The mega-publicity campaign* for Richard Wiseman’s newly-released skeptical book Paranormality: Why we see what isn’t there has kicked into full-swing, with his article/excerpt “Can Dreams Predict the Future” getting major coverage in the media (along with other material, such as “Things That Go Bump in the Night” at New Humanist). I had a few things to say about the piece, but then saw that Robert McLuhan, author of Randi’s Prize, has had his own response to Wiseman – titled “Precognitive Dreaming Should Not Be Dismissed as Coincidence” – posted by The Guardian (see also Robert’s original post on his own blog Paranormalia).
Wiseman elaborates on the “coincidence” theory that has been used to explain away precognitive dreams. We dream much more than we think, he points out, thus generating a jumble of different images. These are mostly forgotten, but one may be triggered by something we experience in the following days, leading us to suppose it “magically predicted the future”. In reality it is just the laws of probability at work.
…Sometimes the dream is recorded before the event, but this too may be coincidence. It would not be surprising, Wiseman points out, given that “dreams tend to be somewhat surreal” and tragedies are constantly taking place around the world.
However, 20 years spent studying psychic research has convinced me that the parapsychologists are right. Wiseman’s appeal to the Law of Large Numbers is arguably as subjective as the phenomena it attempts to explain. Where dreams are reported that match future events on a number of specific details – as is often the case – statistical probability is not particularly useful.
Robert’s conclusion is spot-on – he points out that there is not enough evidence either way to say with certainty whether the case for precognitive dreaming has been proven or debunked, and “to omit…positive findings makes this look less like an objective assessment of precognitive dreaming than just another attempt to explain it away… accounts that exclude relevant data and credible scientific research should be treated with caution.”
That sounds like a pretty sensible, truly skeptical position to take. But that’s not how it plays out in the comments section…in there you’ll find all kinds of nonsense about what Robert is supposedly saying, his worthiness to put forward an opinion, and how the commenter knows it’s all bunk (including that tired old chestnut, “how come it hasn’t won Randi’s million dollars?”).
So, in summary: Wiseman writes an article stating with certainty that something is disproven based on no evidence, and McLuhan posts a response suggesting caution in jumping to conclusions. And Robert McLuhan is the non-skeptical one? Sadly, an all-too-common state of affairs these days…
* Yes I know I’m facilitating the publicity by posting about it, and trust me – it does bother me.
