A psychologist in Britain has finished a study that provides the first scientific proof that psychic powers actually exist.
While some will claim the results of the study by Professor Daryl Bem could come down to chance, the mathematic probability of his findings being a statistical fluke are one in 74 billion.
via Proof we all have psychic powers | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au
The study referred to in this article is hardly the “first scientific proof” of psi ability. Hundreds or even thousands of studies have been done before that produce results like these. I recently read a book called Entangled Minds which referenced many such studies. The thing about psi research is that while results are not what you would call good in terms of impressing someone with your psychic skills, they are consistently much better than would be expected by random chance. The question is not whether we have access to information from sources other than the five traditional senses, but rather how and how we can improve our reception and interpretation of that information.
So while psychic powers may exist, evidently research powers are in short supply at news.com.au. I was vaguely amused by the article We’re sorry for claiming Captain Kirk was in command of Captain Picard’s starship, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek apology to Star Trek fans for getting some facts wrong in an earlier article. This didn’t make them feel the need to double check that things were correct in the apology article, however. I noticed at least one big mistake (Enterprise E is not Galaxy class) that they repeated more than once, and commenters were quick to point out others. Now on the one hand, yes, it’s Star Trek, it’s fiction: it’s not world shattering if they make a mistake (or few) about some details. On the other hand, they’re a major commercial news publication, and they should be able to be relied upon to get things correct – especially such easily verifiable details. I’m not sure if the further errors in the apology were intended as part of the humourous rebuff to the obviously passionate and indignant response they got from Trekkies about the original mistakes or if they were geniune additional errors. Either way, it has to make you wonder what is going through the minds of those journalists. One explanation means that they were intentionally provoking readers who have already demonstrated that they won’t tolerate errors about their favourite show; the other rather ironically highlights their incompetence in that they do not even get the facts correct in an article about getting the facts correct.
I guess this is why I don’t usually use news.com.au as my preferred source of news.