Exploring the blind spots of science in investigating spontaneous premonitions

Overview

This project investigates whether modern science has been rigorous and fair in its treatment of 100 documented cases of spontaneous premonitions. While some of these accounts contain terrifyingly accurate detail, many have been dismissed without full methodological consideration.

Our approach is not to take sides, but to ask:

• Was the scientific method faithfully applied in these dismissals?
• What gaps or biases shaped the responses?
• Can we visualize and document these blind spots in a systematic way?

Carl Sagan reminds us: “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” This project tests how well science itself lives up to that standard.

Research Questions

• Do scientific investigations of premonitions reveal disciplinary narrowness (psychocentrism, over-reliance on psychology alone)?
• Are there cases where standard explanations (chance, bias, coincidence) fail to fully account for the detail?
• How rigorous were the methods of dismissal across 100 cases?
• If science cannot disprove a case, should it remain agnostic rather than dismissive?

Methodology

1. Literature Review
   • Survey experimental and meta-analytic research on precognition, presentiment, and psi studies.
   • Identify methodological strengths, flaws, and controversies.
2. Case Collection
   • Curate 100 premonition cases (academic + journalistic).
   • Select only cases with sufficient detail for meaningful analysis.
3. Coding Framework
   • For each case, record ~15 variables:
     • Pre-event documentation?
     • Case authenticity indicators
     • Scientific response quality
     • Dismissal method rigor
     • Blind spots