Editing Precognition

{{short description|Paranormal sight of the future}}
{{For|the law|Precognition (Scots law)}}
{{use British English|date=July 2020}}
{{Paranormal}}

'''Precognition''' (from the [[Latin]] {{lang|la|prae-}} 'before', and {{lang|la|cognitio}} 'acquiring knowledge') is the purported [[psychic]] phenomenon of [[sight|seeing]], or otherwise becoming directly aware of, events in the future.

There is no accepted scientific evidence that precognition is a real effect, and it is widely considered to be [[pseudoscience]].<ref name=":0" /> Precognition violates the principle of [[causality]], that an effect cannot occur before its cause.<ref name=":1" />

Precognition has been widely believed in throughout history. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people believe it to be real; it is still widely reported and remains a topic of research and discussion within the [[parapsychology]] community.

==Precognitive phenomena==
Precognition is sometimes treated as an example of the wider phenomenon of prescience or foreknowledge, to understand by any means what is likely to happen in the future. It is distinct from premonition, which is a vaguer feeling of some impending disaster. Related activities such as predictive [[prophecy]] and [[fortune telling]] have been practised throughout history.

Precognitive [[dream]]s are the most widely reported occurrences of precognition.<ref name="inglis"/> Usually, a dream or vision can only be identified as precognitive after the putative event has taken place. When such an event occurs after a dream, it is said to have "broken the dream".<ref>Inglis (1985), p.89</ref><ref>Wyndham Lewis; "You Broke My Dream", ''The Wild Body: A Soldier of Humour and Other Stories'', Chatto and Windus, London, 1927.</ref>[[File:'Joseph's Dream', painting by Gaetano Gandolfi, c. 1790.jpg|thumb|"Joseph's Dream", a painting by [[Gaetano Gandolfi]], c. 1790. According to the [[Book of Genesis]], God granted [[Joseph (Genesis)|Joseph]] precognition through prophetic dreams and the ability to interpret the dreams of others.]]

=== In religion ===
In [[Judaism]] it is believed that dreams are mostly insignificant while others "have the potential to contain prophetic messages".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Freedman |first1=Rabi Dr Moshe |title=Do our dreams have any meaning? |url=https://www.thejc.com/judaism/features/do-our-dreams-have-any-meaning-1.430516 |website=thejc.com |date=12 January 2017 |publisher=The Jewish Chronicle |access-date=25 January 2022}}</ref> Others hold that dreams have meaning, and bad dreams require [[Dream amelioration|amelioration]]. According to the [[Book of Genesis]], God granted [[Joseph (Genesis)|Joseph]] precognition through prophetic dreams and the ability to interpret the dreams of others.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lang |first=Bernhard |title=Joseph in Egypt: A Cultural Icon from Grotius to Goethe |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-300-15156-5 |pages=23}}</ref>

Precognition has a role in [[Buddhism]] with dreams believed to be 'mind-created phenomena'. Those dreams which 'warn of impending danger or even prepare us for overwhelming good news" are considered the most important.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sri Dhammananda |first1=K |title=Dreams and their Significance |url=https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/321.htm |website=www.budsas.org |publisher=Buddhist Study and Practice Group |access-date=8 February 2022}}</ref>

==History==
Throughout history it has been believed that certain individuals have precognitive abilities, or that certain practices can induce such experiences, and these visions have sometimes been associated with important historical events.<ref name="inglis" /> Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people still believe in precognition.<ref name="Priestley1964" /><ref>Peake, Anthony; ''The Labyrinth of Time'', Arcturus, 2012, Chapter 10: "Dreams and precognition".</ref>  A poll in 2005 showed 73% of Americans believe in at least one type of paranormal experience, with 41% believing in [[extrasensory perception]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Moore |first1=David W |title=Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx |website=www.news.gallup |date=16 June 2005 |publisher=Gallup Inc. |access-date=8 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=van der Linden |first1=Sander |title=How Come Some People Believe in the Paranormal? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-come-some-people-believe-in-the-paranormal/ |website=www.scientificamerican.com |publisher=Scientific American |access-date=8 February 2022}}</ref>

