Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[CFLarsen]

Actually, anyone who hasn't been in the other thread - this is the article which inspired this thread. Note the comments after the blog itself. Along with some good, considered posts, you'll see a couple of right nutters, including our old friend, George, of Corngods fame!

Not to mention rjh01 giving it to them!

Go, you good thing.

Just find an actual claim of Radin's. You can find many claims in the book.

Do you have Radin's book? Have you read it? Even superficially?

 

[fls]

Comparing Radin to a liberal Christian is perhaps the most accurate comparison you could make. And, like a liberal Christian, he provides an "umbrella of protection" (to quote Sam Harris) for those like Sylvia Browne and John Edwards in the same way liberals Christians provide protection for the fundies.

We shouldn't be looking to find a middle ground with psychics or religious extremists. All ridiculous claims, no matter how benign they may appear, need to be denounced.

I think that's a very useful comparison.

What is the attitude among the parapsychology community of researchers? Do they make a point of denouncing those psychics who are obviously fraudulent or deluded?

Linda

 

[fls]

I sent an e-mail to Randi about this more than a year ago -- see http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=2255617&highlight=Dean+Radin#post2255617

Randi replied: "Rodney, to the public and the media, Radin is a nobody. Those I mentioned, are recognized. In another 6 months, we'll see who is next in the tumbrel..."

I responded: "Okay, thanks for the prompt reply. As long as you eventually get around to a ganzfeld challenge with a reasonable protocol, I'll be satisfied."

That's interesting. I was under the impression he had been on Oprah, and that his books are used as a reference by those who want to claim that psychic powers have been demonstrated. But I am quite ignorant on the issue of how much impact any of these people have.

But I do agree that it is useless to use the Challenge to do a ganzfeld test. The results have been negative under the kinds of conditions that Randi would require. In order to have a reasonable chance at getting a positive result (assuming the effect exists), the experiment would have to be huge (way beyond the capabilities of a challenger). And if a challenger accepted a protocol that was doable, but left her/him with only a tiny chance of getting a positive result (assuming the effect exists), a negative result would (and should) be unpersuasive to both sides.

Linda

 

[blauregen]

Comparing Radin to a liberal Christian is perhaps the most accurate comparison you could make. And, like a liberal Christian, he provides an "umbrella of protection" (to quote Sam Harris) for those like Sylvia Browne and John Edwards in the same way liberals Christians provide protection for the fundies.

We shouldn't be looking to find a middle ground with psychics or religious extremists. All ridiculous claims, no matter how benign they may appear, need to be denounced.

So, if i read you correctly, to you skepticism is more about political activism than about scientific assesment? And consequently inconsequential beliefs have to be stigmatized, if radical interpretations of them can be harmful?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Anyone want to have a go a debunking Radin's latest project:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/18.2_radin.pdf

I've read through and have thought of a couple of possible flaws in the methodology and data analyses.

 

[fls]

So, if i read you correctly, to you skepticism is more about political activism than about scientific assesment? And consequently inconsequential beliefs have to be stigmatized, if radical interpretations of them can be harmful?

That's the key question, isn't it. I used to think the answer was easily "no". But I'm changing my mind. Realistically, in the current environment, a skeptic isn't just someone who scientifically assesses information. She/he is someone who promotes the use of scientific assessment instead of faith and who concerns her/himself with accurately representing the results of that assessment. And this has become a political issue, particularly in the US.

Are moderate beliefs deserving of this activism just because radical beliefs can be harmful? I have watched as what I originally saw as inconsequential beliefs have led to countless deaths and a waste of resources sorely needed for other areas. The inconsequential fringe use of 'alternative' medicine has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry that now uses our tax dollars (through NCCAM) to perform research that is pre-selected to be a waste of time (research that is unlikely to be a waste of time is picked up through conventional channels). And while a few people die from taking toxic therapies or by foregoing effective treatment in developed countries, of more concern to me is the patina of respect given to these therapies which allows them to be adopted systematically, leading to far more deaths, in less developed countries (I'm thinking of the treatment of AIDS in some African countries as an example). The anti-vaccination movement which originally consisted of a small number of easily dismissed radicals has now become relatively mainstream and has led to millions of deaths - not just from outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease in developed countries, but from the millions of deaths in less developed countries from measles and polio when the eradication goals were derailed.

