Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[baron]

Not so much an armchair debunker. Did some psi testing when I was more open-minded - I mean naive.

You don't have to be naive to perform research. In fact, it suggests that you were once a critical thinker but now you find it easier to mock.

You will never see the evidence you need.

I don't "need" anything. You are confusing me with a woo. As I've already said, I think Radin's conclusions are very likely incorrect, but I defend utterly his right to perform his experiments; in fact, I applaud him for it and encourage him to do more.

Why are all these tests so complicated and the results so nebulous?

Complicated? Are you kidding me? In a list of experiments covering all disciplines, ordered from complex to easy, Radin's would be very close to the bottom.

And the results are nebulous because either there's no effect to measure or the effect is very small. What are you finding difficult to understand?

Answer; to successfully fool you, they first need to fool themselves.

Yep, really deep. Unfortunately it's rubbish.

Are you seriously suggesting that the onus is on the scientific community to prove that psi doesn't exist?

Sorry, but that's not how science "works".

No, it certainly is not, and there's no way you could have concluded that's what I thought unless you hadn't bothered to read any of the thread.

The onus is on Radin to prove that psi, or some similar effect, exists. Where have I stated otherwise.

What I said was, if someone wishes to disagree with his conclusions, fine. That's science in action. What's not scientific or acceptable in any way is to equate Radin with con-artists like Sylvia Browne with proving that (a) Radin's results are false and (b) Radin is a fraud.

I've seen little feedback for (a) (and none from the most vocal debunkers, as expected) and zero for (b).

Why not prove me wrong instead of parroting the "skeptical" masses?

Oh? What's the difference?

I've already told you: One is a con-artist, one is a scientist. Now answer my question - in what way are they the same?

Nope. I have dismissed Radin's work and method purely because I have looked carefully at his research and come to the conclusion that it's all bunk.

I don't have a problem with that. Some of your own analysis would be nice, but if that's your conclusion, great.

Now explain how disagreeing with the conclusions of a scientist gives you the right to label them a fraud and equate them with border-line criminals?

Already pointed out by R.A.F., but I'll chip in: That's not how science works.

As I've solidly refused R.A.F's incorrect allegation I assume you're in agreement that I'm not advocating anything that is remotely non-scientific or woo-ish. If not, please explain in detail how I am going against the scientific method.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't "need" anything. You are confusing me with a woo. As I've already said, I think Radin's conclusions are very likely incorrect, but I defend utterly his right to perform his experiments; in fact, I applaud him for it and encourage him to do more.

Nobody is saying that he doesn't have a right to perform his experiments.

And the results are nebulous because either there's no effect to measure or the effect is very small. What are you finding difficult to understand?

Radin doesn't claim the results are nebulous.

No, it certainly is not, and there's no way you could have concluded that's what I thought unless you hadn't bothered to read any of the thread.

The onus is on Radin to prove that psi, or some similar effect, exists. Where have I stated otherwise.

What I said was, if someone wishes to disagree with his conclusions, fine. That's science in action. What's not scientific or acceptable in any way is to equate Radin with con-artists like Sylvia Browne with proving that (a) Radin's results are false and (b) Radin is a fraud.

I've seen little feedback for (a) (and none from the most vocal debunkers, as expected) and zero for (b).

Why not prove me wrong instead of parroting the "skeptical" masses?

You are one to tell people to read this thread! Take a look at the articles I posted links to in post #34.

I've already told you: One is a con-artist, one is a scientist.

Really? Because one dons a lab coat, he is suddenly a scientist? Radin is a pseudoscientist.

Now answer my question - in what way are they the same?

They are the same, because they promote the same superstitious beliefs based on phony evidence.

I don't have a problem with that. Some of your own analysis would be nice, but if that's your conclusion, great.

Now explain how disagreeing with the conclusions of a scientist gives you the right to label them a fraud and equate them with border-line criminals?

Take a look at the articles I linked to.

As I've solidly refused R.A.F's incorrect allegation I assume you're in agreement that I'm not advocating anything that is remotely non-scientific or woo-ish. If not, please explain in detail how I am going against the scientific method.

But why is it up to others to disprove the existence of psi? How is that scientific?

 

[baron]

Nobody is saying that he doesn't have a right to perform his experiments.

Yes they are, on account of him allegedly promoting a woo way of thinking.

