Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[R.A.F.]

We've enough staw-men with R.A.F's contributions.

I asked you why you would characterize my request for credible evidence as a strawman[ and you failed to answer...

If you intend on ignoring my posts, then it is only "proper" that you not comment on them...UNDERSTAND??

 

[The Atheist]

3) What was the purpose of using a 2:1 ratio of calm to emotional photos in experiment 3, other than to enable participants to learn calm photos were twice as likely to appear than emotional photos* during the experiment?

How would they learn that?

They were unaware of the ratios at any time and being randomly-generated, it wouldn't have been that obvious, would it?

I'll go with your other criticism, but you'd have to check Bierman's methodology as well as he apparently achieved similar results.

Why is the Sylvia Browne site being mentioned in this thread? Radin is a scientist. Sylvia Browne is a con-woman. What's the link?

Radin does mention Sylvia Browne himself on occasion - as an example of psi isn't, and no doubt because he gets cast in with her.

 

[R.A.F.]

There is no evidence of him being a fraud.

There is sufficient evidence that Radin's bias causes him to evaluate evidence only in favor of his preconceived notions that psi is real.

He knows better than to do that, because he consciously "chooses" what evidence to ignore, and what evidence to include.

Since he "knows better", then by definition, he is guilty of fraud.

 

[baron]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "vote", I was referring to the most prevelant view as held by those people who work in that particular field. Am I mistaken?

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?

Not off-hand. It's further complicated because the evidence, when taken as a whole, is borderline and therefore inconclusive. However, I can think of areas where woo has made vast inroads into otherwise respectable scientific discipline (homeopathy, for instance) so I would not rate the criteria of acceptance as a very reliable yard-stick.

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 can't say as I don't have direct experience either, just what I've read.

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).

I agree. If I met him I'd shake him and tell him to buck his ideas up. All I'm saying is that I can't justify dismissing him, as some do, on this basis.

 

[baron]

Radin does mention Sylvia Browne himself on occasion - as an example of psi isn't, and no doubt because he gets cast in with her.

This is actually a valid point in considering Radin's actions and motives. we should bear in mind it can't be easy being lumped in with all the woos and nutters of this world whilst at the same time having those same woos and nutters thinking you're their best friend. If I were in that position I'd also feel compelled to write a few books to try and set the record straight.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Of course. But none of that infringes on his rights to do whatever research he wants.

Do you understand this? Your accusation was baseless.

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.

Ahhh...... Please explain what "macro brain processes" are.

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

I showed you the OJ example to prove that the 9/11 omission is not a single event.

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.

It is highly revealing that you think that he "simply failed to mention" what you call "an aspect of it". No, he didn't "fail", and it isn't "an aspect". Radin ignored data that contradicted his theory.

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.

Why not? Remember, he hasn't done it just once, he has done it several times.

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

Whoa, whoa. What in his evidence don't you agree with?

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

Not just one red flag.

Why are you so keen on downplaying Radin's repeated examples of incompetence/cheating?

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.

I have explained how.

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

I am talking about the meeting in New York in 2002.

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

or

Oh, no. No, no. You can't have it both ways. If you accept Radin's research as scientifically valid, you have to follow the scientific conclusions.

I don't see evidence of that.

Then, you close your eyes to the obvious.

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.

And I am asking: How do I disprove psi?

 

[baron]

There is sufficient evidence that Radin's bias causes him to evaluate evidence only in favor of his preconceived notions that psi is real.

He knows better than to do that, because he consciously "chooses" what evidence to ignore, and what evidence to include.

Since he "knows better", then by definition, he is guilty of fraud.

As far as I can see the (rare) omission of information from his summaries does not affect the statistical evaluations. Therefore there is no fraud. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it, or at least quote examples based on your extensive research.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

My fault in the phrasing - you're right, it's no disaster for medicine, but it's a disaster for public perception of medicine.

