Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[baron]

Can you please explain how pointing out that Radin promotes a woo way of thinking is the same as denying him his right to do so?

You're desperately searching for an argument you can win, even if it's irrelevant and based on semantics and misrepresentation. Either explain the point you want to make or be silent.

EDIT: Ah, having looked back on previous posts I see what you're trying to do.

Originally Posted by baron
but I defend utterly his right to perform his experiments; in fact, I applaud him for it and encourage him to do more.

When I pointed out that nobody is doing this, you replied:

Originally Posted by baron
Yes they are, on account of him allegedly promoting a woo way of thinking.

You therefore conclude that when I say "I defend his right", you say "Nobody is doing this" and I deny this, you are maintaining I believe others are denying his right.

Learn to comprehend! I am stating that others do not defend his right. Big difference, no?

I am talking about what the effects are. Do these psi processes in the brain affect the world outside the body?

Very clever. You ask "do these psi processes... affect..." so if I answer yes, I believe in psi. If I answer no, then... I believe in psi. So, let's be clear so you can't concoct another semantic argument: Radin proposes as a possible conclusion that entanglement may affect the macro processes in a distant brain, the outcome of which could be to affect consciousness, thus provoking a conscious response, or to affect the unconscious brain process which in turn may provoke measurable changes in the brain and / or body.

All you have to do is address the points as they are brought up. That way, you won't (pretend to) get confused after your many "I don't understand!" posts.

You don't bring up reasoned points, you come up with "clever" little snippets. It's like you think you're some high powered lawyer whose disparate and seemingly irrelevant probings will culminate in a flash of devastating clarity when my argument will collapse around me and all other posters will leave the thread muttering, "Damn, that CFLarsen is something else."

He did omit it. Ignoring means he omitted it. The extra spike is ignored.

It's OK, you've already answered my question. No need to try and wriggle out of it.

No, you dismissed both of them out of hand. That tells me that you are not really interested in hearing about evidence that shows Radin is wrong.

You accuse me of dismissing them, but you dismiss Radin's entire career because of them. Who really is the one not interested in the truth?

If you are so unsure, and your math isn't good enough, how can you be so sure that he is not a fraud?

I see no evidence of fraud.

Your stance should have been: "I don't know enough to decide". Instead, you started with blank assessments that Radin's work was A-OK.

Gee, you mean like this?

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.

Again, you didn't address it - you merely dismissed it.

Agreeing with you = addressing
Disagreeing with you = dismissing

Yep, I see a pattern here.

You accept his results, then? That the outcome in casinos and lotteries can be influenced? That there is a global consciousness that influences RNGs?

I'm talking about the raw experimental results, not his conclusions or analylsis, as well you know.

Stop being childish. How do I disprove psi?

Er... nope, still couldn't care less.

No, not "may". They are working together, they all know each other. When your field is that small, you invariably share your work, also whatever projects you intend to work on and what you are currently working on.

So you're saying they're all unprofessional.

Yes, you are a layman. You don't understand how peer-review works. It isn't having your friends deem your work to be scientifically sound.

I am a layman with regards to the scientific method. However, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm ignorant, and certainly don't make the woeful mistake of assuming you know more than I do.

Not just a book, but extensive quoting from Radin's own works. What have you contributed, other than your own excuses?

Reasoned argument. You may want to give it a go.

Back up your contention with other than your personal layman opinion. Address the points made, instead of dismissing them out of hand. If you are such a layman, you are not in a position to dismiss valid counter-arguments against Radin's work.

But your towering qualifications are enough to label him a fraud. What's that smell..?

For the second time, as you failed to provide a list of facts I have stated for which I haven't provided reference ~

What claims have I made that would be helped by a reference? Please list them clearly. I will then examine each one and, if I have made that claim, either provide a reference or admit I don't have one.

And talking of things you conveniently ignore, I'm still waiting for you to explain what changed your mind from conceding that Radin might have discovered an effect (and this was after the New York meeting) to labelling him a fraud and a pseudo-scientist. Was it your mate's book review?

