Link: “When Science Goes Psychic”

A ma­jor psy­chol­ogy jour­nal is plan­ning to pub­lish a study that claims to pre­sent strong ev­i­dence for pre­cog­ni­tion. Nat­u­rally, this im­me­di­ately stirred up a firestorm. There are a lot of sci­en­tific-pro­cess and philos­o­phy-of-sci­ence is­sues in­volved, in­clud­ing repli­ca­bil­ity, peer re­view, Bayesian statis­tics, and de­grees of scrutiny. The Fly­ing Spaghetti Mon­ster makes a guest ap­pear­ance.

Origi­nal New York Times ar­ti­cle on the study here.

And the Times asked a num­ber of aca­demics (in­clud­ing Dou­glas Hofs­tadter) to com­ment on the con­tro­versy. The dis­cus­sion is here.

I, for one, defy the data.