===Antiquity===
Since ancient times precognition has been associated with [[dream]]s and [[trance]] states as well as waking premonitions, giving rise to acts of prophecy and fortune telling.  [[Oracle]]s, originally seen as sources of wisdom, became progressively associated with previsions of the future.<ref name="inglis">Inglis (1986), Chapter on "Precognition"</ref>

Such claims of seeing the future have never been without their sceptical critics. [[Aristotle]] carried out an inquiry into allegedly prophetic dreams in his ''[[On Divination in Sleep]]''. He accepted that "it is quite conceivable that some dreams may be tokens and causes [of future events]" but also believed that "most [so-called prophetic] dreams are, however, to be classed as mere [[coincidence]]s...". Where [[Democritus]] had suggested that emanations from future events could be sent back to the dreamer, Aristotle proposed that it was, rather, the dreamer's sense impressions which reached forward to the event.<ref>Aristotle. (350 BC). On Prophesying by Dreams.  [http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prophesying.html Trans. J.I. Beare], MIT. (Retrieved 5 September 2018).</ref>

===17th–19th centuries===
The term "precognition" first appeared in the 17th century but did not come into common use among investigators until much later.<ref name="inglis"/>

An early investigation into claims of precognition was published by the missionary Fr. P. Boilat in 1883. He claimed to have put an unspoken question to an African [[witch-doctor]] whom he mistrusted. Contrary to his expectations, the witch-doctor gave him the correct answer without ever having heard the question.<ref name="inglis"/>

===Early 20th century===
In the early 20th century [[J. W. Dunne]], a British soldier and aeronautics engineer, experienced several dreams which he regarded as precognitive. He developed techniques to record and analyse them, identifying any correspondences between his future experiences and his recorded dreams. He reported his findings in his 1927 book ''[[An Experiment with Time]]''. In it he alleges that 10% of his dreams appeared to include some element of future experience. He also persuaded some friends to try the experiment on themselves, with mixed results. He noted a strong cognitive bias in which subjects, including himself, were reluctant to ascribe their dream correspondences to precognition and determinedly sought alternative explanations.<ref>Dunne (1927), pp.62-3. "''The waking mind refuses point-blank to accept the association between the dream and the subsequent event. For it, this association is the wrong way round, and no sooner does it make itself perceived than it is instantly rejected. The intellectual revolt is automatic and extremely powerful.''"</ref> Dunne concluded that precognitive elements in dreams are common and that many people unknowingly have them.<ref name="dunne1927">Dunne (1927).</ref><ref>[[Antony Flew|Flew, Antony]]; "The Sources of Serialism'', in Shivesh Thakur (Ed). ''Philosophy and Psychical Research'', George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1976, pp. 81–96. {{ISBN|0-04-100041-2}}</ref> He suggested also that dream precognition did not reference future events of all kinds, but specifically the future experiences of the dreamer. He was led to this idea when he found that a dream of a volcanic eruption appeared to foresee not the disaster itself but his subsequent misreading of an inaccurate account in a newspaper.<ref name="dunne1927" /> 

