Jump to content

Talk:Precognition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

2005 comment

Spider-Man's "spider-sense" seems more like clairsentience to me.

Actually, this can be both clairsentience and precognition, in that he can feel attacks coming. Not quite sure. However...

Kagome's ability to sense shards of the Shikon Jewel IS clairsentience, not precognition. So I deleted this. Should I stick it in "clairsentience"? Cleaning it up, of course. MasterXiam 06:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging with prescience

FWiW, I've noted on the prescience talk page my objections to merging the two pages.--Anchoress 09:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Prognosticate/Prognistication

Hello. Is this the same as "Prognostication"? Or is that something else? Ewlyahoocom 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fictional precogs?

I feel that there are so many precognitive/precient characters in fiction, it demands its own category, and I'm surprised to find it doesn't have one. What should the categroy be called, for example, the telekinetic characters have the category Category:Fictional psychokineticists. The category could hold a lot of characters like Buffy Summers, Phoebe Halliwell, Cordelia Chase, Cassie Newton, Sam Winchester etc... there are literally hundreds... would anyone like to be a part of this? Feel free to discuss on my talk page too. Zythe 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me...--[[User:Kiwi-chan|Kiwi}} 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My parents call it coincidence, but I think otherwise

Since about 5th or 6th grade (I'm in 10th now), out of the blue a scene from an episode of any random TV show that I watched would pop into my head, and at any point in the next 48 hours (the record is 30 seconds) I'll see the episode that I had thought about. It's very sporadic however and there's no set pattern as to when I actually get the scenes in my head. Is this a form of precogniton, or something else? The most recent case was about a week ago, and that was the 30-second record, where the scene popped into my head and then immediately after, the episode aired. --Kiwi 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


It sounds like precognition to me, but also synchronicity. It seems like if it is psi, it probably manifests in other areas of your life. Does it? The problem with psi, I think, is that often it is very mundane, that is, it just doesn't give us useful information. Then, it misses usefull information. It gives us what we are open to, not what would help us. It also gets mixed up with unconscious patterns. Because psi is either weak, or pervasive but subtle, it is hard to tell what is happening.

Martinphi 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we know? I am just an anonymous wikipedia editor, but for what it is worth, I do not know how to tell these things apart. I had a strong dream of receiving a letter from an English friend one night. She had not written me for more than a year, and my dreams usually wear off in the morning, if I even remember them. However, this particular dream felt so real that I ran to the door when the postman came, only to be disappointed that there was no letter. I later that day checked my e-mail and saw that she had written me a long e-mail that very night I had the dream. A friend of mine who is an internationally recognized children's pscyhologist told me that some of her friends had had the same experience. She called it a "communicative dream". All the other dreams of the kind that I have had were prophetic, so I have no clue whether it was telepathy, synchronicity or precognition.--Saddened 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article states beliefs as facts

This article is written entirely as if precognition, clairvoyance etc are real. They aren't. The 'evidence' cited is mostly pseudo-scientific, including an aeronautical engineer working far outside his field. This article needs to be rewritten to make it clear that, like fairies, some people believe in it. The phrase "The most popular theory" is one of the worst I've seen anywhere in this respect. The most popular theory is that most of us don't believe it, but we don't use the word theory. Emeraude 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That is *your* prejudice and POV. For what it is worth, I have a Ph.D. and I am trained to think empirically and critically, but experience has shown me again and again that precognition is real (in the world as I experience it), albeit too rare and too capricious to be useful. Most people with Ph.D.s that I know are much more open-minded than you are and I can assure you that you would not be so prejudiced if you had been (un)lucky enough to have a series of personal experiences in this field, yourself.--Saddened 11:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

a person can have precognitions then why aren't they right all the time i belive that mistakes can be made but if you see whats you belive is going to happen, why doesnt it happen? 58.168.140.172 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience true premonitions always come as surprises and when you least expect it. If you *try* to have a premonition, you are more likely to fool yourself letting your imagination play tricks on you. If you have tried to have a premonition and it looks like wishful thinking, I bet my money that it is not a real premonition.--Saddened 12:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Saddened. If you've had the experience of full bodied precognition (i.e. time plays out as normal and then you find yourself back at the start looking on as what you've already seen happens) then you have a problem with time and the current understanding of the universe. No it's not repeatable and no it's not provable but the individual who experiences it changes. If most of the world sees in black and white and you have an experience in colour does that mean colour doesn't exist? I'm not convinced that 'what is possible' should be based on a majority 'vote'... I've met two people other than myself who've had the experience and they are random and not useful plus things didn't seem changeable...so much for free will, eh!--JKsurfer 17:46, 22 April 2007

