• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

J.P. VAN OVERSCHELDE, "PhD"

KRAMER

Former challenge facilitator
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,434
This application arrived with reams of paperwork, contrary to the specifications detailed in the Challenge rules. I will only post the 1st paragraph.

==============================================

Applicant: James P. Van Overschelde, PhD
Department of Psychology
University of Maryland

Paranormal Ability to be Demonstrated: Pre-Cognition, as defined below.

Introduction -

Judgements of Learning (JOLs) are defined as an individual's predictions of of future memory performance on recently studied items (usually word pairs) and they are genmerated after study and before testing (Nelson & Narens, 1994). The timing of the JOL, relative to the study of an item and recall of that item at test, is schematized in Fugure 1. JOLs have been the focus of much research not only in the field of cognitive psychology (Begg, Luft Lalonde, Melnick & Sanvito, 1898; Benjamin, Bjork & Schwartz, 1998; Dunlovsky & Matvey, 2001; Dunlovsky & Nelson, 1992; Mazzoni & Nelson; 1995), but also in developmental psychology (Schneider, Lockl, Vise & Nelson; 2002), aging (Dunlosky & Hertzog, 2000; Hertzog, Kidder, Powell-Moman & Dunlosky; 2002), and educational psychology (Keleman, 2000; Theided & Dunlosky: 1994). Although precognition appears to have been shown in the literature (Koriat, 1997: Experiment 2),
to my knowledge, no prior research has used this experimental methodology to demonstrate precognition.

Figure 1. Temporal Schematic of a Typical JOL Experiment...


=============================================

Dear Dr. Overschelde,

We are in receipt of your JREF Challenge application. However, please refer to the Challenge rules for a full detailing of what I will paraphrase here for you, as follows:

It states clearly in the rules that the JREF requests that applicants "...not burden us with theories and hypothesis".
It also states clearly that "a brief, 2-sentence description of your claim" is all that is required. We have no intention whatsoever of reading the volumes you have forwarded to us.

Send us a claim letter that adheres to the Challenge rules and at that point we will consider your claims.
 
Don't Blink or you'll Miss It

Hi Kramer,

I know you said you have not yet read the application I sent, but if you do get a chance to do so, you will notice that no theories or hypotheses are included in it.

You are completely right about my application lacking "a brief, 2-paragraph description of the claim". In my desire to thoroughly address Rule #1, the "primary and most important" rule, I failed to address the last rule also. However, in contrast to your email below, the application does not state clearly that the "brief 2-paragraph description is ALL that is required" (see Rule #1 & 12).

At this point in time I withdraw my application. Please destroy my application and supporting materials. I have decided to use the traditional scientific publication route to communicate this effect. My apology for wasting your time.

Best wishes,

Jim


==============================================

Woof! That was mercifully brief.
 

Back
Top Bottom