{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03395311236863379, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012934518997574777, 'mean_word_length': 5.009708737864078, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
We Knew the Future All Along

Daryl Bem’s 2011 article “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) reported evidence of precognition. Publication of this article illustrates the lack of adherence to journal standards, and anticipates the decline of psychological science. In this article, I will inspire a course correction to assert and affirm the field's treasured practices. A prominent prior critique focuses on supposed errors in data analysis by Bem and everyone else (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). These Bayesians completely miss the boat (but see Kievit, 2011). They take priors so seriously. All my priors are a bunch of deadbeats, losers, and ne'er do wells. I don't want anything to do with them, so I certainly won't be accounting for them in my new pursuits. The real failure in publication of Bem (2011) is that journal editors and reviewers did not follow the core evaluation standards for scientific review—the advancement of novel theory and evidence. What is new in the Bem article? Nothing. Bem's precognition article is a weak replication of a well-established phenomenon.