Sam Harris makes a case for these consequences with respect to religion.

And now we are discussing these consequences with respect to psychics. It seems the results are less dire than in other areas. But would it really be wise to assume that if we ignore them, they will go away rather than expand to the point where heads of state depend upon their advice?

I don't really know how important it is for these movements to adopt the patina of respect that science provides. They all seem to make a point of referring to science, even if they grossly misuse it. But I don't know if they would get fewer converts if skeptics made a more concerted effort to prevent that misuse, or whether it would turn out not to be important after all.

Linda

 

[IXP]

I get your reasoning ok, but I don't know why you think 3900 x 2 tests would be sufficient.

If you did 3900 trials maybe 100 times, you'd have something to show for it, but two seems well light. Can you expand on it a bit?

As I understand it the MDC requires preliminary and final test, each with p = 0.001

The two tests together make it 1000000 to 1 against passing by chance.

IXP

 

[Rodney]

As I understand it the MDC requires preliminary and final test, each with p = 0.001

The two tests together make it 1000000 to 1 against passing by chance.

IXP

What is the source of your understanding about the odds that must be overcome to win the million dollars?

 

[Sefarst]

Interesting though, that Radin denounces Sylvia Browne, just as Liberal christians denounce fundies.

He may very well do so, but he's still defending the concept they use to dupe the credulous. Those defenses are more valuable to Sylvia Browne and John Edwards than having Radin's personal support. I think the pressing question on people's minds isn't whether one psychic is better than another, but whether Psychics even exist in the first place. By arguing in favor of psychics existing, Radin is helping build up the wall of protection for those like Browne.

Well, maybe you'd like to be the one who ends up working out a protocol to test those claims.

As he seems to believe the phenomena exists in quantities too small to be tested, I doubt we could come up with any procedure. However, certainly he has reasons for believing as he does and we can examine those. If he does not have any solid, concrete explanations for believing as he does and perhaps just believes it on a hunch, we can give him Russell's teapot argument or any other tool of skepticism.

In the meantime, what's wrong with the middle ground? If it turned out that a concerted approach by two seemingly opposing factions made some ground against the nutters, would it be a good idea?

Certainly he's not as bad as full blown looney toons, but that's little consolation. Maybe it's only a reason to not berate him like we would a fundie or a Geller, but we shouldn't just let it stand.

 

[Sefarst]

So, if i read you correctly, to you skepticism is more about political activism than about scientific assesment?

I would say yes. IMO, the CNN special exposing the mistakes of Browne's predictions in missing persons' cases did more to aid the cause of skepticism than did the dozens of challenges Randi put forward and all the psychics the JREF has tested and debunked.

And consequently inconsequential beliefs have to be stigmatized, if radical interpretations of them can be harmful?

Inconsequential and wrong beliefs need to be debunked and challenged whenever we can.

And we can't tell what will be inconsequential in the future. The belief that a soul enters a person at the moment of conception would have been considered quaint and inconsequential only a few decades ago. Now, that belief stands between us and stem cell research.

 

[baron]

I find it difficult to have a problem with people like Dean Radin - his claims are that various forms of psi exist, but that they are so low-powered that scientific testing is virtually impossible

Having read most of Radin's work I have yet to come across this statement or anything resembling this statement. Can you provide a link? I would certainly be immensely surprised if he's ever said this, on account of him continuting to dedicate his life in an attempt to prove the opposite.

What he actually has acknowledged is that effects are small and time-consuming to measure.

To me, he is like a liberal christian who looks to be inclusive and makes no claims which can't be hidden in gaps in our knowledge

You mean the Christian who conducts experiments to prove the existence of God, and publishes the results of those experiments to be peer reviewed along with his statistical analyses of several thousand other studies?

I have grave reservations about Radin's conclusions; not because he is some woo making grand claims without experiment or back-up, or because he is a charlatan, but because I believe his statistical calculations must be incorrect in some way. However, I lack the mathematical knowledge to say exactly how.

I claim that UFOs carrying intelligent life from other planets are here, but are simply undetectable by current scientific methods. Also, invisible Bigfoots. And Chupacabras.