Radin doesn't claim the results are nebulous.

He claims they are small and he also admits there are discrepancies. Have you not read "Entangled Minds" where he brings up the issue of the 8 hour gap between the beginning of the RNG spiking for 9/11 and the start of the event itself?

You are one to tell people to read this thread! Take a look at the articles I posted links to in post #34.

Why do you assume I haven't read them? Not only did I read them when you linked to them, I'd also read them fully prior to that.

Really? Because one dons a lab coat, he is suddenly a scientist? Radin is a pseudoscientist.

And yet more allegations without evidence (other than falling back on your friend's book review). You can't bring yourself to believe that a real scientist could possibly lower themselves to researching something you personally deem woo so you feel compelled to decry them and call them names. Sorry, that's pathetic.

They are the same, because they promote the same superstitious beliefs based on phony evidence.

Nonsense. Radin dedicates his career to collecting evidence in a good scientific manner and providing it for scrutiny. Browne has never offered a shred of evidence in her entire life, instead collects money from the grieving and deluded people she cons.

Take a look at the articles I linked to.

Reading them twice was enough.

But why is it up to others to disprove the existence of psi? How is that scientific?

For the nth time, it's not up to "others". I asked you to do it because you said you'd made a clear decision, based on evidence, that psi is "bunk". Therefore I don't see how it's in any way controversial to ask you to produce, or at least describe, that evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes they are, on account of him allegedly promoting a woo way of thinking.

Nope. People can believe what they want, and do whatever experiments they want.

He claims they are small and he also admits there are discrepancies.

He claims that they are detectable and able to influence e.g. the outcome in casinos and lotteries.

Have you not read "Entangled Minds" where he brings up the issue of the 8 hour gap between the beginning of the RNG spiking for 9/11 and the start of the event itself?

And yet, he ignored a similar spike before 9/11.

Why do you assume I haven't read them? Not only did I read them when you linked to them, I'd also read them fully prior to that.

No, you hadn't. Because if you had, you would not say that you hadn't seen criticism of Radin's research.

And yet more allegations without evidence (other than falling back on your friend's book review). You can't bring yourself to believe that a real scientist could possibly lower themselves to researching something you personally deem woo so you feel compelled to decry them and call them names. Sorry, that's pathetic.

It's a fact that Radin is a pseudoscientist. His research is sloppy, he jumps to the wrong conclusions, he selects his data.

Nonsense. Radin dedicates his career to collecting evidence in a good scientific manner and providing it for scrutiny. Browne has never offered a shred of evidence in her entire life, instead collects money from the grieving and deluded people she cons.

Radin isn't deluding people with his claims of measurable, influential psi powers? Really?

Reading them twice was enough.

...and? What do you think of the criticisms?

For the nth time, it's not up to "others". I asked you to do it because you said you'd made a clear decision, based on evidence, that psi is "bunk". Therefore I don't see how it's in any way controversial to ask you to produce, or at least describe, that evidence.

Very well, then: How can I disprove psi?

 

[R.A.F.]

...please explain in detail how I am going against the scientific method.

When you post, "prove Radin's claims wrong" then you are going against the scientific method.

Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?

 

[baron]

Nope. People can believe what they want, and do whatever experiments they want.

Without being called childish names? No, you've proved that.

He claims that they are detectable and able to influence e.g. the outcome in casinos and lotteries.

Yes, he does. And..?

And yet, he ignored a similar spike before 9/11.

In his analysis in "Entangled Minds" I'm not aware of him ignoring other spikes, in fact I recall that he addresses them and makes his point that the 9/11 spike was the largest, which his evidence appears to back up. I will re-read that section when I get a chance in case I missed something.

No, you hadn't. Because if you had, you would not say that you hadn't seen criticism of Radin's research.

Yes, I had. Sorry I didn't slap my forehead and proclaim "Why, I see it now! The man is a fake!" but I honestly didn't rate the criticism to be that effective. Your opinon obviously differs.

It's a fact that Radin is a pseudoscientist. His research is sloppy, he jumps to the wrong conclusions, he selects his data.

What sweeping statements. All obtained from your friend's book review, perchance?

Sloppy research? Some of his experiments had failings. Maybe you'd like to name a scientist who's experiments are consistently perfect and above contention.

Wrong conclusions? According to you, maybe, but like a real skeptic I form my own opinions.