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're desperately searching for an argument you can win, even if it's irrelevant and based on semantics and misrepresentation. Either explain the point you want to make or be silent.

EDIT: Ah, having looked back on previous posts I see what you're trying to do.

You therefore conclude that when I say "I defend his right", you say "Nobody is doing this" and I deny this, you are maintaining I believe others are denying his right.

Learn to comprehend! I am stating that others do not defend his right. Big difference, no?

You clearly have forgotten your own words:

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.

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

You were saying that others are denying his right to perform his experiments.

Very clever. You ask "do these psi processes... affect..." so if I answer yes, I believe in psi. If I answer no, then... I believe in psi. So, let's be clear so you can't concoct another semantic argument: Radin proposes as a possible conclusion that entanglement may affect the macro processes in a distant brain, the outcome of which could be to affect consciousness, thus provoking a conscious response, or to affect the unconscious brain process which in turn may provoke measurable changes in the brain and / or body.

No, no, no. Radin is talking about a phenomenon that influences the brain's ability to e.g. pick the right numbers in casinos and lotteries. He also talk about psychokinesis, e.g. in chapter 8 in "The Conscious Universe", on dice tossing:

Our literature search located seventy-three relevant publications, reåresenting the efforts of fifty-two investigators from 1935 to 1987. Over this half-century, a total of 2,569 people had attempted to metally influence 2.6 million dice throws in 148 different experiments, and just over 150,000 dice throws in 31 contol studies where no mental influence was applied to the dice. The total number of dice tossed per study ranged from 60 to 240,000; the number of participants per study ranged from 1 to 393.
...
The overall hit rate for all control studies (i.g., studies in which no one tried to influence the tossed dice) was 50.02 percent, and the confidence interval was well within chance expectation, resulting in overall odds against chance of two to one. But for all experimental studies, the overall hit rate was 51.2 percent. This does not look like much, but statistically it results in odds against chance of more than a billion to one.

So, do you agree with Radin's results that these psi processes in the brain affect the world outside the body, yes or no?

And talking of things you conveniently ignore, I'm still waiting for you to explain what changed your mind from conceding that Radin might have discovered an effect (and this was after the New York meeting) to labelling him a fraud and a pseudo-scientist. Was it your mate's book review?

It's right here, in post #98:

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 really think it is time that you started to read the thread, and post some references. All you do is whine and bitch about the material that is presented to you.

Get off your butt and let's see some real argument from you.

 

[fls]

I think we pretty much agree here - Radin just doesn't make any claims of any interest to anyone else. Would you spend time and money reviewing Radin's work? Do you know anyone who would? His results are, however, suggestive that something is there and Ivor raises an excellent case for "something else entirely", using the Sherlock Holmes approach.

The parapsychology research does have something of interest when viewed with a skeptical mind. As a study of how patterns form, it is quite enlightening. From listening to interviews of Richard Wiseman, this is one of the things that keeps him going.

It doesn't seem to be up on the website yet, but the most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer had a good example. David Voas used the census data from England and Wales to test the validity of Astrology. Astrology would predict a pattern to the birthdates of husbands and wives (since compatibility is an important component of Astrology) whereas he expected no association. He found instead a small, but definite pattern to the data and set out to discover why. The answer was interesting (as well as other features of the investigation), but had nothing to do with the position of the planets, despite attempts by another investigator to make that interpretation.

Well, this all started because Randi has described him in somewhat unsavoury terms. "Having nothing to refute" comes under my OP umbrella of thinking that he's harmless, i.e. his claims are so un-noteworthy that I wouldn't argue against him. If Randi thought Radin had nothing to refute, I doubt he'd make the commentary, let alone be a regular feature in it.

That illustrates the difference between the public and scientific perception (sometimes I think they never overlap ). "Nothing to refute" may be the scientific perspective, but I think the point is whether or not it is the public perception.