[[Edith Lyttelton]], who became President of the [[Society for Psychical Research]] (SPR), regarded his theory as consistent with her own idea of the [[superconscious]].<ref>Lyttelton, Edith. ''Our Superconscious Mind''. Philip Allan. 1931.</ref> In 1932 he helped the SPR to conduct a more formal experiment, but he and the Society's lead researcher [[Theodore Besterman]] failed to agree on the significance of the results.<ref>Inglis (1986) p.92.</ref><ref>Dunne (1927), 3rd Edition, Faber, 1934, ''Appendix III: The new experiment''.</ref> Nevertheless, the Philosopher [[C. D. Broad]] remarked that, "The only theory known to me which seems worth consideration is that proposed by Mr. Dunne in his Experiment with Time."<ref>C. D. Broad; "The Philosophical Implications of Foreknowledge", ''Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes'', Vol. 16, Knowledge and Foreknowledge (1937), pp. 177–209</ref> ''An Experiment with Time'' was widely read and "undoubtedly helped to form something of the imaginative climate of [the interwar] years", influencing many writers of both fact and fiction both then and since.<ref>Anon; "Obituary: Mr. J. W. Dunne, Philosopher and Airman", ''The Times'', August 27, 1949, Page 7.</ref> According to Flieger, "Dunne's theory was so current and popular a topic that not to understand it was a mark of singularity."<ref>Flieger (1997) p.46.</ref> Major writers whose work was significantly influenced by his ideas on precognition in dreams and visions include [[H. G. Wells]], [[J. B. Priestley]] and [[Olaf Stapledon]].<ref>Flieger (1997) p.136.</ref><ref name="stewart">Stewart, V.; "J. W. Dunne and literary culture in the 1930s and 1940s", ''Literature and History'', Volume 17, Number 2, Autumn 2008, pp. 62–81, Manchester University Press.</ref> [[Vladimir Nabokov]] was also later influenced by Dunne.<ref>Vladimir Nabokov (ed. Gennady Barabtarlo); ''Insomniac Dreams: Experiments with Time'', Princeton University Press, 2018.</ref>

In 1932 [[Charles Lindbergh]]'s infant son was kidnapped, murdered and buried among trees. Psychologists [[Henry Murray]] and D. R. Wheeler used the event to test for dream precognition, by inviting the public to report any dreams of the child. A total of 1,300 dreams were reported. Only five per cent envisioned the child dead and only 4 of the 1,300 envisioned the location of the grave as amongst trees.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Murray | first1 = H. A. | last2 = Wheeler | first2 = D. R. | year = 1937 | title = A Note on the Possible Clairvoyance of Dreams | journal = Journal of Psychology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 309–313 | doi=10.1080/00223980.1937.9917500}}</ref>

The first ongoing and organised research program on precognition was instituted by husband-and-wife team [[Joseph Banks Rhine]] and [[Louisa E. Rhine]] in the 1930s at [[Duke University]]'s [[Rhine Research Center|Parapsychology Laboratory]]. J. B. Rhine used a method of forced-choice matching in which participants guessed the order of a deck of 25 cards, each five of which bore one of five geometrical symbols. Although his results were positive and gained some academic acceptance, his methods were later shown to be badly flawed and subsequent researchers using more rigorous procedures were unable to reproduce his results. His mathematics was sometimes flawed, the experiments were not double-blinded or even necessarily single-blinded and some of the cards to be guessed were so thin that the symbol could be seen through the backing.<ref>[[Harold Gulliksen]]. (1938). ''Extra-Sensory Perception: What Is It?''. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 623–634.</ref><ref>Wynn & Wiggins (2001), p. 156.</ref><ref>Hines (2003), pp. 78–81.</ref>

[[Samuel Soal|Samuel G. Soal]], another leading member of the SPR, was described by Rhine as one of his harshest critics, running many similar experiments with wholly negative results. However, from around 1940 he ran forced-choice ESP experiments in which a subject attempted to identify which of five animal pictures a subject in another room was looking at. Their performance on this task was at chance, but when the scores were matched with the card that came ''after'' the target card, three of the thirteen subjects showed a very high hit rate; Rhine now described Soal's work as "a milestone in the field".<ref name="colman">{{cite book|last=Colman|first=Andrew M.|title=Facts, Fallacies and Frauds in Psychology|publisher=Unwin Hyman|year=1988|pages=175–180|isbn=978-0-04-445289-8}}</ref> However analyses of Soal's findings, conducted several years later, concluded that the positive results were more likely the result of deliberate fraud.<ref name="hyman">Hyman (2007).</ref> The controversy continued for many years more.<ref name="colman" /> In 1978 the statistician and parapsychology researcher Betty Markwick, while seeking to vindicate Soal, discovered that he had tampered with his data.<ref name="hyman" /> The untainted experimental results showed no evidence of precognition.<ref name="colman" /><ref>Betty Markwick. (1985). ''The establishment of data manipulation in the Soal-Shackleton experiments''. In [[Paul Kurtz]]. ''A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 287–312. {{ISBN|0-87975-300-5}}</ref>

