Is precognition the only form of psi?

I've heard two Skeptiko guests in the past, Eric Wargo and Ed May, both try to explain away at least some kinds of micro PK as being nothing but precognition. And both went further to imply that it could explain some survival evidence as well, but in the forum discussions that followed it's apparent this ideas have all sorts of holes thru them. Here are the discussions with links to the interviews as well provided in the thread OPs: 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...xcNo4ca_1G

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...U3HftYLyKt

I guess my question is, why come to this kind of theory? It seems a crazy stretch to me.

There's a bit of discussion here:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-wa...tion-study

It seems a very difficult theory to falsify, and I'm not sure what advantages it has.

It seems a very difficult theory to falsify.

I don't think that's so.

The problem is that PSI is often expressed in terms of acquisition of factual information. That is a flawed and inadequate description, which leads to absurd theories.

I've already described in other threads how reincarnation is not related to factual information, it is about a state of being. Hence super-psi whether in the form of precognition or not, would fail to explain reincarnation.

In more everyday experiences of what might be considered telepathic contact, again it is very often not facts which are transmitted, but a sharing of strong emotions, such as love or anger or distress, and also often (but not always) accompanied by a sense of the identity of the other party. These things are difficult, if not unethical, to test in a laboratory setting, hence tend to be ignored by researchers conducting tests into psi. When I say sharing, this doesn't mean having prior knowledge of some emotion which will be experienced later, that would be an absurd and incorrect description.

When I say sharing, this doesn't mean having prior knowledge of some emotion which will be experienced later, that would be an absurd and incorrect description.

Of course, it could be argued that some of Dean Radin's experiments attempt to test for just such prior knowledge of a future event, in the form of an image which may generate an emotional response. This though is a very different type of scenario to the type of real-world scenario which I was referring to.

To give a real-world example from my own experience, years ago, before even the ordinary telephone was commonplace, letter-writing was a usual form of communication. One typical example is where I would write a letter to a sweetheart, and some time the following day (depending on the postal service) I would feel waves of warmth enveloping me, which would correspond with the point at which the letter was received and read. Another example around the letter-writing situation was when I would decide to re-establish contact with an old, almost forgotten friend. I'd write a letter, post it and the following day receive a letter from the other person, written and posted simultaneously with my own.

Both the above scenarios played out many times.

There are reports of much more significant, perhaps life-changing events, which have correspondingly greater emotional impact, where it is the emotional content which is the part which makes the person sit up (or wake up!) and take notice, perhaps with additional content, such as concern that a particular person was in some sort of trouble.

I don't think that's so.

The problem is that PSI is often expressed in terms of acquisition of factual information. That is a flawed and inadequate description, which leads to absurd theories.

I've already described in other threads how reincarnation is not related to factual information, it is about a state of being. Hence super-psi whether in the form of precognition or not, would fail to explain reincarnation.

In more everyday experiences of what might be considered telepathic contact, again it is very often not facts which are transmitted, but a sharing of strong emotions, such as love or anger or distress, and also often (but not always) accompanied by a sense of the identity of the other party. These things are difficult, if not unethical, to test in a laboratory setting, hence tend to be ignored by researchers conducting tests into psi. When I say sharing, this doesn't mean having prior knowledge of some emotion which will be experienced later, that would be an absurd and incorrect description.

The reason I think May's theory is difficult to falsify is that - if I understand correctly - the precognition can be "telepathic precognition" (in which the subject never perceives the target information) or even "clairvoyant precognition" (in which no one ever perceives it but it's stored electronically). Obviously unless the information is stored in some form it's difficult to verify that it has been perceived by the subject. Perhaps it could be done cryptographically. But I still don't understand the point of suggesting that everything can be explained in terms of precognition, when precognition is so broadly defined. If it were precognition of something later experienced by the subject, then I could see the point. But there are already experimental data that tend to falsify that idea.

The reason I think May's theory is difficult to falsify is that - if I understand correctly - the precognition can be "telepathic precognition" (in which the subject never perceives the target information) or even "clairvoyant precognition" (in which no one ever perceives it but it's stored electronically). Obviously unless the information is stored in some form it's difficult to verify that it has been perceived by the subject. Perhaps it could be done cryptographically. But I still don't understand the point of suggesting that everything can be explained in terms of precognition, when precognition is so broadly defined. If it were precognition of something later experienced by the subject, then I could see the point. But there are already experimental data that tend to falsify that idea.

Personally I think the reason such a theory would be pushed is because the individuals themselves are afraid of other people having telepathic or telekinetic abilities. It's the type of argument I've seen for many different things, gun control, government control, etc. Although the person doesn't actually explicitly say it, their overall argument and emotional attachments demonstrate it's because they are afraid of someone else having power that might get used against them. Generally these ideas seem to come from people with lower over all self esteem and self confidence.

PSI is the ultimate form of Self ownership, self reliance and general DIY living, it makes sense that it would be seen as an existential threat to people like that. That's at least what I've surmised.

It would seem I may have indirectly caused new interest in the case and May's paper, as Chris Carter and I have corresponded over email and now Vernon Neppe and company are writing a response to Ed's "alternative" in the coming weeks. And apparently they aren't very impressed by his criticisms

It would seem I may have indirectly caused new interest in the case and May's paper, as Chris Carter and I have corresponded over email and now Vernon Neppe and company are writing a response to Ed's "alternative" in the coming weeks. And apparently they aren't very impressed by his criticisms.

I'm really impressed by how much work you seem to do on all of this stuff.

I'm really impressed by how much work you seem to do on all of this stuff.

Well I always fear being biased to one side of an argument, so I'm pretty keen on seeking out answers to these skeptical "criticisms". If there are any