Other people are pretty fervently trying to refute his claims right here in this thread, so at least some sectors feel that his claims need to be refuted, no matter how poorly they try to do it.

Exactly. I think it's a matter of assuming (or suspecting) that the public perception needs correcting to match up with the scientific perspective.

Don't you think they tend to prove that Radin is actually using scientific methodology? They are scientists he works with and publishes papers jointly with who have done critical analysis of his work and found a possible source of bias.

I don't disagree that Radin uses scientific methodology. It's a matter of looking at what conclusions can be drawn from those results. He gives the impression that his conclusions are supported by the results (which is correct), but alternate (non-paranormal) conclusions are also supported by the results, which means his results do not prove the existence of paranormal phenomena such as psi (to prove something is to exclude alternate explanations).

Linda

 

[humber]

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.

I was naive in the sense that I took too much at face value. I did not expect they would bend the rules when it suited them. Almost everything is according to the book, but it is the 1% that they allow for themselves that is the essential variable.
It is not so much mocking, as ennui at seeing the same old routine.

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.

I meant necessary as proof, rather than spiritual need. He will not produce any unequivocal results either way.
If you utterly defend self-promotion and the spreading of speculation, then he's your man. I know BBC Horizon is now rubbish, but I wonder how it was they though his notions justified their time. Not a lot of evidence, but he is quite comfortable to let loose the idea that fighter pilots can see into the future.

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?

I was referring to the pre-cognition tests of the above programme. By complicated, I meant that there will be seemingly innocuous, but spurious parts of the test procedure that are the result of some tweaking necessary to getting a result. They remain as fossils in the procedure, and are thereafter often overlooked.

Now that you ask, I find the grin of a Cheshire Cat difficult to understand.

I would want to personally inspect all of the apparatus before I took his data at face value.

Yep, really deep. Unfortunately it's rubbish.
[/QUOTE]
There is perhaps difference between Radin and, say Geller. Geller knows he is a fraud, but Radin may have convinced himself that he is on to something. If he believes it, the more convincing he will appear to others. It does seem important to some to stress that he is a "real" scientist.

 

[baron]

You clearly have forgotten your own words:
You were saying that others are denying his right to perform his experiments.

As I thought, semantics. You know exactly what I mean. No substance, no point, just a word game to divert from the real issue; that you call Radin a fraud yet you have no evidence to back it up.

No, no, no. Radin is talking about a phenomenon that influences the brain's ability to e.g. pick the right numbers in casinos and lotteries. He also talk about psychokinesis, e.g. in chapter 8 in "The Conscious Universe", on dice tossing:

As I was discussing "Entangled Minds" I was referring his conclusions in that book. Yes, he does make other claims. Are you asking if I agree with them all? The answer's "probably not", as I've already stated.

So, do you agree with Radin's results that these psi processes in the brain affect the world outside the body, yes or no?

It's official, you don't know the difference between results and conclusion. Ask me a question that makes sense and I'll answer.

It's right here, in post #98:

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.

Oh, I read it alright, but it does not add up, which is why I brought it up again.

I ask you why you believe Radin is a fraud. You provide two links, both to your own site. On the first link is the New York meeting, for which your conclusion is relatively favourable. The second is a book review which poses reasonable questions but little in the way of harmful critique (and certainly nothing that indicates fraud).

I ask again what changed your mind from "unsure" to saying Radin is an out-and-out fraud. You then tell me it's because of his "repeated" faulty research since that time. Yet when I ask you to show me examples of the errors in this research you won't, and instead refer back to the two original examples.

It is you who are making a claim, that Radin is a fraud. You are evidently so tired of his "repeated" errors that you have completedly re-thought your stance. So, please provide this incontravertible evidence.

I really think it is time that you started to read the thread, and post some references. All you do is whine and bitch about the material that is presented to you.

I ask for a third (and last) time ~

What claims have I made that would be helped by a reference? Please list them clearly. I will then examine each one and, if I have made that claim, either provide a reference or admit I don't have one.

Get off your butt and let's see some real argument from you.