He selects his data? He has been know to, yes. However, in 99.9% of his work I see no evidence of this so either you know something I don't or your prejudices against the implications of his work have got in the way again.

Radin isn't deluding people with his claims of measurable, influential psi powers? Really?

Yes, really. He is presenting evidence from which we can draw our own conclusions. Did anyone ask you to ignore the evidence and blindly believe Radin's conclusions? I don't think so.

...and? What do you think of the criticisms?

In what way? Most were valid, interesting observations. Some I hadn't picked up before, some I had. However, I found nothing approaching damning.

Oddly enough, you recently appeared to be of a similar mindset, so yet again I ask you for the evidence that now causes to believe that Radin is a fraud who has more in common with Sylvia Browne than a scientist ~

Is something happening? If we can refrain from equating "anomalies" with "psi", it does seem that something is going on. Whether it is flawed research or a real phenomenon is still out.

http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm]

Hmmm...

Very well, then: How can I disprove psi?

I never asked you to, but if you want to then take a few of the most impressive result sets from Radin's experiments and either prove them to be as expected by chance or prove that the scientific method was flawed. Or even perform your own experiments.

 

[baron]

When you post, "prove Radin's claims wrong" then you are going against the scientific method.

Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?

Either you don't know what the scientific method is or you're just parroting the standard debunkers' line. I think it's a mixture of both.

Maybe you want to explain how I am "going against the scientific method" by suggesting that someone who debunks a scientist's work without explanation might want to present an assessment of that work and point out the errors it contains.

In it's strictest form it's called a peer review and trust me, it is an integral part of the scientific method. If you don't believe me then I suggest you go and do some research of your own, starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[fls]

I see the current Prozac issue as an absolute disaster for medicine. How long is it before the homeopaths and helbalists start making mileage out of it? People have trouble seeing the difference between quack and real medicine already and Prozac is just fuel on the fire.

It's not a disaster for medicine. It's nothing special for medicine. We're used to re-evaluating therapies in light of new information and changing our minds.

Homeopaths and herbalists make stuff out of nothing anyway. It makes no difference when it comes to fuel. The problem is that people are vulnerable to disinformation campaigns.

That's fair, but for Radin, I don't think there is any place better than another. He can point to thousands of studies, while those interested enough to check out his work generally look at a very limited number of studies.

In any particular field there are thousands of studies to consider. And we generally depend upon those with expertise in the field to sort it out for us. Take black holes as an example. I accept the existence of black holes because that is the general consensus in the field. And if the general consensus was that they did not exist (theoretically not possible and plausible alternate explanations for any empirical data), I would accept that as well, regardless of whether or not I read a few studies suggesting otherwise - who am I to say otherwise (ETA: as someone with no expertise in this area)? Radin doesn't like the results of the consensus and has taken it to the public, but why is it reasonable for him to give short-shrift to the scientific process? I think it behooves us to make sure we convey what the results of the scientific process have to say.

I agree with the point you make about RSL's Stop Sylvia - if someone did that with Radin and collated all of the opposing views and conflicting evidence into one place, it may be sufficient to knock him off his perch, but what incentive is there? Sylvia Browne is demonstrably harmful to some people. Radin's claims just don't make it worthwhile.

I can see obvious fishhooks like post-hoc reasoning in Radin's work, but it doesn't make it wrong, just bad science; which turns us neatly around to Prozac. How much money has been spent on Prozac compared to how much on Radin's research? I worry that we have our priorities wrong targeting someone like Radin. On my scale of worrying things, he rates around 1,000,000th. Sure, he's almost certainly talking through a hole in his derriere, but so are most politicians and we let them run our countries.

Taking Radin's claims and research on their own, are you able to point to any instances where someone believing his claims could be harmed by that belief?

The obvious harm is that Radin claims that the existence of psi is proven and some charlatans claim that they use psi to gain special knowledge. Making it clear that his claim is not supported by the evidence he presents would take away some of the legitimacy that the charlatans try to use to their advantage. I do agree that for believers it probably makes no difference. It should make a difference for those people who are undecided, but I really have no idea if that number is large enough to justify making a point of targeting Radin's claims.