Please provide your years of research in the form of statistical papers for me to review and then I may be able to equate your analogy with Radin's work.

Is promoting ideas such as these (which differ little from Radin's claims) harmless?

I would use the term "irrelevant" as they have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Quite what invisible bigfoots have to do with scientific experiment is beyond me.

He may very well do so, but he's still defending the concept they use to dupe the credulous.

Please show me how Radin's work can defend the concept of communing with the dead.

Radin harbours a number of what I would term suspect beliefs. However, he has also spent considerable effort employing the scientific method, analysing the results and publishing his work. Whether he is correct or not in his conclusions is largely immaterial. To disagree with someone is one thing. To deride someone simply because you disagree with their conclusion is the height of ignorance.

 

[The Atheist]

Just find an actual claim of Radin's. You can find many claims in the book.

Do you have Radin's book? Have you read it? Even superficially?

Start with precognition/presentiment.

(And by the way, you need to use the plural "books"; Radin has written more than one.)

Having read most of Radin's work I have yet to come across this statement or anything resembling this statement. Can you provide a link? I would certainly be immensely surprised if he's ever said this, on account of him continuting to dedicate his life in an attempt to prove the opposite.

I'm paraphrasing what he said, but as you note yourself:.

What he actually has acknowledged is that effects are small and time-consuming to measure.

"Time-consuming" is no joke. Would you like to try to work out what number of ganzfelds would be required to equate to some kind of "scientific evidence"? Noting that scientists other than Radin's psi-pals will be required for the job.

I doubt he'd use "virtually impossible", but in terms of what he claims, I'll stick with it.

You mean the Christian who conducts experiments to prove the existence of God, and publishes the results of those experiments to be peer reviewed along with his statistical analyses of several thousand other studies?

Which liberal christians do that? I'm talking about the impact, not the methodology.

I have grave reservations about Radin's conclusions; not because he is some woo making grand claims without experiment or back-up, or because he is a charlatan, but because I believe his statistical calculations must be incorrect in some way. However, I lack the mathematical knowledge to say exactly how.

Well, this all comes back to actually independent studies of Radin's methods - there aren't enough of them to be sure and I'm in your boat regarding the maths. I've sent a PM to andyandy and hope that he can help us with some numbers.

Radin harbours a number of what I would term suspect beliefs. However, he has also spent considerable effort employing the scientific method, analysing the results and publishing his work. Whether he is correct or not in his conclusions is largely immaterial. To disagree with someone is one thing. To deride someone simply because you disagree with their conclusion is the height of ignorance.

This seems spot on to me. His research, as far as I can tell, cannot be faulted. (at this time)

 

[The Atheist]

Inconsequential and wrong beliefs need to be debunked and challenged whenever we can.

Good. Go ahead.

And we can't tell what will be inconsequential in the future. The belief that a soul enters a person at the moment of conception would have been considered quaint and inconsequential only a few decades ago. Now, that belief stands between us and stem cell research.

You need to check your history. The belief that the soul is created at conception is longstanding. Ever wonder why legalised abortion only arose in the 20th century?

 

[CFLarsen]

Start with precognition/presentiment.

Start with listing exactly what Radin claims, with referenced quotes.

This is your thread. This is where you want to discuss Radin's claims.

(And by the way, you need to use the plural "books"; Radin has written more than one.)

Stop stalling: Do you have Radin's book "The Conscious Universe", yes or no?

Have you read it, yes or no? Even superficially?

I'm paraphrasing what he said, but as you note yourself:.

"Time-consuming" is no joke. Would you like to try to work out what number of ganzfelds would be required to equate to some kind of "scientific evidence"? Noting that scientists other than Radin's psi-pals will be required for the job.

I doubt he'd use "virtually impossible", but in terms of what he claims, I'll stick with it.

Can you provide a source for your claim that Radin thinks psi phenomena "are so low-powered that scientific testing is virtually impossible", yes or no?

This seems spot on to me. His research, as far as I can tell, cannot be faulted. (at this time)

Oh?

How about Radin selecting his data?

How about Radin falsely describing when the spikes happened during the OJ verdict?

And so on.

If you want to defend Radin's research, you got your work cut out for you.