Give me something to argue against other than unfounded allegations and silly word games, then I'd be only too glad.

I don't see the merit in replying further to your posts unless you present something worthwhile. You are making the extraordinary claim, not me: Provide the evidence.

You say you have proof, or at least proof beyond reasonable doubt, Radin is a fraud. You run a website called the Skeptic Report. I would expect such a revelation to be splashed all over your home page. You alone have proof that a well-known scientist has been not only been falsifying his results and defrauding other scientists but also defrauding the public.

This is news, don't you see? Not only have you proof of appalling wrong-doing, you should be lauded by your skeptical colleagues for your excellent work.

Yet this doesn't seem to be happening.

Instead, you choose to mutter the revelation in a thread on the JREF and then decline to provide any sort of comprehensive reasoninging to back it up.

You have proof Radin is a fraud. Provide that proof. Present a reasoned argument. Let Radin answer.

Unless you can do this you're all hot air. You've nothing to say and you're saying it too loudly.

 

[baron]

I was naive in the sense that I took too much at face value. I did not expect they would bend the rules when it suited them. Almost everything is according to the book, but it is the 1% that they allow for themselves that is the essential variable.

And that's why it's essential to do the investigation. These things come out.

I meant necessary as proof, rather than spiritual need. He will not produce any unequivocal results either way.
If you utterly defend self-promotion and the spreading of speculation, then he's your man. I know BBC Horizon is now rubbish, but I wonder how it was they though his notions justified their time. Not a lot of evidence, but he is quite comfortable to let loose the idea that fighter pilots can see into the future.

To be fair to Radin you can't make judgement on the basis of a TV show. You know as well as anyone that the editing they do is so that they can fit the subject matter into their agenda, whatever it may be. I don't have a problem with anyone criticising Radin - why would I? - but let's do it fairly.

I was referring to the pre-cognition tests of the above programme. By complicated, I meant that there will be seemingly innocuous, but spurious parts of the test procedure that are the result of some tweaking necessary to getting a result. They remain as fossils in the procedure, and are thereafter often overlooked.

I don't disagree.

I would want to personally inspect all of the apparatus before I took his data at face value.

Heck, so would I!!

There is perhaps difference between Radin and, say Geller. Geller knows he is a fraud, but Radin may have convinced himself that he is on to something. If he believes it, the more convincing he will appear to others. It does seem important to some to stress that he is a "real" scientist.

I believe he is a "real" scientist. As I've said, I suspect he's making errors but I see no malice in his work and until others provide evidence then I'll stick to that view.

 

[chillzero]

Keep it civil, please. I've moved some off topic bickering to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[The Atheist]

The parapsychology research does have something of interest when viewed with a skeptical mind. As a study of how patterns form, it is quite enlightening. From listening to interviews of Richard Wiseman, this is one of the things that keeps him going.

Absolutely, and thank christ he does - very few other scientists bother. It's all very well for Randi to jump up and down, but in the world's eyes it's just an older version of Chris Angel and the $1,000,000 cheque for Callahan and Geller. Showman vs showman, big deal.

Wiseman, on the other hand, has the approach that Ivor the Bloody Legend did above - something's going on, but what the hell is it? I think Wiseman could (and would) most likely find errors in all of Radin's research, but it would take him the same 20 years that Radin has spent researching. I'd be surprised if he couldn't think of better things to do, but in the meantime, it does seem - and your own links confirm it - that the world of "legitimate" parapsychology, that which resides in actual universities, is providing peer reviews of at least some worth.

Hey, I'd love to see this stuff chucked out the window and the huge amounts of money spent on cancer research, but as Baron keeps trying to point out, that ain't happening. Randi jumping up and down meanwhile looks exactly the same as CFLarsen doing - some "skeptic" with an agenda and no evidence.

It doesn't seem to be up on the website yet, but the most recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer had a good example.

Link? I don't see it handy.