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'm not sure what consensus you're talking about here, but there is no question that a majority (if not all) parapsychologists believe that these psi effects have been found during scientific testing. Radin mentions Bierman's studies and you need to add in others like Storm & Thalbourne who have been consucting parallel studies. Other scientists may not accept the results, but since they aren't parapsychologists, how is their opinion relevant? Haven't we been stressing that opinion isn't science?

On your basis above, I'm sure you took no regard of how psychologists, forensic accountants and medical science viewed black hole theory, why are you taking regard of scientists with no experience in psi in this matter?

As Baron is busily pointing out, Radin isn't alone here, this is an area of study being conducted at numerous actual universities around the world and if we view solely those scientists who have worked on the subject, a consensus exists alright.

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.

Nope, that's a nonsense argument. On that basis, I should blame Randi for Callahan. If Randi were honest and open about how to perform his magic tricks, maybe Callahan wouldn't be able to pretend to use paranormality.

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

(bolding mine)

Again, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. The scietific evidence does largely support Radin and what expertise there is most assuredly agrees with him.

Which "experts" are you suggesting form the majority of opinion against psi?

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.

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

While yours, consisting of "It's rubbish, nananana!" is convincing?

You talk about the scientific method - Radin is clearly a scientist and is equally-clearly using scientific methodology.

Science, as I understand it, is about using sound methodology to create replicable experiments. That's exactly what Radin's done - do check out other work on the field and you'll find that several other actual scientists in actual university-sponsored research have repeated those tests and come up with similar results. Because these people are actual scientists, their results are all published for you to debunk.

You also ask about "mainstream science". What the hell does that have to do with it? What is "Mainstream science"? Does that consist of people who have completed the years of study and research necessary to gain Masters degrees and PhDs then conduct studies under the auspices of reputable universities? If so, Radin, Storm, Bierman and Thalbourne are disappointingly "mainstream".

Other "mainstream scientists" may well have an opinion on psi, but I think it's your point that science doesn't worry about opinion?

 

[R.A.F.]

As far as I can see the (rare) omission of information from his summaries does not affect the statistical evaluations.

Any conscious decision to omit information is evidence of fraud. That's how science actually works...you have to evaluate ALL of the evidence, even if some of it doesn't agree with one's "pet theory".

...but you should know that, shouldn't you?? Why would you argue something that is SO against the method of scientific evaluation?

 

[baron]

Of course. But none of that infringes on his rights to do whatever research he wants.

Do you understand this? Your accusation was baseless.

I've given up trying to understand your reasoning on this point. I said he shouldn't be derided because you disagree with his conclusions. Then you say I've made accusations. You're really in a muddle, aren't you?

Ahhh...... Please explain what "macro brain processes" are.

Processes in the brain that affect the macro world.

I showed you the OJ example to prove that the 9/11 omission is not a single event.

The 9/11 omission that I still haven't verified you mean?

It is highly revealing that you think that he "simply failed to mention" what you call "an aspect of it". No, he didn't "fail", and it isn't "an aspect". Radin ignored data that contradicted his theory.

Are you saying he omitted it from his statistical analysis? That's a rhetorical question, obviously you are saying that because you state he "ignored data". Can you provide proof? Perhaps you are correct but I'd be a fool to believe something that for all I know you've just plucked out of the air.

Why not? Remember, he hasn't done it just once, he has done it several times.

In print, once that I'm aware of. Another possible one in a presentation. What about the rest of his career? You must have thousands of examples, can you please post some of them.

Whoa, whoa. What in his evidence don't you agree with?

I suspect that his statistical analysis, whilst honest, is invalid. I lack the mathematical knowledge to say exactly how. I've already said this so hopefully you'll take it in now and not ask for it a third time.

Not just one red flag.

Why are you so keen on downplaying Radin's repeated examples of incompetence/cheating?

It's called putting something into perspective. And I still have no evidence of him cheating, as you refuse to provide any. Unless you call cheating omitting to mention a spike that he actually put up there on the projector for all to see and then published in a book. Not a particularly efficient cheat IMO.

I have explained how.

You've explained precisely nothing.

I am talking about the meeting in New York in 2002.

So you're suggesting that in his 9/11 article in "Entangled Minds" he has not made this omission? Be careful, I will be checking.