 

[baron]

"Time-consuming" is no joke. Would you like to try to work out what number of ganzfelds would be required to equate to some kind of "scientific evidence"? Noting that scientists other than Radin's psi-pals will be required for the job.

I doubt he'd use "virtually impossible", but in terms of what he claims, I'll stick with it.

Well, that's up to you, but I maintain that "possible yet time-consuming" does not equal "virtually impossible".

Which liberal christians do that? I'm talking about the impact, not the methodology.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. No Christians do that, which is why I found it odd you would equate somebody strictly following the scientific method to a group who entirely shun the scientific method in favour of faith.

Well, this all comes back to actually independent studies of Radin's methods - there aren't enough of them to be sure and I'm in your boat regarding the maths.

Sure, but you can hardly blame the man if others decline to review his work.

This seems spot on to me. His research, as far as I can tell, cannot be faulted. (at this time)

For some reason I thought you'd disagree with me on this point although it's likely my interpretation of your posts that's at fault there.

 

[Sefarst]

You need to check your history. The belief that the soul is created at conception is longstanding. Ever wonder why legalised abortion only arose in the 20th century?

I wasn't saying the belief only arose a few decades ago, I was saying it was inconsequential up until a few decades ago when, as you say, abortion and later stem cell research arose as issues.

ETA: Just to avoid another objection you might voice, I'm not saying here that the idea of abortion is only a few decades old either, merely that it arose as an issue because technology and availability improved over the last century. It was the first time it was safe and effective to do so.

But this misses my larger point, that beliefs viewed as inconsequential now may become consequential later. Therefore we shouldn't just ignore beliefs that are obviously wrong because they are currently viewed as harmless.

 

[baron]

How about Radin selecting his data?

How about Radin falsely describing when the spikes happened during the OJ verdict?

In the first instance I can't see much of an issue. Criticising Radin for not performing an analysis in addition the scope of his experiment seems somewhat unfair. Whether or not he should have performed the work for completeness may well be a valid course of discussion but it does not alter the statistics he was presenting.

In the second it appears he made a minor misrepresentation of his data in an interview. I won't excuse him for that but here's what puzzles me: His data is extensive, published and available to analyse. Why, then, do these criticisms revolve around what he said in an interview once? Why not peer review the data properly?

 

[The Atheist]

Start with listing exactly what Radin claims, with referenced quotes.

This is your thread. This is where you want to discuss Radin's claims.

Can you read at all, CFLarsen? You can use all the bolding you like, but it's even better to read rather than write. I didn't start this to discuss any particular claims, as I noted in the OP, I started it to remove discussion on Radin from the other thread - as requested by a moderator. Buzzlightyear seemed keen to discuss it and I thought it looked like a fun topic.

You are welcome to pick whichever bit of Radin's research/claims you like; as I keep saying, he doesn't bother me at all, so I don't really care which one you'd like to use. Just don't go making the same mistake you did in the other thread and get incorrectly conflate a couple of them, ok?

Stop stalling: Do you have Radin's book "The Conscious Universe", yes or no?

No.

Can you provide a source for your claim that Radin thinks psi phenomena "are so low-powered that scientific testing is virtually impossible", yes or no?

As I noted to Baron, I was paraphrasing.

Did you notice the other times I mentioned the same subject? (Of course you did, but you're ignoring them):

"they are very slight and require immense testing"

"small claims of effect which are difficult to refute"

"containing a 5% leakage is an enormously laborious task"

"saying that psi exists, but is very weak"

I've paraphrased him in lots of different ways.

I repeat the question you're still avoiding - design a test which will show - one way or the other - whether Radin is full of it or for real.

//skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002
skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radinbook.htm

How about Radin falsely describing when the spikes happened during the OJ verdict?

Honestly, CFLarsen, that's the best laugh I've had in months - supporting your position by quoting your own articles at skepticreport!

That's worse than Radin, at least he gets his buddies to check it for him.

Plus, it's quite apparent that your "skepticreport" site contains unsubstantiated rumour as fact.

If you want to defend Radin's research, you got your work cut out for you.

Where have I defended his research?

You just can't get anything right, can you?

If you check my posts, I've consistently said that I'd like to see two things:

A) A stake as to what would constitute "proof" of Radin's claims.

B) Genuinely independent evaluation of his research.