My larger concern is that it adds to the general trend that decisions requiring specialized knowledge and experience end up being taken to a relatively naive public instead. And when they are led to conclusions (usually deliberately) that differ from those who have expertise, choose to regard experts with suspicion rather than laying the blame where it is deserved. Any call to action, for me, is part of this general concern, rather than anything specific to Radin. He is caught up in it because he is one of those that takes part in misinforming the public.

Linda

 

[R.A.F.]

Either you don't know what the scientific method is or you're just parroting the standard debunkers' line. I think it's a mixture of both.

Your "accessment" of what I do or do not understand is seriously flawed, but that's OK since it matches your entire argument.

Maybe you want to explain how I am "going against the scientific method" by suggesting that someone who debunks a scientist's work without explanation might want to present an assessment of that work and point out the errors it contains.

So you do not understand why an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence?...Or perhaps you mistakenly believe that the idea of "psi" is not extraordinary? You certainly seem to be confused about why the idea of psi is not embraced by mainstream science.

....trust me....believe me...

Instead, why don't you show me, because so far, your argument is completely unconvincing.

 

[baron]

Your "accessment" of what I do or do not understand is seriously flawed, but that's OK since it matches your entire argument.

* taps foot, waiting for anything of substance *

So you do not understand why an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence?...Or perhaps you mistakenly believe that the idea of "psi" is not extraordinary?

For the last time, the evidence is there! Radin has provided it! It's up to other people to assess it and draw their own conclusions. They might conclude that it's flawed, that's it's inconclusive, that it's as expected by chance or that it shows there's something to investigate. Fine, that's what we want.

What I'm advocating (as you well know, you're just being silly) is that those people who dismiss Radin's evidence out-of-hand should at least give an explanation of why they do so.

You certainly seem to be confused about why the idea of psi is not embraced by mainstream science.

I don't know what you're talking about, which makes two of us. It's not embraced because it's not proven and there's no proven mechanism for it. (Somehow I was able to type that sentence without becoming in anyway confused.)

Instead, why don't you show me, because so far, your argument is completely unconvincing.

Show you what? What are you talking about? Are you posting from 'The Skeptic's Phrasebook of Woo Putdowns' or something?

 

[baron]

In any particular field there are thousands of studies to consider. And we generally depend upon those with expertise in the field to sort it out for us. Take black holes as an example. I accept the existence of black holes because that is the general consensus in the field. And if the general consensus was that they did not exist (theoretically not possible and plausible alternate explanations for any empirical data), I would accept that as well, regardless of whether or not I read a few studies suggesting otherwise - who am I to say otherwise (ETA: as someone with no expertise in this area)?

That sounds disturbingly like an appeal to authority. Whilst it would be unwise to dismiss the consensus of scientific opinion that's no reason to pronounce that anything that goes against the consensus is incorrect. After all, if everyone had listened to Einstein and the rest of the scientific establishment at the time we wouldn't have much in the way of quantum theory.

Radin doesn't like the results of the consensus and has taken it to the public, but why is it reasonable for him to give short-shrift to the scientific process? I think it behooves us to make sure we convey what the results of the scientific process have to say.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Because he writes books doesn't mean he's shunning scientific attention. As far as I can see he's more than happy for others to try and replicate his work, the problem is nobody wants to (or, more likely, nobody publicly admits they want to).

 

[R.A.F.]

For the last time, the evidence is there! Radin has provided it!

...and that "evidence" is simply NOT convincing.

It's up to other people to assess it and draw their own conclusions. They might conclude that it's flawed, that's it's inconclusive, that it's as expected by chance or that it shows there's something to investigate. Fine, that's what we want.

Scientific investigation is not a matter of "opinion". It is a matter of what can be demonstrated with evidence.

What I'm advocating (as you well know, you're just being silly)

Must you continue with the personal comments? It makes any argument you happen to make all the less convincing.

...is that those people who dismiss Radin's evidence out-of-hand should at least give an explanation of why they do so.

I can also dismiss ghosts, bigfoot, and flying saucers without having to "prove that they don't exist".

I certainly don't feel any need to explain why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For some reason, you do not understand that.

It's not embraced because it's not proven and there's no proven mechanism for it. (Somehow I was able to type that sentence without becoming in anyway confused.)

Yet you believe anyone who disagrees with Radin's"claims" should be required to prove him wrong...are you sure you're not confused??

 

[baron]

are you sure you're not confused??

