So what happened with that precognition experiment?

Back in 2010, I posted about an intriguing study that got a lot of attention as an apparently sound piece of research demonstrating precognitive ability. At the time, everyone agreed that the proof would lie in replication (as it does for any research), and the researcher made available all the details needed to replicate his study.


Ritchie SJ, Wiseman R, French CC (2012) Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033423


Science: practising it, understanding it, communicating it

My next blog post will return to the main purpose of this site, I promise! But today I amused myself by processing all the articles I'd gathered under the broad label of "science communication". At some point, this may form part of a small section of the site on scientific literacy. In the meantime, some of you may find my collection of links interesting. Feel free to add any other relevant links in the comments! [Do note that this collection are just articles that washed up on my shores, that I thought interesting enough to dump in a file.

tags study: 

Science reporting sometimes makes me despair

A brief addendum to my previous blog post. A press release has just come into my inbox that I feel impelled to comment on, as an example of where science communication so often goes wrong.

This is the headline: US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research.


Evidence of the future affecting the present: discussions on what constitutes scientific evidence

Here’s a very cool study: wackily deciding to reverse the normal order of some standard psychology experiments, a researcher has found evidence in eight experiments of future actions or events influencing behavior.


The precognition paper is available as a preprint at