Typically, you go out of your way to look for an argument with me instead of looking at the facts.

Well played!

 

[The Atheist]

Well, that's up to you, but I maintain that "possible yet time-consuming" does not equal "virtually impossible".

You may be right, but until I see some signs of independent researchers taking enough interest and time to repeat the studies, I have to assume it's a very unlikely prospect.

Given that nobody is even prepared to state what would confirm or refute Radin's studies, where would it start?

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. No Christians do that, which is why I found it odd you would equate somebody strictly following the scientific method to a group who entirely shun the scientific method in favour of faith.

No worries, I'm given to a little sarkiness myself!

Sure, but you can hardly blame the man if others decline to review his work.

Which is why I don't blame Radin for it.

For some reason I thought you'd disagree with me on this point although it's likely my interpretation of your posts that's at fault there.

Blame my Antipodean style - nobody ever knows what the **** I'm on about!

I wasn't saying the belief only arose a few decades ago, I was saying it was inconsequential up until a few decades ago when, as you say, abortion and later stem cell research arose as issues.

But this misses my larger point, that beliefs viewed as inconsequential now may become consequential later. Therefore we shouldn't just ignore beliefs that are obviously wrong because they are currently viewed as harmless.

How "obviously" are they wrong?

This is my point. If we can't even agree what it takes to refute them, if we say "they're obviously wrong" as does Randi, for instance, doesn't that make us just as dumb as people who think it's "obviously right"?

Why, then, do these criticisms revolve around what he said in an interview once? Why not peer review the data properly?

This, howver, is obvious: if he did that, then the evidence wouldn't back up his criticism.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you read at all, CFLarsen? You can use all the bolding you like, but it's even better to read rather than write. I didn't start this to discuss any particular claims, as I noted in the OP, I started it to remove discussion on Radin from the other thread - as requested by a moderator. Buzzlightyear seemed keen to discuss it and I thought it looked like a fun topic.

You are welcome to pick whichever bit of Radin's research/claims you like; as I keep saying, he doesn't bother me at all, so I don't really care which one you'd like to use. Just don't go making the same mistake you did in the other thread and get incorrectly conflate a couple of them, ok?

I am going with what you said in the OP:

I'm starting this thread as we're getting off topic and onto Radin in another thread.

I find it difficult to have a problem with people like Dean Radin - his claims are that various forms of psi exist, but that they are so low-powered that scientific testing is virtually impossible.

To me, he is like a liberal christian who looks to be inclusive and makes no claims which can't be hidden in gaps in our knowledge.

Mostly harmless.

If you want to back down from that, no problem.

No.

I strongly suggest that you read it, if you want to discuss Radin's claims in any intelligent manner.

As I noted to Baron, I was paraphrasing.

Did you notice the other times I mentioned the same subject? (Of course you did, but you're ignoring them):

"they are very slight and require immense testing"

"small claims of effect which are difficult to refute"

"containing a 5% leakage is an enormously laborious task"

"saying that psi exists, but is very weak"

I've paraphrased him in lots of different ways.

I know you are paraphrasing, due to the fact that you are unaware of what Radin actually claims. Can you provide evidence that Radin says what you are paraphrasing, yes or no?

I repeat the question you're still avoiding - design a test which will show - one way or the other - whether Radin is full of it or for real.

To do that, you have to explain what it is Radin claims.

For some reason, you can't do that.

Honestly, CFLarsen, that's the best laugh I've had in months - supporting your position by quoting your own articles at skepticreport!

Had you taken a moment longer than a cursory glance, you would have discovered that one of the articles was not written by me.

As for the questions:

How about Radin selecting his data?

How about Radin falsely describing when the spikes happened during the OJ verdict?

That's worse than Radin, at least he gets his buddies to check it for him.

If there is anything wrong in the article I wrote, please point it out.

Where have I defended his research?

Right here:

I'll cordially disagree with you here - I'm pretty familiar with the guys he mentions in the article and have researched Radin & Co thoroughly and no glaring errors struck me. I thought it was reasonably well put written.

It's wrong, but very well done. Essentially, he's borrowed Radin's longstanding comments on the MDC and expanded upon them. Usually, that kind of "expose" uses all sorts of blarney, but that one sticks to the [almost] facts.