Please be careful not to imply that belief in clairvoyance isn't real, or that the terminology is disputed. Clairvoyance is a real term, it is only its existence as a phenomona that is disputed.

perfectblue 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real term, but the article must make clear that whether it's a real phenomenon is disputed, and is rejected by the scientific establishment. To take one blatant example from the current wording, the article cannot assert, as a fact, "Some people are able to do this via Astral Projection." No, they aren't. JamesMLane t c 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Um what it probably should have said is, "Some people believe they are able to do this via astral projection. And your, "No, they aren't" should have read, "I don't believe they're able too". Science is about belief too - if it wasn't people wouldn't get so emotive about it... The difficulty with science is that it is based on repeatability, the nature of a lot of weird phenomena is that they are not regular and/or deliberately repeatable (e.g. a miracle by definition is very very rare). Assuming for sake of an argument that something is happening you'd have to have enough control over the causative factors to make it happen under laboratory conditions. Seeing as one currently doesn't even know what the causative factors could be and therefore one can't reproduce the phenomena (if they exist) you're left with anecdote and effectively faith one way or the other --JKsurfer 21:06, 10 September 2007
I had a precognition, it was a surpise because you don't think some dream you had will come true till it happens. I believe, you can not change what you see. You can only be surpised by it when you see it for yourself like Saddened said. It more of a Déjà vu thing, where you see it in your dream and then have a big case of Déjà vu when it happens. Precognition I believe is the ability to see objects in the future during a dream, you don't know it's a precognition till it happens. It's not the agility to change the future or see into the future to benefit yourself. It's nothing special really, it just gets you thinking... what else can humans do if they can see objects that haven't happen yet? I am don't have Ph.d, I am just a 3rd year college student. I am nothing special but I gotta say, I do believe the ability is real now and you won't till it happens to you. Just remember your dreams and watch out. I hope you got a good memory. I got a photpgraphific memory. I can remember memories from as earily as 5 years old. Hitting my head on the sharp edge of the coffee table, that hurt when I was younger heh. --Buraisu 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been have premenitions ever since I can remember. When they first started, it would be like watching a play while I was dreaming, such that people in my life were used as actors in the event, simply because they held traits that related to the event. Now that I am in my thirties it happens not only when I sleep, but while I am awake. It is no longer with people in my life, and the people in my premenitions, speak directly to me. They are clear, and tell me what I ask. Sometimes its like slipping into another dream with the knowledge of the previous, and its a place where everything is still. Although I am still not lucid on what, and still spectical of my ability, I truly know its a premenitions. Sometimes it comes true right away, and sometimes its years until it happens. I also know that I can go against what is told, only to find it goes away for awhile to return again. I have grown to know its a gift, yet to this day and age it scares me to know, something, someone outside this world can speak to me directly. I wish to remain unnamed, since it sturrs uneasy and spectial thoughts, among people and even family.

9-11

Anyone ever had any Precogs dealing with 9-11 before? The day before the events or anything like that?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When I was a young boy, I moved to Queens, NYC. One night I had a dream I was surrounded in chaos, with people covered in smut, and scarred. Some of the people in my dream were no longer alive and would move slower than everone else. My goal on my dream was to find my mom. On the day of 9-11, I was working about 3 miles for ground zero in NYC. I went to work like ever normal day, because the news was reporting a small plane hit thw world trade center. I recall being on the E train dazed, to come out on Union Square to see people huddled wathing the event. About an hour later, the first tower came down, I packed a school bag with about 6 water bottles, and left my job with one intent.. to find my mother who was working at the time in Manhattan. Nothing stopped me as I went thru endless people in the streets and the chaos, when i arrived at her office there was someone who, somehow recognized me, yet I did not know them, who lead me to my mom. She was sitting there calm, yet scared. We grabbed a few thing and left the office and walked home over the 59 street bridge back to Queens. Something about that whole day was unnatural, with all the deaths, the smell of burning materials in the air, and the unreal view of a smoldering area on the tip of manhattan you can see as you cross the 59 street bridge. Maybe it was nothing more than a coincidence, but when I was searching for my mom, I had one goal in mind, and I knew I was going to succeed. I know now its a gift, and to this day I still have them, and they are getting stronger. I just wish I knew what it really was, or who or what was telling me all this.