===Late 20th century===
As more modern technology became available, more automated techniques of experimentation were developed that did not rely on hand-scoring of equivalence between targets and guesses, and in which the targets could be more reliably and readily tested at random. In 1969 [[Helmut Schmidt (parapsychologist)|Helmut Schmidt]] introduced the use of high-speed random event generators (REG) for precognition testing, and experiments were also conducted at the [[Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab]].<ref name=Smee>{{cite journal |title=The lab that asked the wrong questions |journal=Nature |date=March 1, 2007 |first=Lucy |last=Odling-Smee |issue=7131 |pages=10–12 |doi=10.1038/446010a |volume=446 |pmid=17330012 |bibcode=2007Natur.446...10O |doi-access=free }}</ref> Once again, flaws were found in all of Schmidt's experiments, when the psychologist [[C. E. M. Hansel]] found that several necessary precautions were not taken.<ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel]]. (1980). ''ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Re-Evaluation''. Prometheus Books. pp. 222–232. Hansel found that in the experiments of Schmidt there was no presence of an observer or second-experimenter in any of the experiments, no counterchecking of the records and no separate machines used for high and low score attempts.</ref>

SF writer [[Philip K Dick]] believed that he had precognitive experiences and used the idea in some of his novels,<ref>{{cite book | last=LeGuin | first=Ursula K. | date=1984  | chapter=Science Fiction as Prophesy | editor1-last=Stine |editor1-first=J.C.| editor2-last=Marowski| editor2-first=D.G.| title=Contemporary Literary Criticism  |volume=30| location=Detroit, MI | publisher=Gale Research}}</ref> especially as a central plot element in his 1956 science fiction short story "[[The Minority Report]]"<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Kellman |editor-first=Steven G.| date= 2006|title=Magill's Survey of American Literature, Revised Edition| publisher=Salem Press | isbn=978-1587652851}}</ref>  and in his 1956 novel ''[[The World Jones Made]]''.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.fantasticfiction.com/d/philip-k-dick/world-jones-made.htm | title=The World Jones Made (195) A Novel by Philip K Dick | website=fantasticfiction.com | access-date=2019-12-05}}</ref>

In 1963 the [[BBC]] television programme ''Monitor'' broadcast an appeal by the writer [[J.B. Priestley]] for experiences which challenged our understanding of Time. He received hundreds of letters in reply and believed that many of them described genuine precognitive dreams.<ref>Inglis (1986) p.90.</ref><ref name="Priestley1964">Priestley (1964).</ref> In 2014 the BBC Radio 4 broadcaster [[Francis Spufford]] revisited Priestley's work and its relation to the ideas of J.W. Dunne.<ref>Francis Spufford, "[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04h7lr0 I Have Been Here Before]", ''Sunday Feature'', BBC Radio 3, 14 Sep 2014.</ref>

In 1965 G. W. Lambert, a former Council member of the SPR, proposed five criteria that needed to be met before an account of a precognitive dream could be regarded as credible:<ref>Inglis (1986), p.85</ref>
#The dream should be reported to a credible witness before the event.
#The time interval between the dream and the event should be short.
#The event should be unexpected at the time of the dream.
#The description should be of an event destined literally, and not symbolically, to happen.
#The details of dream and event should tally.

David Ryback, a psychologist in [[Atlanta]], used a questionnaire survey approach to investigate precognitive dreaming in college students during the 1980s.  His survey of over 433 participants showed that 290 or 66.9 per cent reported some form of paranormal dream.  He rejected many of these reports, but claimed that 8.8 per cent of the population was having actual precognitive dreams.<ref>Ryback, David, PhD. "Dreams That Came True". New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1988.</ref>