After reading your posts, no.

I've stated my position very clearly time and time again. If you want to harp on with your blatent straw men and start talking about bigfoot then go ahead, I won't interrupt.

I'll provide more input when and only when you can come up with a coherent point or, at the very least, have the decency to read what I've written instead of making it up.

 

[fls]

That sounds disturbingly like an appeal to authority.

It is. Is that a problem (taking into account a relevant definition of 'authority')?

Whilst it would be unwise to dismiss the consensus of scientific opinion that's no reason to pronounce that anything that goes against the consensus is incorrect.

Why not? Can you give an example where doing so would have been harmful (taking into account that consensus doesn't mean that everyone holds the same opinion)?

After all, if everyone had listened to Einstein and the rest of the scientific establishment we wouldn't have much in the way of quantum theory.

Um...that's a poor example, since it was Einstein's experiments that showed the necessity for a quantum theory, and he most definitely was part of the development of that theory considering that he was awarded a Nobel prize for it.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Because he writes books doesn't mean he's shunning scientific attention. As far as I can see he's more than happy for others to try and replicate his work, the problem is nobody wants to (or, more likely, nobody publically admits they want to).

If researchers within the relevant fields (other than parapsychology) are not interested in replicating his work, that says a lot about whether it is likely to reveal anything they consider useful. There is a difference between writing a book that describes the the state of the science in a particular area (e.g. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene) and writing a book that takes what should be a scientific argument (making the case for psi) to the public because the argument has apparently been unpersuasive to the scientific community (other than parapsychology).

Linda

 

[fls]

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

I generally make a point of it, and so do most I know.

cj x

Thanks. I also note, from reviewing an old thread, that it looks like the same can be said of Soapy Sam.

Linda

 

[R.A.F.]

If you want to harp on with your blatent straw men...

Please explain just how a request for convincing evidence is a strawman??

I'll provide more input when and only when you can come up with a coherent point or, at the very least, have the decency to read what I've written instead of making it up.

If you can't "live by" what you post, then may I suggest that you not post. The only "incoherency" in this thread is your continued denial of what you, yourself have posted. You DID post that we had to prove Radin wrong, which IS against the scientific method. It certainly is not my "fault" that you can't "talk your way" out of that mistake.

 

[baron]

It is. Is that a problem (taking into account a relevant definition of 'authority')?

I'd say it's unwise to simply take the majority view and declare all other views as invalid, yes.

Why not? Can you give an example where doing so would have been harmful (taking into account that consensus doesn't mean that everyone holds the same opinion)?

I don't know what you mean, "harmful". It would, for instance, be a mistake to line up theories of consciousness and proclaim one as the truth, simply because it holds the majority vote, and discard the others.

Um...that's a poor example, since it was Einstein's experiments that showed the necessity for a quantum theory, and he most definitely was part of the development of that theory considering that he was awarded a Nobel prize for it.

It wasn't a good example; I was referring to Einstein's refution of randomness and his insistence on the presence of hidden variables.

If researchers within the relevant fields (other than parapsychology) are not interested in replicating his work, that says a lot about whether it is likely to reveal anything they consider useful.

It says something maybe, I wouldn't say a "lot". The politics of science and the stigma of the field has more influence, IMO.

There is a difference between writing a book that describes the the state of the science in a particular area (e.g. The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene) and writing a book that takes what should be a scientific argument (making the case for psi) to the public because the argument has apparently been unpersuasive to the scientific community (other than parapsychology).

There's a difference, yes, but not something I'd personally condemn him for.

 

[CFLarsen]

Without being called childish names? No, you've proved that.

What childish names? How does that infringe on Radin's rights to believe what he wants, and do whatever experiments he wants?

Yes, he does. And..?

Radin claims he has evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. That's a huge claim, mate.

In his analysis in "Entangled Minds" I'm not aware of him ignoring other spikes, in fact I recall that he addresses them and makes his point that the 9/11 spike was the largest, which his evidence appears to back up. I will re-read that section when I get a chance in case I missed something.

Open "The Conscious Universe", page 167. Chapter 10, figure 10.5. You will find a graph depicting an experiment with 5 RNGs of the OJ Simpson verdict. The prediction was that this global consciousness would spike twice, when the preshows began (around 8:55) and when the verdict was announced (around 10:00). And, sure enough, there were two spikes around that time.