Let's blame George Lucas. (That way we can report the event & someone else gets the bust) Clearly the Return of the muJEhadDIn foretells the attack on the partially completed Freedom Tower, by terrorists who must evade its fully functional missile defense to crash their plane into the vulnerable inner core... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.117.146 (talk) 15:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I have had precognitions

I didn't believe in such things till I seen it happen with something that was impossible to see. I started working on a small island off the coast and before this happen, about 4-6 months before, I think had a dream about the island and things that happen on my first day their. It was weird, it was like I have been their before but I know there was no way I have been. You need to take a boat to this island and I have never taken a boat off to the islands before. I asked if this island has been in a movie or something like that but I was told that their has been no movie of the island. I still search for this movie I "might" of seen but haven't seen it yet. I told my friend that works their that I had a big case of Déjà vu but it's impossible, I never been here before. It started right after the docks, I seen a small rundown church that was in my dream. You never know, it could not be precognition at all. Their was just one thing that really freaked me out later that day. In my dream, their was a ball bounceing and it happen on the first day, I seen the ball bounceing in the same spot as my dream. That freaked me out a little. Also, I walked in the same route as my dream and I stopped at the spot where my dreamed stopped. I wonder, if this spot where it ended means anything or did I just wake up? Their were many objects in my dream but I didn't think anything of the dream when I had it. I called it Far sight to myself. The ability to see objects in the future but not change it because you have no idea when it will happen nor the dream give you a reason to change it or somethin like that. Since then, I been noticing other connects between my dreams and other objects. I wonder if I am having precognitions or just making it up in my head now. lol I just had a dream and when I woke up, a small part of the dream came true. Some news reporter was talking about people dumping trash in some park and it happen in my dream and also he said the exact sentance in my dream. It was really weird, which is why I am here now. I came here to look up the word, I first searched for "Far sight" but that didn't work then I searched for "See into future" and it worked. From my expereince, this is real. I didn't believe till it happen nor will you. --Buraisu 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical analysis of precognition

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner; I plan to include a reference to it in this wikipedia article if there are no objections. Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research I don't think that it would be appropriate, any other thoughts? JFArcher (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I read that section over before I posted, and I don't think it applies. My reason for this is that these are preexisting and well-established methods of research (runs analysis, goodness of fit analysis, etc). In addition the reference is not to the research, but to the online data-collection system, which is unique. Furthermore a well known player in the paranormal/skeptical community (James Randi) is involved in the project, which makes it worthy of note. Thoughts? I will await your word before I make any edits to the page. Thanks again for responding. -Scotopia 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

it does apply, the question is not the quality nor content of the research, but where the research is sourced from. Get it published, not just in a blog or similar but in a reputable source (WP:RELIABLE) & it can go in; particularly important for this sort of article, which may be questioned by some. David Woodward (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Visitors, Please add suggestions here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few of my thoughts on what cold be added.

  • While precognition is not a "fact of science" it is a "fact of belief", this page needs to include more about the belief in precognition amongst the populace. For example, what percentage of the population believe in precognition and how does this compare to the belief in other elements of the paranormal? Or do religious people believe in it more/less?
  • What about its use in fortune telling? Psychic hotlines are quite popular, yet they aren't mentioned here.
  • How about the rise in popularity of precognition in Asia now that Chinese rural superstitions are being brought into the cities by migrant workers and thus are being made a money making opportunity (it became such a problem that the Chinese government recently banned fortune telling via text message).
  • What about people who've made famous claims in regards to precognition. People who "had a bad feeling" and stayed home on 9/11 or who begged their relatives not to get on a certain plane that later crashed?
  • What about people who predicted events that never transpired and are famous for that?
  • How about notable pseudoscience on the mechanisms behind precognition?
  • Precognition in myth and religion. Sooth sayer, Biblical prophets? At least there should be some see also links. If not a passage outlining them and wikilinking to their respective pages.
  • Various forms of precognition. Dreams, sudden visions, nagging feelings?

