Is Precognition Real?

I can totally envision how your career wouldn’t have turned out.

13 Likes

That is what asporists explosively tell me, every time I point out to them that asporism is a sport. Just like how people also tend to get shouty at me when I repeatedly insist that water doesn’t make things wet, even though I’m being super polite about it.

4 Likes

In order to preserve my spot in the “middle” of the debate, I must reserve judgment about whether or not I am a professional soccer player :soccer:

Who knows? Anything could be true—or false. Surely that is the reasonable moderate position.

5 Likes

fc grenoble referee GIF by FCG Rugby

At least it’s not red?

5 Likes

Is it really a moderate position? Or is it a super position?

5 Likes

14 posts were split to a new topic: Agnostic or Atheist? YOU DECIDE!

Sure, that’s how we bootstrap p-values. Sometimes p-hacking is hard, so instead we just do a meta-analysis of what percentage of past analyses succeeded in their p-hacking to estimate the probability that we could succeed if we tried again. If the probability of success is greater than 1-α, then we conclude that we were right in our precognition of the data.

Otherwise we’d have to do actual scientific research, and do you have any idea how hard that is?

/S (in case its needed)

10 Likes

my astrologer says precognition is bullshit.

5 Likes

Well my astrologer is going to tell me precognition is real, in three days when they read Bem’s study for the first time, while eating a bagel, after their cousin sends them a link to this article on Boing Boing.

3 Likes

Watch out, you’ll make the materialists upset. :rofl:

Great, more retrograde thinking :roll_eyes:

6 Likes

This point is worth belaboring a few times for the BB editorial staff. Spreading pseudoscientific hogwash to the public as some sort of “interesting thing to ponder” dilutes our collective critical thinking skills as a society and normalizes a method of reasoning and discourse that actively hurts people.

To pick one notorious example, consider the recently deceased Joe Rogan. He has built an empire on this class of pseudoscientific propagation at the great expense of many lives.

10 Likes

Ah, man, I googled it and he’s not dead. Just an asshole.

8 Likes

“Is he? I’m just asking questions here. It certainly seems like something that could be true.” :wink:

6 Likes

In all fairness, I have envisioned him dead.

:woman_shrugging:t3:

6 Likes

I’ll pass on a bit of advice another boingboinger passed onto me some time ago. (when I groused about an ad in a boingboing post. Use the web browser Brave. It cuts way, way back on the ads

2 Likes

Ah, but the title is a question. All the Cool Gang ™ in Boing Boing know what that means.

I think we should be allowed our scepticism, and a bit of gloating when it doesn’t work, without being accused of having closed minds. There may be things we do not know, but these things ought to fit in with the bits we do know. Why did he do that experiment in the first place? Because his precognition told him it would work? Yeah, right…

2 Likes

Yes, although, this makes the case for the word “monotonic” to be in daily use, so we don’t have to describe something which advances at a varying rate as “linear”.

(There is some interesting discussion to be had about this, but I wouldn’t want to endorse the OP’s deliberate category errors)

4 Likes

It is round here.
– Monotonic?
– Nah, make it a double. Ice and a slice, please.

3 Likes

Randy did a lot of good. He’s the one who turned me from being a pseudoskeptic long before that article, when I realized that a movement that needed such a lying, goal-changing POS to move their cause forward had nothing to say.

So thanks, Randy.

1 Like