Yet, the graph shows three spikes, the third being around 9:42, when nothing happened. How does Radin explain this?

He doesn't even mention it in the text. It isn't a case of him forgetting it, he actively ignores it:

The results, shown in figure 10.5 suggest that something unusual did occur in all five RNGs precisely when the verdict was announced. The graph indicates that around the time that the TV preshows began, at 9:00 AM Pacific Time, an unexpected degree of order appeared in all the RNGs. This soon declined back to random behavior until about 10:00 AM., which is when the verdict was supposed to be announced. A few minutes later, the order in all five RNGs suddenly peaked to its highest point in the two hours of recorded data precisely when the court clerk read the verdict.
p 167

How can you defend that?

Yes, I had. Sorry I didn't slap my forehead and proclaim "Why, I see it now! The man is a fake!" but I honestly didn't rate the criticism to be that effective. Your opinon obviously differs.

What exactly is wrong with it?

What sweeping statements. All obtained from your friend's book review, perchance?

Sloppy research? Some of his experiments had failings. Maybe you'd like to name a scientist who's experiments are consistently perfect and above contention.

Maybe you'd like to acknowledge that Radin makes errors that can only be described as rookie. Either he is incompetent, or he is a fraud. Or, of course, both.

Wrong conclusions? According to you, maybe, but like a real skeptic I form my own opinions.

And you should. So, do you agree with Radin that psi can influence the outcome in casinos and lotteries?

He selects his data? He has been know to, yes. However, in 99.9% of his work I see no evidence of this so either you know something I don't or your prejudices against the implications of his work have got in the way again.

That's one of the rookie errors: Radin has a long education behind him, yet he knows he isn't supposed to do that. How can that not be a huge red flag to you?

Yes, really. He is presenting evidence from which we can draw our own conclusions. Did anyone ask you to ignore the evidence and blindly believe Radin's conclusions? I don't think so.

That's precisely what Radin wants the average Joe Blow to do, when he calls it "science". You know perfectly well that Joe Blow and Jane Ordinary have little or no clue as to what constitutes real science. That's why Radin tend to bury his claims in technobabble and vague phrases.

In what way? Most were valid, interesting observations. Some I hadn't picked up before, some I had. However, I found nothing approaching damning.

Really? You don't think that ignoring a similar spike previous to the 9/11 attacks is damning?

Wow. I can see why you find Radin's experiments so convincing.

Oddly enough, you recently appeared to be of a similar mindset, so yet again I ask you for the evidence that now causes to believe that Radin is a fraud who has more in common with Sylvia Browne than a scientist ~

Radin has had plenty of time to remedy his faulty research. He has done nothing to that effect, but keeps repeating it and, like a true pseudoscientist, builds on that. As Bob Park describes it, he has crossed from foolishness to fraud.

I never asked you to

Yes, you did:

If you can scientifically disprove Radin's claims (rather than referring to some guy's book review on your site) then I'll take some notice of what you're saying. Until then, I'm happy to dismiss you as an armchair debunker rather than a true skeptic.

I can read, and so can you.

, but if you want to then take a few of the most impressive result sets from Radin's experiments and either prove them to be as expected by chance or prove that the scientific method was flawed. Or even perform your own experiments.

But that doesn't disprove psi. That just proves that he is wrong.

How can I disprove psi?

 

[baron]

What childish names? How does that infringe on Radin's rights to believe what he wants, and do whatever experiments he wants?

A pseudo-scientist, for one. Why not just a scientist you don't rate, or disagree with? Likely because if you call him a pseudo-scientist you don't need to justify dismissing his work.

And there's the comparison with Browne, of course.

Radin claims he has evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. That's a huge claim, mate.

I don't believe he makes that claim. His claim seems to be that entanglement can influence macro brain processes, which if true, would not be paranormal. I don't think it is true, but that's not the issue.

Open "The Conscious Universe", page 167. Chapter 10, figure 10.5. You will find a graph depicting an experiment with 5 RNGs of the OJ Simpson verdict.

You specifically challenged me about a "missed" spike on 9/11, not OJ, which is why my reply did not concern comment on OJ.

The prediction was that this global consciousness would spike twice, when the preshows began (around 8:55) and when the verdict was announced (around 10:00). And, sure enough, there were two spikes around that time.