perfectblue 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My main goal was to try to keep this article separate from the Psychic article. I don't want it to contain the exact same information as that article does. So if I were to elaborate on all of the things mentioned above then the two articles would be very similar in info and would probably warrant being merged. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, which of these things would do better in Prophecy? Precognition is more like parapsychology, and the psychic article is going to cover some of what you talk about. Precognition does need its own article, but only as a parapsychological topic perhaps? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind merging this with the Psychic article and giving it it's own section with a few paragraphs. That could easily be done. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm against merging parapsychology topics into general headings like psychic. However, it might merge into ESP. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you against it? Wikidudeman (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a peer review source, but a good clear case from a reputable source, i may be back later to integrate into article, but anybody else help yourself. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-got-a-lesson-they-got-a-lesson/2007/11/09/1194329513144.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

David Woodward (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA status

WDM, why did you nominate this article for GA status without even telling anyone? More to the point, why did you nominate it? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Who should I have told? Also, Why should I have nominated it? This article is about as large as it's going to get without overlapping with the Psychic article. It's very clean and to the point and is quite thorough. I think it's close to GA criteria. If you have any suggestions for improving it that don't include adding info which would overlap with the Psychic article then please go ahead. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you should tell people just to be polite, and you should have consulted, because the paranormal isn't really your area of study. There is a great deal which is not covered, and should be, such as presentiment, and many studies which have been done. A good article would be 5 or more times the current size. This is really a stub. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal is my area of study, now... If you have any problems with the article then just post them so we can discuss them. There is no "size minimum" on good articles. This article is much larger than a stub. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
My mistake: the paranormal is not an area in which you have much expertise. A beginning survey would take a couple years intense study. Expertise in a select area or two of the paranormal would take about 10 years studying it intensely, sometimes much more. The paranormal comprises many fields, which are often no less detailed than many other disciplines. And please point me to the "size limit" on stubs.
You're right that this is probably too large for stub status, but it is certainly not a finished article.
Just out of curiosity, what books on the paranormal have you read recently, and what books are you planning to read in the near future? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Read? Don't you mean written? - perfectblue 11:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've got better things to do than read "Paranormal books", However I think we should stay on topic of this article and now delve into what I have or haven't read. Concerning Stub size, Please see WP:STUB. A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. If you can provide relevant information for this article that the Psychic article doesn't also contain (or shouldn't contain) then please do. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Really, I seeee.... Well, anyway, you're right about the stub status thing. I think most of the articles related to parapsychology need tons of work, but I don't have time to do it all. Presentiment is one major area that needs to be covered. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This artilce needs expansion and work in a few areas before it should be considered a good article. Here are the criteria as a reminder.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The main problem with this artilce is that it is not broad enough in coverage. It also has neutral point of view problems, it shouldn't state that precognition is real, since that's controversial. It has a bit of a weasel words problem, and finally the lists should be in prose format. Looking at individual issues.

Nostradamus is used as the image, which is good, but he should be discussed in the History section. The History section starts in 1937, what happened before then?

The part about J. W. Dunne says "Dunne's study was based on his own precognitive dreams," and "His worries soon eased when he discovered that precognitive dreams are common." These refs are based on his own book, so probably accurate, but this artilce should ascribe these type of statements to him, and not state them as fact, since this is a controversial area of research. Maybe changes like "Dunne's study was based on what he believed to be his own precognitive dreams," You can probably find better wording.

The part about Joseph Banks Rhine starts good, but then never reports on the finding of the study.

There should be a reference for the part about J. A. Barker, and again this article is stating as fact that "human seismographs" exist. Again, what exactly were the findings?

Why did the Princeton lab close down? Probably one or two more sentences about the lab would be enough.

The Skepticism part has a number of weasel words. "The existence of precognition is disputed by some." "Skeptics point to the fact." Who are these people? Mention them by name.

The In fiction section should should be in prose format, not a list. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists. Also, there are many examples of characters who have precognition in fiction, so this article needs an objective way of determining who gets on the list and who doesn't. Look to external reliable sources for this. For example this reference might be used to discuss the character from Next (film).

I'm going to give this article a fail for now. Feel free to nominate it again after improvement. - Peregrine Fisher 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I agree it should fail - one of the external links (I've removed it) linked to a Scottish Government document that appeared to be about precognition but was actually about taking witness statements. Quote from document: "It was apparent that some witnesses would not know what the terms ‘precognition’ and ‘precognition agent’ meant. In designing the questionnaire it was therefore necessary to use straightforward language as far as possible. Whereas the two previous questionnaires had referred to the project as an investigation into “The Work of Precognition Agents in Criminal Cases”, the witnesses’ questionnaire referred to it as an investigation into “Taking Statements from Witnesses in Criminal Cases”." This calls into question all of the references in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirel (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV ?