===21st century===
In 2011 the psychologist [[Daryl Bem]], a Professor Emeritus at [[Cornell University]], published findings showing statistical evidence for precognition in  the ''[[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]]''.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bem|first=DJ|title=Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|date=March 2011|volume=100|issue=3|pages=407–25|doi=10.1037/a0021524|pmid=21280961|s2cid=1961013 |url=http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf|access-date=2013-09-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120103233037/http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf|archive-date=2012-01-03|url-status=dead}}</ref> The paper was heavily criticised, and the criticism widened to include the journal itself and the validity of the [[peer review|peer-review]] process.<ref>[[James Alcock]], [http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/back_from_the_future ''Back from the Future: Parapsychology and the Bem Affair''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111231102646/http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/back_from_the_future |date=2011-12-31 }}, March/April 2011 [[Skeptical Inquirer]], January 6, 2011.</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-science-goes-psychic/when-peer-review-falters | work=The New York Times | title=Room for Debate: When Peer Review Falters | date=January 7, 2011}}</ref> In 2012, an independent attempt to reproduce Bem's results was published, but it failed to do so.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rouder | first1 = J. | last2 = Morey | first2 = R. | year = 2011 | title = A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem's ESP claim | url = https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2Fs13423-011-0088-7.pdf| journal = Psychonomic Bulletin & Review | volume = 18 | issue = 4| pages = 682–689 | doi=10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7| pmid = 21573926 | s2cid = 12355543 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Bem|first=Daryl|title=Response to Alcock's "Back from the Future: Comments on Bem"|url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_alcocks_back_from_the_future_comments_on_bem|date=6 January 2011|access-date=31 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Alcock|first=James|title=Response to Bem's Comments|url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_bems_comments|date=6 January 2011|access-date=31 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Galak | first1 = J. | last2 = LeBoeuf | first2 = R. A. | last3 = Nelson | first3 = L. D. | last4 = Simmons | first4 = J. P. | year = 2012 | title = Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi | url = https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=oid_papers| journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 103 | issue = 6| pages = 933–948 | doi=10.1037/a0029709 | pmid=22924750}}</ref><ref name=csicop.org>{{cite web|last=Frazier|first=Kendrick|date=2013|title=Failure to Replicate Results of Bem Parapsychology Experiments Published by Same Journal|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/failure_to_replicate_results_of_bem_parapsychology_experiments_published_by|publisher=csicop.org|access-date=7 August 2013|archive-date=23 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223080039/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/failure_to_replicate_results_of_bem_parapsychology_experiments_published_by|url-status=dead}}</ref> The widespread controversy led to calls for improvements in practice and for more research.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Franklin |first1=Michael S |last2=Baumgart |first2=Stephen L |last3=Schooler |first3=Jonathon W |title=Future dirctions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |year=2014 |volume=5 |page=907 |publisher=Frontiers Media SA |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00907 |pmid=25202289 |pmc=4141237 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Kim |first1=Alexander B |title=Psychologists confront impossible finding, triggering a revolution in the field |url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/psychologists-confront-impossible-finding-triggering-a-revolution-in-the-field-1.5344467 |website=www.cbc.ca |publisher=CBC |access-date=20 February 2022}}</ref>

==Scientific reception==
Claims of precognition are, like any other claims, open to scientific criticism. However, the nature of the criticism must adapt to the nature of the claim.<ref name="hyman217">Hyman (2007), page217.</ref>

===Pseudoscience===
Claims of precognition are criticised on three main grounds:
*There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition. It breaks temporal causality, in that the precognised event causes an effect in the subject prior to the event itself.
*The large body of experimental work has produced no accepted scientific evidence that precognition exists.
*The large body of anecdotal evidence can be explained by alternative psychological mechanisms.
Consequently, precognition is widely considered to be [[pseudoscience]].<ref name=":0">[[James Alcock|Alcock, James]]. (1981). ''Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective'' Pergamon Press. pp. 3–6. {{ISBN|978-0080257730}}</ref><ref>Zusne, Leonard; Jones, Warren H. (1989). ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking''. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 151. {{ISBN|978-0-805-80507-9}}</ref><ref>Ciccarelli, Saundra E; Meyer, Glenn E. ''Psychology''. (2007). Prentice Hall Higher Education. p. 118. {{ISBN|978-0136030638}} "Precognition is the supposed ability to know something in advance of its occurrence or to predict a future event."</ref>

