The help of psychics have been sought out by many to explain to them some interesting and mysterious happenings in their life. Psychic readings by phone have increased in popularity as many people want to stay in the comfort of their homes while talking with psychics. There also has been a lot of debate going on around trying to prove whether psychic abilities really do exist or not.
Various articles have been published through text books or in the internet that give proof that psychic abilities do exist. However, there are also studies that refute this claim. If you are an advocate of psychics, this will perhaps be a bad news for you. However, continue to read this article so that you will gain insight on how the other faction is solidifying their case against the realm of psychic powers.
There is a new study that refutes the work published in a psychological journal which claimed that there is evidence of extrasensory perception. The research was conducted by Daryl Bem of Cornell University. The controversial study of Bem triggered outrage among psychologists when the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology announced publicly in 2010 that Bem’s paper had been accepted and will be officially published in the esteemed journal. Many psychologists immediately got hold of the statistics and proof that were published by Bem and tried to reason out how the researcher might have come up with such unbelievable result.
What is the real key to a scientific finding? The secret key is reproducibility. If there are no other researchers who can replicate the exact result then it is likely to be unreal.
The new research aiming to refute the findings of Bem chose the strongest positive finding in Bem’s publication. In this chosen experiment, the participants in Bem’s experiment were able to reverse the usual cause and effect sequence in time. A list of 48 words was presented and participants were asked to memorize and write down as many words as they remembered. The memory test result showed that the participants were likely to recall those that they had seen again compared to those that were not part of the later exercise list. Bem and his colleague’s conclusion was that it was as if they could see the future.
However, when this same experimented was conducted, the researchers found nothing. Thus, they refuted the work of Bem and his colleagues.