Mother's premonition of her sons death...

Please note that the law of large numbers refers to the results of a large number of trials (that the results will convergence on the expected values), and isn't really relevant as to whether an individual event is probable or improbable, so I don't think it's use to dismiss an uncanny match (like in the Shermer article) is valid.

Some strong premonitions also show an uncanny match. But parapsychology research has shown that at least some uncanny matches happen in the absence of anything psi-like. I'm interested in finding a way to distinguish between strong premonitions which are due to something psi-like and those which are not. Telling stories about strong premonitions with and without uncanny matches may help with this.

Linda

Thank you for an intelligent and very well thought out response Max. The quality of the postings on this forum prompted me to join. I am on a personal journey to learn the field of parapsychology, and still have much to learn. You have provided an amazing glimpse into the workings of the sub-conscious mind. (I almost prefer to say para-conscious, because the word sub almost seems inappropriate). Our awake conscious mind works at such a low level, it seems reasonable the event based objectivity would create an imprint into a higher level mind. We only see in 3 dimensions, we experience a very limited range of emotions, we are sensitive to heat and cold. In the deeper mind, the sky is almost always the limit. The only exception is the interference from the conscious mind. If I understand your post correctly, you stated the pre-cognition can indeed occur under certain circumstances. I would agree. I have done some research regarding repeatability, and find it to be baseless. Anomalies such as what may have occurred to this woman in regards to her son should be looked into as valid, as opposed to writing it off simply because it cannot be duplicated. Every situation is special, for lack of a better word. Again, your post was appreciated and I look forward to seeing more.

I don't know why Michael Shermer calls this the law of large numbers in the article you link to. The law of large numbers is far more specific, and relates to the convergence of the average of a large sample to the true average of the population being sampled, as the size of the sample becomes larger.

This thread on Skeptiko finally enlightened me about why people sometimes misuse the term "law of large numbers":
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/an...oday.4380/

As I mentioned before, the law of large numbers is a quite specific principle in statistics. An example of its application is that if you have a series of coin tosses, the more tosses there are, the closer the percentage of heads will get to 50%.

It seems that two statisticians coined another principle, known as "the law of truly large numbers" (or "very large numbers"). This states that if your sample is large enough, it will include events that viewed individually would be unlikely to occur. That's the principle that is used to argue against the significance of anecdotal evidence about unusual events. But the word "truly/very" often gets omitted, as it did in the title of that Skeptiko thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tru...ge_numbers

This thread on Skeptiko finally enlightened me about why people sometimes misuse the term "law of large numbers":
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/an...oday.4380/

As I mentioned before, the law of large numbers is a quite specific principle in statistics. An example of its application is that if you have a series of coin tosses, the more tosses there are, the closer the percentage of heads will get to 50%.

It seems that two statisticians coined another principle, known as "the law of truly large numbers" (or "very large numbers"). This states that if your sample is large enough, it will include events that viewed individually would be unlikely to occur. That's the principle that is used to argue against the significance of anecdotal evidence about unusual events. But the word "truly/very" often gets omitted, as it did in the title of that Skeptiko thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tru...ge_numbers

I thought this was an interesting illustration of the "law of truly large numbers." Mysterious Universe has an article on "The Mysterious Village Where Only Girls Are Born":
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/01/t...-are-born/

In fact the Mysterious Village (in Poland) is very small, and what has happened there is that the last 12 babies born have all been girls. The article quotes Craig Anderson of Glasgow University, who points out that on the assumption that births are independent with a 50:50 chance of being male/female, even among larger settlements one would expect there to be about 100 in the world where this was true.

I thought this was an interesting illustration of the "law of truly large numbers." Mysterious Universe has an article on "The Mysterious Village Where Only Girls Are Born":
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/01/t...-are-born/

In fact the Mysterious Village (in Poland) is very small, and what has happened there is that the last 12 babies born have all been girls. The article quotes Craig Anderson of Glasgow University, who points out that on the assumption that births are independent with a 50:50 chance of being male/female, even among larger settlements one would expect there to be about 100 in the world where this was true.

Thanks Chris. reminds me a little of the constant misapplication of Occam’s razor by some.

Thanks Chris. reminds me a little of the constant misapplication of Occam’s razor by some.

Right, but the article suggests that the shortage of girls goes further back in time, so the probability of the entire anomaly would be quite a bit smaller than the calculated figure.

David