===Violation of causality===
Precognition would violate the principle of antecedence ([[causality]]); that is, that an effect does not happen before its cause.<ref>[[Mario Bunge|Bunge, Mario]]. (1983). ''Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World''. Springer. pp. 225–226. {{ISBN|978-9027716347}}</ref><ref name="hyman217" /> Information passing backwards in time ([[retrocausality]]) would need to be carried by physical particles doing the same. Experimental evidence from high-energy physics suggests that this cannot happen. There is therefore no direct justification for precognition from a physics-based approach.<ref name=":1">[[John G. Taylor|Taylor, John]]. (1980). ''Science and the Supernatural: An Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena Including Psychic Healing, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, and Precognition by a Distinguished Physicist and Mathematician''. Temple Smith. p. 83. {{ISBN|0-85117-191-5}}.</ref>

Precognition would also contradict "most of the neuroscience and psychology literature, from electrophysiology and neuroimaging to temporal effects found in psychophysical research."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Schwarzkopf | first1 = Samuel | year = 2014 | title = We Should Have Seen This Coming | journal = Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | volume = 8 | page = 332 | pmc=4034337 | pmid=24904372 | doi=10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332| doi-access = free }}</ref>

===Lack of evidence===
A great deal of evidence for precognition has been put forward, both as witnessed anecdotes and as experimental results, but none has been accepted as rigorous scientific proof of the phenomenon. Even the most prominent pieces of evidence have been repeatedly rejected due to errors in those experiments as well as follow-on studies contradicting the original evidence. This suggests that the evidence was not valid in the first place.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fiedler |title=Afterthoughts on precognition: No cogent evidence for anomalous influences of consequent events on preceding cognition |journal= Theory & Psychology|date=26 April 2013 |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=323–333 |doi=10.1177/0959354313485504 |s2cid=145690989 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959354313485504?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles.3 |access-date=19 October 2021|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="ritchie">{{cite journal |last1=Ritchie |title=Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect |journal=PLOS ONE |date=14 March 2012 |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=e33423 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0033423 |pmid=22432019 |pmc=3303812 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...733423R |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Alternative explanations===
Various known psychological processes have been put forward to explain experiences of apparent precognition. These include:

* [[Coincidence]], where apparent instances of precognition in fact arise from the [[law of truly large numbers]].<ref>[[Richard Wiseman|Wiseman, Richard]]. (2011). ''Paranormality: Why We See What Isn't There''. Macmillan. pp. 163-167. {{ISBN|978-0-230-75298-6}}</ref><ref>[[Stuart Sutherland|Sutherland, Stuart]]. (1994). ''Irrationality: The Enemy Within''. pp. 312–313. Penguin Books. {{ISBN|0-14-016726-9}}</ref>
* [[Self-fulfilling prophecy]] and unconscious enactment, where people unconsciously bring about events which they have previously imagined.{{citation needed|date=February 2022|reason=not necessarily unconsciously}}
* [[subliminal stimuli|Unconscious perception]], where people unconsciously infer, from data they have unconsciously learned, that a certain event will probably happen in a certain context. When the event occurs, the former knowledge appears to have been acquired without the aid of recognised channels of information.{{citation needed|date=February 2022|reason=no specific precognitive recollection}}
* [[Retrofitting]], which involves the false interpretation of a past record of a dream or vision, in order to match it to a recent event. Retrofitting provides an explanation for the supposed accuracy of [[Nostradamus]]'s vague predictions. For example, quatrain I:60 states "A ruler born near Italy...He's less a prince than a butcher."  The phrase "near Italy" can be construed as covering a very broad range of geography, while no details are provided by Nostradamus regarding the era when this ruler will live.   Because of this vagueness, and the flexibility of retrofitting, this quatrain has been interpreted by some as referring to [[Napoleon]], but by others as referring to the [[Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor|Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II]], and by others still as a reference to [[Hitler]].<ref name="Nickell SI 2019">{{cite journal |last1=Nickell |first1=Joe |title=Premonition! Foreseeing what cannot be seen. |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=2019 |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=17–20}}</ref>
*False memories, such as [[identifying paramnesia]] and [[List of memory biases|memory biases]], where the memory of a non-existent precognitive event is formed after the real event has occurred.<ref name="hines">Hines (2003).</ref> Where subjects in a dream experiment have been asked to write down their dreams in a diary, this can prevent selective memory effects such that the dreams no longer seem accurate about the future.<ref>{{cite book|last=Alcock|first=James E. |title=Parapsychology: Science or Magic?: a psychological perspective| publisher=Pergamon Press|location=Oxford |year=1981|isbn=978-0-08-025773-0}} via Hines (2003).</ref> 
* [[Déjà vu]], where people experience a false feeling that an identical event has occurred previously. Some recent authors have suggested that déjà vu and identifying paramnesia are the same thing.<ref>"[https://www.britannica.com/science/memory-abnormality/Paramnesia-and-confabulation paramnesia and confabulation]", ''Britannica'' (retrieved 14 February 2022).</ref> This view is not universally held, with others instead treating them as distinct phenomena.<ref>Herman N. Sno (1991); "[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20910707_The_deja_vu_experience_Remembrance_of_things_past The deja vu experience: Remembrance of things past?]", ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' 147(12):1587-95. DOI:10.1176/ajp.147.12.1587</ref>

