Cornell University Experiment Proves That Psychic Phenomena or Real Phenomena Ex
According to foreign media reports, scientist Daryl Bem conducted a magical verification experiment in 2010 to demonstrate whether humans possess "psychic abilities." The experimental results seemed to prove that humans have the ability to predict the future and identify keywords that will appear. However, psychologists from the University of Hertfordshire and University College London, who are now studying "psychic phenomena," attempted to replicate the experimental process but found little evidence, which may be a statistical coincidence. Nevertheless, they believe the biggest question with "psychic experiments" is how we should face startling and shocking results.
The process of "psychic experiments" was mentioned in an academic paper published by Cornell University: Participants in the test, who could "predict the future," were asked to write down a series of words beforehand. These keywords would appear in a second list later. Before the second list was revealed, they actually knew what would happen in the future. Obviously, such tests were conducted strictly, with the aim of proving whether the testers could predict the future, using recall to verify their predictive abilities. This paper was published in the journal "Personality and Social Psychology" and sparked skepticism among many psychologists who did not believe the results.
Psychologist Richard Wiseman from the University of Hertfordshire and psychologist Christopher French from University College London set up a counter-experiment involving 50 testers based on the results of the paper. Wiseman mentioned in the original research records: "It's like you study a test, and you personally experience it, and then study it afterward, which gives you a better response to such a test." This is why we were surprised by the research results from Cornell University. We did not find convincing "psychic evidence" in the counter-experiment, but their experimental results could also be a statistical coincidence.
Therefore, explanations for "psychic phenomena" are sometimes misunderstood. Although the truth remains unknown, science has not yet found strong evidence to support "psychic phenomena." In the initial test research, Daryl Bem's testers saw 48 English words displayed on a computer screen, and then they were asked to write down as many remembered words as possible. Then, 24 of these words were randomly sampled and appeared again. The testers were asked to repeat the first step. After analyzing the experimental results, Daryl Bem found that the testers could predict the words that would appear, suggesting the ability to predict the future.
Daryl Bem published his research and methods, encouraging other researchers to replicate his results. The computer random sampling program involved in the experiment was also uploaded online. In subsequent research, Daryl Bem believed that more experiments were needed. Although the computer-based random sampling was designed to reduce errors or interference from certain factors on the experimental results, he also suggested that researchers maintain a skeptical attitude to avoid inadvertently influencing the experimental results. This does not mean that the experimental results were verified through independent investigations, but we must recognize that there is a variable in the testers participating in the experiment, which should be considered when designing the experiment.
Psychologist Richard Wiseman found some problems with the "psychic experiments" in the verification experiment. The relevant journal decided to publish the results of the counter-experiment, but Wiseman believed that the biggest problem with "psychic experiments" is how to face startling and shocking results, showing little interest in the results of repetitive verification experiments. This debate over the "psychic experiment" predicting the future also reveals how scientists usually conduct research and the publication process of academic journals in publishing research results. Even if we do not believe that predicting the future is real, the question itself and the process of discussing the question are very worth learning from.