Oh, no. No, no. You can't have it both ways. If you accept Radin's research as scientifically valid, you have to follow the scientific conclusions.

Come again? It's perfectly acceptable to approve of an experimental method but question the analysis. It's also perfectly acceptable to accept the analysis and question the conclusion in the absence of an accepted mechanism.

And I am asking: How do I disprove psi?

Give it a rest. I don't give a monkeys if you disprove psi or not and I don't know why you keep asking me about it.

 

[fls]

Not sure what you mean by "vote", I was referring to the most prevelant view as held by those people who work in that particular field. Am I mistaken?

There may be a single view that is most prevalent in a particular field, but there are likely to be other views which are widely held to a varying degree, plus some views that are held by only a few that aren't considered overtly crazy, and then there are those views that are dismissed as unlikely or impossible by all but a few proponents. I think it is possible to recognize the relative weight given to various ideas and to recognize when most people in the field think the evidence is against you.

Not off-hand. It's further complicated because the evidence, when taken as a whole, is borderline and therefore inconclusive. However, I can think of areas where woo has made vast inroads into otherwise respectable scientific discipline (homeopathy, for instance) so I would not rate the criteria of acceptance as a very reliable yard-stick.

I was thinking more along the lines of whether non-acceptance could serve as a reliable yard stick.

Linda

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It must be so easy to be an armchair debunker. Nevertheless, I won't be giving it a try. I prefer to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion that way.

Me too. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How would they learn that?

They were unaware of the ratios at any time and being randomly-generated, it wouldn't have been that obvious, would it?

I'll go with your other criticism, but you'd have to check Bierman's methodology as well as he apparently achieved similar results.

Having not done the experiment, I can't say if it would be obvious or not within 30 or 40 trials. My guess is it would not be obvious to most people at a conscious level, but many would be able to make more accurate guesses after ~15 trials without knowing why.

I still want to know what the reason was for using the 2:1 ratio in the first place? I can't think why an honest experimenter, trying to demonstrate such an unlikely ability, would want to skew the odds away from even, especially when it was so easy to ensure even odds.

 

[baron]

Any conscious decision to omit information is evidence of fraud. That's how science actually works...you have to evaluate ALL of the evidence, even if some of it doesn't agree with one's "pet theory".

...but you should know that, shouldn't you?? Why would you argue something that is SO against the method of scientific evaluation?

Do you want to read what I wrote again?

I said I'm not aware of Radin omitting ANY data from his statistical evaluations. The only issue is, as far as I know, that his discussions of the data - on rare occasions - should have pointed out other anomalous spikes in the data, but did not.

However, you obviously DO have the evidence that he has withheld data from his calculations as you label him a fraud, so I repeat; please provide it.

I am willing to be proved wrong so I eagerly await your next post, which will contain the link.

 

[baron]

There may be a single view that is most prevalent in a particular field, but there are likely to be other views which are widely held to a varying degree, plus some views that are held by only a few that aren't considered overtly crazy, and then there are those views that are dismissed as unlikely or impossible by all but a few proponents. I think it is possible to recognize the relative weight given to various ideas and to recognize when most people in the field think the evidence is against you.

Sure, but as TA asked, are there many in Radin's field who deny his work has merit? I was under the impression he's very well respected in his own field and his work is deemed worthy.

I was thinking more along the lines of whether non-acceptance could serve as a reliable yard stick.

I'd say no as acceptance and non-acceptance are both a function of judgement and therefore inexorably linked.

 

[R.A.F.]

Do you want to read what I wrote again?

I said I'm not aware of Radin omitting ANY data from his statistical evaluations.

Read again...

As far as i can see the (rare) omission of information from his summeries does not affect the statistical evaluations.

Not the same at all is it...

Why would ANYONE want to continue a discussion with you when you misrepresent your own posts??

I am willing to be proved wrong...

GET A FRIGGIN' CLUE for christ sakes...we don't have to prove that you're wrong about anything. You have to prove that you are right...

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

 

[R.A.F.]