Psychological explanations have also been proposed for belief in precognition. [[Psychologist]]s have conducted experiments which are claimed to show that people who feel loss of control in their lives will turn to belief in precognition, because it gives them a sense of regaining control.<ref name="Greenaway Louis Hornsey 2013 p=e71327">{{cite journal | last1=Greenaway | first1=Katharine H. | last2=Louis | first2=Winnifred R. | last3=Hornsey | first3=Matthew J. | editor-last=Krueger | editor-first=Frank | title=Loss of Control Increases Belief in Precognition and Belief in Precognition Increases Control | journal=PLOS ONE | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=8 | issue=8 | date=7 August 2013 | issn=1932-6203 | pmid=23951136 | pmc=3737190 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0071327 | page=e71327| bibcode=2013PLoSO...871327G | doi-access=free}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience]]
* [[Oneiromancy]]: Divination using dreams.
* [[Remote viewing]]
* [[Retrocognition]]: Direct knowledge of past events at which one was not present.
* [[Third eye]]: Organ of mystical vision.

==References==
===Notes===
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
*{{cite book | last = Dunne | first = J. W. | author-link = J. W. Dunne | title = An Experiment With Time | publisher = A. C. Black | year = 1927 }}
*[[Verlyn Flieger|Flieger, Verlyn]]; ''A Question of Time: JRR Tolkien's Road to Faërie'', Kent State University Press, 1997.
*{{cite book|author=Hines, Terence|title=Pseudoscience and the Paranormal|publisher=Prometheus Books|year=2003|isbn=978-1-57392-979-0|author-link=Terence Hines}}
*{{cite book |last=Hyman |first=Ray|editor=Robert J. Sternberg |editor2=Henry L. Roediger |editor3=Diane F. Halpern |title=Critical Thinking in Psychology |year=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-60834-3 |pages=219–223 |chapter=Evaluating Parapsychological Claims}}
*[[Brian Inglis|Inglis, Brian.]] (1986). ''The Paranormal: An Encyclopedia of Psychic Phenomena''. Paladin (Grafton) 1986. (1st Edition Granada 1985)
*[[J. B. Priestley|Priestley, J.B.]] ''Man and Time''. Aldus 1964, 2nd Edition Bloomsbury 1989.
*Wynn, Charles M., and Wiggins, Arthur W. (2001). ''Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins''. Joseph Henry Press. {{ISBN|978-0-309-07309-7}}

==Further reading==
{{EB1911 poster|Premonition}}
*[[Chris French]]. (2012). [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications "Precognition Studies and the Curse of the Failed Replications"]. ''The Guardian''.
*[[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]]. (2000). ''[[The Psychology of the Psychic]]'' (2nd Edition). Prometheus Books. {{ISBN|1-57392-798-8}}

{{Parapsychology}}

[[Category:Paranormal terminology]]
[[Category:Parapsychology]]
[[Category:Prophecy]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Psychic powers]]
[[Category:Spiritual faculties]]