Yet, the graph shows three spikes, the third being around 9:42, when nothing happened. How does Radin explain this?

He doesn't even mention it in the text. It isn't a case of him forgetting it, he actively ignores it:

How can you defend that?

I don't defend it, as I've said. He should have mentioned it. Instead of instantly dismissing the entire experiment, however, the next step is to look at the data and see whether the effect is significant or not, i.e. if it appears to demonstrates some unaccounted-for phenomenon.

You say it does not. Fine. So again, based on the DATA, I ask you how you came to that conclusion.

It's not as if he erased the data, he simply failed to mention an aspect of it in his summary. The data is still there and available for analysis.

Maybe you'd like to acknowledge that Radin makes errors that can only be described as rookie. Either he is incompetent, or he is a fraud. Or, of course, both.

There is no evidence of him being a fraud. If you're basing that assessment on him not mentioning data that he actually presented then he must be inhumanly incompetent, and I for one don't believe that.

And you should. So, do you agree with Radin that psi can influence the outcome in casinos and lotteries?

I would say not, although I'm not 100% certain.

That's one of the rookie errors: Radin has a long education behind him, yet he knows he isn't supposed to do that. How can that not be a huge red flag to you?

A red flag's one thing. Dismissing a career's worth of work and data on the basis of a red flag is another.

That's precisely what Radin wants the average Joe Blow to do, when he calls it "science". You know perfectly well that Joe Blow and Jane Ordinary have little or no clue as to what constitutes real science. That's why Radin tend to bury his claims in technobabble and vague phrases.

I don't care about Joe Blow, I was asking how you evaluated his data and came to the conclusion it was either false or in accordance with chance.

Really? You don't think that ignoring a similar spike previous to the 9/11 attacks is damning?

As I said I can't recall this and will look into it.

Wow. I can see why you find Radin's experiments so convincing.

We've enough staw-men with R.A.F's contributions. Did you not read my posts where I said ~

I have grave reservations about Radin's conclusions

or

Radin harbours a number of what I would term suspect beliefs.

Radin has had plenty of time to remedy his faulty research. He has done nothing to that effect, but keeps repeating it and, like a true pseudoscientist, builds on that. As Bob Park describes it, he has crossed from foolishness to fraud.

I don't see evidence of that.

Yes, you did:

But that doesn't disprove psi. That just proves that he is wrong.

I am asking, why not show me some evidence either that Radin's data is falsified or is in accordance with chance, seeing as you believe that is the case? I'm not interested in a case for psi, I'm interested if Radin's data shows an effect (which means only there is something worthy of further investigation). You believe it does not. I want to know why, based on the data.

 

[fls]

I'd say it's unwise to simply take the majority view and declare all other views as invalid, yes.

I don't know what you mean, "harmful". It would, for instance, be a mistake to line up theories of consciousness and proclaim one as the truth, simply because it holds the majority vote, and discard the others.

I agree. Which is why I did not make that suggestion. Are you a scientist or involved in science? It does seem to be a common perception that scientific consensus is about presenting the result of a majority vote, even though it is nothing like that. That is one of the areas where I think we could do a better job of educating the public.

It wasn't a good example; I was referring to Einstein's refution of randomness and his insistence on the presence of hidden variables.

That seems to have worked out well, though, considering the 'E' in 'EPR'.

It says something maybe, I wouldn't say a "lot". The politics of science and the stigma of the field has more influence, IMO.

I'm trying to think of something comparable, but I'm not having much luck. Can you think of an area of research which scientists generally dismissed, and even once the 'evidence' accumulated they continued to dismiss it? The examples that immediately come to mind are the opposite (string theory, H. pylori, plate tectonics...) - people seem to like to jump on the bandwagon. I realize that parapsychologists make a big deal out of this - that participating in parapsychological research is taboo among mainstream fields. I don't know if this is the case (I have no direct experience in that field). I do see what happens in my own field when it comes to fringe medicine, and CAM seems to have made inroads into medicine despite being subject to the same problems. This may be a bad example, though, since they had political help - in the US anyway.

There's a difference, yes, but not something I'd personally condemn him for.

Neither would I. I just think that if he is sincere, he'd be better off figuring out how to persuade scientists, such as performing research that addresses criticisms, than figuring out how to persuade the public (which isn't very hard, after all).

Linda