The article starts in the tone "precognition is a fact, even is there are some skeptics". There is no evidence that precognition is a real existing ability (as far as I know). The article is not neutral in my opinion. --Xerces8 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Repetition of criticism

This article repeats the skeptical criticisms twice in the same article. The stuff about selection bias really only needs to be mentioned once surely? I am a bit of a skeptic myself though I would like to maintain an open mind, so let's try and make this one NPOV rather than trying to make a conclusion. Yes, I think it is fair to say that it is not currently accepted by mainstream science, but this does not necessarily mean that it is false or is not a possible existing phenomena, just that the scientific method has so far, inadequately been able to find any evidence using the tools of probability (using statistical significance as a test of evidence is dubious itself to many 'hard' scientists). It does not need an entire paragraph devoted to the skeptics claims in the introduction, just a sentence saying it is currently not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. If there are no objections I will remove the skeptical stuff that is repeated in the second paragraph, whereby it has already been covered in the skeptics main section below? -- Mindeagle (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Precognition versus Clairvoyance

I do not have the research close at hand, but hasn't it been demonstrated that precognition and clairvoyance function through different mechanisms?

I believe that precognition depends on the psychic learning about the perceived event later through conventional means. This would be explained as "remembering the past".

This explains Nostradamus' prediction of Henry II being killed in a joust; this is information that Nostradamus learned about later through conventional means. Dsunlin (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Causality and Paradoxes

Usually precognition happen to events that are too close to happen or the events are imposible to stop or change. So if it happen to be a event posible to change, that isnt precognigtion but something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.77.181.168 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Bulk changes

I have somewhat radically re-organized the article, and expanded it, from the first para onwards, taking the above lingering issues into account, and not deleting or subordinating/reifying any particular bit of info. The are now three main sections into which the somewhat disorganized prior info have been arranged - evidence, explanations, miscellany. Main additions concern the early evidence by spontaneous cases, experimental studies of the same, details re the card-guessing and REG studies, the Honorton-Ferrari meta-analysis, and extended and novel info re the psychological and parapsychological theorisations (e.g., cryptomnesia, advanced wave, observational theories). Some editors might be concerned that I have dropped the "Skepticism" heading - this info is well represented in the Explanations section (without its repetition, as noted as an issue, above), and I have also more fully and less controversially (I trust) represented the "skeptical" by continually referring to "ostensible" or "apparent" precognition throughout the article, and by adding references to specific studies that have questioned the parapsychological definition of precognition (rather than citing secondary sources of dubious merit) - all according to the basic principle that there are both classical-psychological and parapsychological theories that can be legitimately raised in explanation of the data for precognition (rather than structuring the article on the difference between "skeptical" and "paranormal" positions - which is a polemical debate rather than encyclopedically informative). Rodgarton (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of paranormal category and wikiproject

User:Rodgarton writes that the paranormal "concerns non-psychological phenomena, unlike precognition". I can find no definition which supports this highly unconventional view of the paranormal, so I'm going to replace the category and wikiproject. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to look for a definition; the proof is in what wikipedia lists under "paranormal" - the likes of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, and so on. These phenomena do not mark out a psychological process or experience; which precognition does, in same way as, say, recollection. Forcing associations of precognition and like psychological (including parapsychological) processes/experiences with Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle betrays a less than encyclopedically informative motivation, no? Rodgarton 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)
Please provide a reliable source for the assertion that paranormal phenomena are non-psychological. The Wikipedia Category does not support this assertion at all. Please also Assume Good Faith. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The reliable source of the essential point is Wikipedia - there, the paranormal quite obviously concerns non-psychological phenomena, like Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, etc. It may seek to adopt some psychologically anomalistic phenomena, but that is clearly not intrinsic to its definition, given that the vast majority of its items are of these odd, "Fortean" phenomena. What is required is, on the contrary, a justification for including precognition - a psychological construct - in with the likes of Atlantis and the Bermuda Triangle. Constructs such as precognition were specifically marked out to distinguish them as objects of scientific, psychological (even if parapsychological) study in distinction to the naive and cultural fascinations of "Fortean" phenomena; precognition is not the same as "prophecy" or "soothsaying" or "divination", etc., which quite legitimately sit within the Paranormal pages. To attempt to push such attempts to mark out a scientific approach to such phenomena back under the banner of the paranormal is akin to suppressing astronomy in favor of astrology. A quote from an authority on this issue:

"Astrology, palmistry, Tarot-card reading and other systems of divination are not parapsychology, since they depend upon prescribed rules, rather than subjective insight, for interpreting patterns." - Rush, J. H. (1986). What is parapsychology? In H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer & J. H. Rush (Eds.), Foundations of Parapsychology (pp. 3-8). Boston, MA, US: Routledge (p. 6).