...are there many in Radin's field who deny his work has merit? I was under the impression he's very well respected in his own field and his work is deemed worthy.

What "field" would that be? Parapsychology??

Who are his "peers"? Other pseudoscientists?

 

[fls]

I'm not sure what consensus you're talking about here, but there is no question that a majority (if not all) parapsychologists believe that these psi effects have been found during scientific testing. Radin mentions Bierman's studies and you need to add in others like Storm & Thalbourne who have been consucting parallel studies. Other scientists may not accept the results, but since they aren't parapsychologists, how is their opinion relevant? Haven't we been stressing that opinion isn't science?

I made a point of mentioning that I was talking about mainstream scientists in related fields in some of my other posts, but I forgot to do so here, and I apologize for unintentionally leading you astray.

The findings from research in the field of parapsychology would be of great interest in related fields if it were true. I realize that there is consensus within the field of parapsychology, but outside of the field, there isn't even consensus on whether it is a legitimate area of endeavour (from Dean Radin's blog "fewer than one percent of mainstream academic institutions have any faculty known for their interest in these frequently reported experiences").

On your basis above, I'm sure you took no regard of how psychologists, forensic accountants and medical science viewed black hole theory, why are you taking regard of scientists with no experience in psi in this matter?

I would probably use examples a bit closer to home - if black holes are the purview of astrophysics, I would expect their existence to be of interest to those who work with high energy/particle physics, for example. And as you move further away, other fields of research still depend upon the validity of physics. Medical science depends upon biochemistry which depends upon the properties of elementary particles, for example. However, no one seems to find it necessary to take psi into account when planning experiments, even though the presence of an additional force should directly affect the results of anything they attempt.

Also, to those people who are attempting to add to a detailed understanding of the structure and function of the human mind, an additional source of sensory information would be of great interest. Psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists would have both interest and experience in those things studied under parapsychology.

Nope, that's a nonsense argument. On that basis, I should blame Randi for Callahan. If Randi were honest and open about how to perform his magic tricks, maybe Callahan wouldn't be able to pretend to use paranormality.

I don't think you've made the right comparison. Radin says psi exists and Sylvia says she uses psi. Randi says he uses trickery, so how is it comparable for Callahan to pretend he doesn't?

(bolding mine)

Again, I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. The scietific evidence does largely support Radin and what expertise there is most assuredly agrees with him.

Which "experts" are you suggesting form the majority of opinion against psi?

I hope the explanation I gave above clarifies what I meant.

Linda

 

[baron]

Originally Posted by baron
Do you want to read what I wrote again?

Read again...

I said I'm not aware of Radin omitting ANY data from his statistical evaluations.

As far as i can see the (rare) omission of information from his summeries does not affect the statistical evaluations.



Not the same at all is it...

Why would ANYONE want to continue a discussion with you when you misrepresent your own posts??

Caps and italics. How can I argue against that?

What I wrote is perfectly consistent. Allow me to explain, if you haven't keeled over already in an apoplectic fit:

Radin generates data from his experiments. He performs analylsis and calculation on this data and formats it into graphical format. He then discusses it. Pretty standard stuff.

To my knowledge, he has not omitted data from his analysis or calculations, he has simply, on very rare occasions, failed to discuss a portion of that data in his written and verbal summaries.

You label him a fraud. So you have evidence that he skews his analysis by withholding or otherwise manipulating data.

Yet again, I ask for you to please provide your link. Either that or, you know, go away.

 

[baron]

Radin says psi exists and Sylvia says she uses psi.

I think that's incredibly unfair and I'm surprised you would make that connection.

Browne claims to communicate with the dead, to see angels and talk with spirits.

I've never heard her attempt to justify her woo by quoting scientific evidence or even an individual's opinion, and I'm damn sure her patrons don't feel the need to justify their beliefs. Nothing Radin puts forward could in any way be used to bolster Browne's credibility. Of course people could twist the facts but does that mean we should have suppressed quantum theory too?

And what would be the implication if Radin is right? Would that vindicate Browne?