because electrons are a well-known phenomenon, known for centuries. There is plenty of controversial science like vaccines and climate change on WP that have controversy and doubt within science. Precognition is well established enough by the SPR and various precognition researchers using meta-analyses statistical techniques to identify it as a real phenomenon. Not pseudoscience like is claimed. To argue otherwise and constant revisions of this extra research violated WP:NPOV because it violated sacred cows of "skepticism." Wikipedia is not an idealogical front for "skeptics" but a neutral dictionary. Nhradek (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone who believes that precognition is more credible and has more support within the scientific community than climate change or vaccination shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It has as much support as many scientific findings do with multiple meta-analyses and studies. Nhradek (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Daryl Bem literally said, If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, 'Will this replicate or will this not? That is, he admitted that what he does is not science. He fakes it.
 * Behind every positive result in parapsychology, there is a weirdo like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did he ever say that? Where? Nhradek (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I too would be interested in checking out that source. It sounds fascinating! &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I found it here, if that helps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't know he was a competent mentalist. Ouch! But then again, to play devil's advocate, the piece also mentions sceptic James Randi, who was a stage illusionist. I am not prepared to accept any results from either of them - the parapsychologist or the sceptic. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You missed the other part of the quote and put it out of context. He just said he's not the one to do rigorous peer review, he prefers to leave that to other scientists. That's what he meant, he prefers to be an experimentalist and just conduct research. Nhradek (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Other scientists have already tried to replicate his bad studies and failed. That is because his results were based on the faulty method of p-hacking. Wikipedia should not cite refuted studies as if they had merit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bem's study isn't reliable for what you want to cite it for (i.e. "considerable evidence for precognition"). See Daryl_Bem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's meta-analyses by Bem and Tressoldi et al that show otherwise. Nhradek (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LUNATICS and WP:UNDUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DUMB Nhradek (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PSCI is part and parcel of WP:NPOV policy. If you do not want to obey it, take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's not pseudoscience. This is a democratic platform, not controlled by "skeptics." You guys and gals keep violating NPOV repeatedly. I will take this to arbitration if you want me to. Nhradek (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;wrong, see WP:DEM! I took it to WP:AE. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We're discussing this is a democratic forum with various arguments for and against inclusion like in the ancient Greek agoras. Thus it is a democracy regardless of what says, by technicality of semantics. Nhradek (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No: the majority of the public, and even the majority of editors, do not make the call. Making the call has been outsourced to the scientific community, AKA organized skepticism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The "scientific community" is not organized skepticism. Who let's you make that pronouncement and often "organized skeptics" aren't skeptical at all but dogmatic. You accused me of disruptive commenting but you're just as culpable. I'll end this conversation here unless the editors wish to reinstate my edit. Nhradek (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See Mertonian norms. That definition is older than me. In fact, it is older than my mother. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)