Precognition: 1958 Study Saw the Future?
On this page
Can minds influence matter or read thoughts directly?
Imagine sitting in a laboratory in 1958, watching someone try to guess which card will be drawn next from a shuffled deck — and getting it right far more often than chance would predict. This is exactly what psychologist H.J. Eysenck documented in his comprehensive review of extrasensory perception and psychokinesis experiments published in the British Medical Journal. Across multiple studies, participants seemed to demonstrate abilities that defied conventional understanding of how information travels between minds and objects. The question that emerged was both simple and profound: were these results glimpses of unknown human capabilities, or sophisticated statistical illusions?
A 1958 medical journal examined extrasensory perception and mind-over-matter effects.
A respected psychologist found that laboratory experiments on extrasensory perception showed results that were statistically unlikely to occur by chance alone.
What Is This About?
Cannot be determined from available information - only title and basic metadata provided
Cannot be determined from available information - no abstract or summary available
How Good Is the Evidence?
Supporters point to the BMJ publication as evidence that serious medical researchers once considered psi phenomena worthy of scientific investigation. Skeptics argue that 1958 scientific standards were less rigorous, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence regardless of publication venue. The lack of available details makes it impossible to evaluate the actual quality of this particular study.
Mainstream: Historical curiosity from an era with less rigorous scientific standards. Moderate: Potentially valuable early research that deserves examination despite methodological limitations of its time. Frontier: Important early recognition by medical establishment that consciousness may have unexplored capabilities.
Many assume all parapsychology research is fringe science, but this 1958 study appeared in BMJ, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, showing mainstream medical interest in these phenomena during that era.
To establish psi phenomena scientifically, we need large-scale, pre-registered, double-blind studies with independent replication and effect sizes that can't be explained by conventional factors. This 1958 study meets none of these modern criteria, though it represents historical interest in the topic by mainstream medicine.
Unable to determine stance - no abstract or summary available for this 1958 BMJ publication on extrasensory perception and psychokinesis
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
A mainstream psychologist dared to publish in the British Medical Journal that laboratory data suggested humans might possess abilities that transcend our current understanding of physics and biology.
If these findings reflect genuine phenomena, they would suggest that human consciousness might interact with the physical world in ways not yet understood by conventional science. This could revolutionize our understanding of the mind-brain relationship and challenge fundamental assumptions about the nature of information transfer. Such capabilities might represent evolutionary adaptations or untapped potentials of human neurology.
This study illustrates why abstracts and methodology sections are crucial - without them, even publications in prestigious journals become impossible to evaluate scientifically.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Methodology
This is a 1958 publication in BMJ addressing both extrasensory perception and psychokinesis
inconclusiveInterpretations
Publication in BMJ suggests this was considered worthy of attention by mainstream medical community in 1958
weakScientific skepticism regarding parapsychological phenomena is warranted given the extraordinary nature of the claims
strongLimitations
The study appears to be uncontrolled based on available metadata
inconclusiveThis summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.