Ordinary people can predict the future?

<div> <p> researcher from Cornell University argues that opened people's ability to predict the future.</p> <p> </p> <p> scientist said about the possibility of predicting buduschegoStatya Daryl Bem published in the journal Psychological Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and its preprint (version that can in minor details differ from the final) is available to everyone.Bem claims that they spent no more and no experiential small- break the causal link.</p> <p> <b> Greetings from the future?</b> </p> <p> Thus, in one of several experiments described subjects were screened image of a wall with two curtains.Under one of them (under what imenno- chosen randomly) was erotic photography, and under the other had nothing.From the point of view of the theory of probability the percentage of hits on the pictures had to be equal to 50%, but in a series of a hundred participants and 36 attempts on the human right answers proved more- 53.1%.</p> <p> In another experiment, participants showed a series of photographs and asked them to rate on a scale of "nravitsja do not like", and then (once the assessment was made) to 1/30 second screened word beautiful (beautiful) or ugly (ugly)selected at random.Processing of the results showed that those pictures, after which followed the show word ugly, estimated lower than it receives the opposite epithet.<div><center> <script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> <!-- tipings --> <ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:336px;height:280px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4235477045164216" data-ad-slot="4216162687"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </center></div></p> <p> similarly tested the effect of images, displayed after the test was evaluated a couple of images.In these experiments, which also was attended by hundreds of participants, also found more than strange effekty- somehow participants gave answers, it is extremely unlikely in terms of probability theory!</p> <p> Tahiony- particles moving faster than light.We considered some physical theories, there is no currently accepted in the Standard Model.How could they ensure full second winning arrow is not very clear, but it would be strange to seek full compliance fiction did not confirm the theory!In the above work, by the way, the knowledge of the immediate future does not help the hero: </p> <p> <b> And it played?</b> </p> <p> must set an important question - whether it was possible to repeat the experiment somewhere else?After all, for example, the flight of David Copperfield is not a reason to talk about the opening of an anti-gravity, as well as many spectacular tricks at first sight, too, violate all conceivable laws of physics.However, the science and the science of the fact that it to study the phenomenon of small single case.</p> <p> playback results Bema ambiguous picture.On the one hand, he refers to two studies, one of which confirmed the confidence of at least one of the experiments, Bem (the other came exactly the 50% "predicted" the choice of images, which are put on the theory of probability).On the other hand, scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and California (Berkeley), has submitted its report on the attempt to play - the result is negative.</p> <p> It does not put an end to the works of Bema (in the end, and in a much more "traditional" fields is not always played the opening - a virus of fatigue, for example, many groups could not find), but makes at least wait for the statement of the form "scientists proved the existence of the paranormal. "</p> <p> However, we note one more important detail: not found Bem described the effect of two scientists used an online test.According to Bem, it's pretty unreliable rebuttal - sitting at home in front of screen, participants can be distracted by anything.Critics of Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon admit it and say they are going to check everything again.What was it?</p> <p> Assuming that the results are correct in its essence (Bem, unlike some dilettantes, at least even conducted experiments, the scheme which allows then to conduct some scientific discussion), we turn to the hypotheses that are put forward in the pages of his article.</p> <p> Firstly, Bohm suggests, participants could somehow completely unexplored way to get information from the future.Exactly how modern science can not say, because no well-known phenomenon that is does not give instructions for the transfer of information from the future into the past.</p> <p> Second, participants could equally incomprehensible way to read information directly from the computer.This though does not give such a profound upheaval in the scientific picture of the world is also very strange - not only do not understand how a person could do such a thing, so more difficult to answer the question: "How did you manage to decode information from the computer's memory?"</p> <p> Third, participants can unconsciously affect the operation of a program that uses a random number generator.This hypothesis could, by the way, eat a series of experiments that are put on for nearly three decades, Princeton University (Laboratory of Robert Jan), but the problem is that the ability to reliably prove the unconscious influence on random processes and failed.Laboratory Ian was closed due to the sheer futility.</p> <p> fourth possible explanation, which is given in the article Bem - nothing extraordinary was not just a random number generator in the program I was not very good.Any random numbers that are generated by software, in fact, a pseudorandom.It is possible that the participants really just guessed some regularity in the program, from which any deviation in statistics.</p> <p> Beyond the original article is the question of integrity and care Bem (number of previous experiments in parapsychology a careful analysis of proved fraud by experimenters, their assistants or participants), but here it should be noted that even view the results of the scientist as a "wild"(ridiculous) are not immediately significant flaws in the experiments.</p> <p> After processing the results of this is not very serious but amusing survey found that the percentage of correct description was disappointingly low - with the same success could give random answers.</p> <p> Joachim Krueger, a professor of psychology from Brown University (USA), plainly says that does not believe in the results of the Bema, but it still does not understand what it is that is wrong in his experiments.So the story is definitely worth to follow.<br> </p> <p> Photo source: gzt.ru </p> <p> Articles Source: gzt.ru </p> </div>