In other words, these are cultural practices but they are not psychological processes or constructs - i.e., they belong to the "paranormal", if anywhere, whereas "precognition" belongs to the parapsychological. We are missing a justification to the contrary. Rodgarton 05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been pressed to provide a source, and you've provided one RS which does not mention precognition (the Rush quote) and the other source is Wikipedia. Quite apart from the fact that Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, the Wikipedia category system does not claim that precognition and other psychic abilities are not paranormal- quite the opposite. Precognition is described as a paranormal ability in many secondary sources- do a Google Books search and see for yourself. Your attempt to privilege your own opinions over these sources constitutes original research. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MartinPoulter (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My original point concerned the paranormal as it is represented in Wikipedia, which is what the respondent is hoping to represent this article within; I can not be obliged to go beyond that as this is what the issue precisely concerns - i.e., representation of the precognition article within the family of Wikipedia's paranormal pages. I note no substantive comment addressing this concern, nor explicit justification for including this article within the house of Atlantis, Godzilla, Jedi telepaths, and so on, apart from appeals to "do a search". I present, next, definitions of precognition as given in various authoritative primary sources - from persons and organizations who have actually researched the construct, none of which mention the colorful and loaded term "paranormal"; only one of which even vaguely refers to the same. Please consult the cited references for extended discussion of this issue.
  • "Perception or awareness of [a] future event, apart from information or inference" (Saltmarsh, 1938, p. 119).
  • "Knowledge of the future, which is not based upon inference from knowledge of the past and present" (Saltmarsh, 1938, p. 3).
  • "Extra-sensory perception of an undetermined random future event" (Pratt, Rhine, Smith, Stuart, & Greenwood, 1940, p. 423).
  • "Foreseeing arbitrary events in the future that could not by any stretch of the imagination be inferred from the present" (West, 1962, p. 157).
  • "Knowledge of a future event which could not have been predicted or inferred by normal means" (Dale & White, 1977, p. 930).
  • "Correct prediction of future events when there is no way of inferring what those events will be from the present" (Tart, 1977, p. 46).
  • "Access to information that has not yet been determined, e.g., [an individual] appears able to “see into the future” through some direct means rather than through some process of rational inference" (Morris, 1978, pp. 8-9).
  • "Foreknowledge of a randomly occurring future event not based on inference from presently available data" (Eisenbud, 1982, p. 4).
  • "Situations in which, under psi-task conditions, an organism behaves as if it has information about … a future event" (Parapsychological Association, 1988, p. 353)

References

Dale, L. A., & White, R. A. (1977). Glossary of terms found in the literature of psychical research and parapsychology. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology (pp. 921-936). New York, NY, US: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Eisenbud, J. (1982). Paranormal foreknowledge. New York, NY, US: Human Sciences.

Morris, R. L. (1978). A survey of methods and issues in ESP research. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological Research (Vol. 2, pp. 7-58). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press.

Parapsychological Association. (1988). Terms and methods in parapsychological research. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 82, 353-357.

Pratt, J. G., Rhine, J. B., Smith, B. M., Stuart, C. E., & Greenwood, J. A. (1940). Extra-sensory perception after sixty years. New York, NY, US: Henry Holt.

Saltmarsh, H. F. (1938). Foreknowledge. London, UK: G. Bell.

Tart, C. T. (1977). Psi: Scientific studies of the psychic realm. New York, NY, US: Dutton.

West, D. J. (1962). Psychical research today. (2nd rev. ed.). London, UK: Penguin. Originally published 1954.

It looks to me like these quoted refs settle the issue of whether "ostensible" should be included in the definition. Since you're denying there are secondary sources which list precognition as a paranormal power, then I'll have to come back to this when I have time, but you could have just looked for yourself. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Here are the first relevant results of a Google Scholar search, as promised. There are of course many more:
  • "The entire body of existing evidence for precognition (paranormal knowledge of the future)..." [1]
  • "Among the seven Paranormal Belief subscales, only precognition and psi beliefs showed non-significant relationships..." [2]
  • "This questionnaire assesses the belief in various paranormal phenomena (like precognition, astrology, the existence of flying saucers..." [3]
  • "a small but significant correlation between narcissism and the paranormal beliefs of Psi and Precognition" [4]
  • "The paranormal section of the DDIS includes sixteen questions inquiring whether the subject has ever had any kind of supernatural experience, then asking specifically about mental telepathy, precognition..." [5]
  • "the mind either comes to be in the state it is in (knowledge, belief, etc.) by paranormal means (eg, precognition)..." [6]
  • "paranormal beliefs (beliefs in psi, witchcraft, spiritualism, precognition" [7]
  • "Is there a paranormal (precognitive) influence in certain types of perceptual sequences?" [8]
  • "each of 10 paranormal phenomena: out-of-body experiences, extraterrestrial visitation, reincarnation, precognition during dreams..." [9]
  • "Precognition is said to characterize the paranormal dream, as well as telepathy and clairvoyance, the two other forms of ESP" [10]
  • See also [11] (precognition labelled as a "paranormal knowledge claim")

Do you question these sources? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the two sets of quotes is between primary sources, and/or those authored by people and organisations who have actually researched the issue, versus, as the respondent describes them, secondary sources which - for the most part - deal precisely with defining the construct of "Paranormal belief", as investigated by questionnaires, which by definition concerns popular perceptions and beliefs about experiences - something which, one should reasonably expect, Wikipedia does not class its articles by when there are primary and authoritative sources from researchers of the construct amply available. Furthermore, it is not possible to find within these scales - and not, moreover, in the uses of the term "paranormal" in these papers - that the authors were intending to associate "precognition", or to qualify its understanding, with such phenomena as the Loch Ness Monster, the Bermuda Triangle, Big Foot, etc., which are the topics we find in Wikipedia's family of paranormal pages. This is the issue which I first posed, and which remains to be addressed by the respondent. As the context of my first edit should show, when I wrote of the paranormal concerning non-psychological phenomena, this was the paranormal as it is represented in the pages of Wikipedia, and with which the respondent is seeking to associate the construct of precognition - unlike any of the "secondary sources" he cites above. Again, the issue concerns the housing of an article that informs us about scientific effort to understand a particular construct alongside and within Wikipedia's family of "paranormal" exotica. There is a place in the Paranormal pages for constructs such as prophecy, divination, and so on, but, again, these are not precognition - which scientists have made particular efforts to treat and define as a scientific construct, not associated with paranormal exotica. It is unfortunate to see efforts to use Wikipedia to turn back the scientific efforts in this matter and restore the construct to the cultural and other-worldly. If quotes are still required, let me add another that well supersedes many of those listed above, coming from one of the authors who the respondent has himself cited, and from the concluding paragraph of an often-cited, comprehensive review of the theories of psi:

"One of the most exciting developments in the past two decades has been the growing realization that psi phenomena need not be in conflict with established laws of science" - Stokes, D. M. (1987). Theoretical parapsychology. In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (Vol. 5, pp. 77-190). Jefferson, NC, US: McFarland & Co. (p. 189).

The substantive issue I have raised remains to be addressed by the respondent, after several exchanges, and surely we must shortly assume that the association of precognition within Wikipedia's paranormal pages, alongside Nessie and Big Foot, can not be defended in the context of the arguments and points of fact I have raised, with respect to the content and intended neutrality of the article under discussion. Accordingly, this requires remediation, in the form that, by precedent, was given to the inappropriate Paranormal banner on an article conceptually and materially associated with the present article, viz., Displacement (parapsychology). Rodgarton 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
To reiterate, we cannot base Wikipedia articles on primary sources: that would be a violation of the No Original Research policy. (Not that I'm sure you're using the term "primary sources" in the correct way. Do secondary sources describe precognition as a paranormal topic? Yes they do, both directly and indirectly (via ESP) as has been shown above. That's all that matters: there is no case to answer in terms of Wikipedia policy about whatever other things are in the same topic. Your personal distaste at something being in the same category as Bigfoot does not override multiple reliable sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Precognition/Archive_1&oldid=1264851782"