That illustrates the difference between the public and scientific perception (sometimes I think they never overlap ). "Nothing to refute" may be the scientific perspective, but I think the point is whether or not it is the public perception.

Given that probably 95+% of the public has no idea who it is, that's not going to be an easy question to ask. While I hesitate to use the term, I suggest that Sylvia Browne's penetration is probably far greater than Dean Radin's.

That said, I'd bet that the sheer numbers who would die for Oprah saw him on that and probably believe every word. Add to that the public perception that people with a Master's degree in electrical engineering are usually pretty smart, and that he lectures at university, and I'd be surprised if the vast majority of people who've ever heard of him think those skeptical of his work without evidence are the true nutters.

And that's why it's essential to do the investigation. These things come out.

This must be the only time in my life I've agreed fully with someone from your neck of the woods, but I agree with at least 99.9999% of what you've said so far.

I believe he is a "real" scientist. As I've said, I suspect he's making errors but I see no malice in his work and until others provide evidence then I'll stick to that view.

Hell, I'll go with 100% then.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I thought, semantics. You know exactly what I mean. No substance, no point, just a word game to divert from the real issue; that you call Radin a fraud yet you have no evidence to back it up.

As I was discussing "Entangled Minds" I was referring his conclusions in that book. Yes, he does make other claims. Are you asking if I agree with them all? The answer's "probably not", as I've already stated.

I am asking if you agree with Radin's results that these psi processes in the brain affect the world outside the body, yes or no?

It's official, you don't know the difference between results and conclusion. Ask me a question that makes sense and I'll answer.

How is "the overall hit rate was 51.2 percent" a conclusion and not a result??

I ask for a third (and last) time ~

Just list what you think will support your by now many contentions.

Unless you can do this you're all hot air. You've nothing to say and you're saying it too loudly.

Still no real argument from you. Still no references from you.

 

[baron]

Hell, I'll go with 100% then.

I'm sure we'll disagree on some other thread some day soon

I am asking if you agree with Radin's results that these psi processes in the brain affect the world outside the body, yes or no?

Again you mistake conclusions for results, but in the interests of remaining sane I'll answer: Probably not.

How is "the overall hit rate was 51.2 percent" a conclusion and not a result??

I presume you're referring to the experimental dice trials, although it's difficult to tell. Yes, 51.2% is a result. You're asking me if I "agree" with it. I don't know why you can't see this is a bizarre question, but to stop your pestering I'll answer as best I can.

Yes, I believe the result was obtained honestly.

No, I don't have the mathematical knowledge to confirm that the analysis he used produced this figure is accurate.

Yes, I believe there might be some error in his calculation, especially when comparing it with his meta analysis of other experiments, which showed (from memory) something like 50.02%

No, I don't believe he deliberately "fixed" the result of 51.2%

I believe it is unlikely that human thought can alter the fall of dice, although I do not discount the idea.

I really hope that covers it, although I still have no idea what my opinion on that has to do with the issue at hand.

Just list what you think will support your by now many contentions.

Still no real argument from you. Still no references from you.

I've nothing more to say on this because I've already explained my position and you have studiously ignored it. If you wish to point to a claim I have made that is in need of reference then go ahead, otherwise this is getting tiresome.

 

[CFLarsen]

Again you mistake conclusions for results, but in the interests of remaining sane I'll answer: Probably not.

Why not?

I presume you're referring to the experimental dice trials, although it's difficult to tell.

Yes, I am. Do take the time to follow the posts.

Yes, 51.2% is a result. You're asking me if I "agree" with it. I don't know why you can't see this is a bizarre question, but to stop your pestering I'll answer as best I can.

Yes, I believe the result was obtained honestly.

So, you believe that, when people try to influence the outcome of a coin being flipped by using their mind, the overall result is above chance.

You believe in a paranormal phenomenon, then.

No, I don't have the mathematical knowledge to confirm that the analysis he used produced this figure is accurate.

He didn't analyse to get to the figure. He simply calculated the results.

Yes, I believe there might be some error in his calculation, especially when comparing it with his meta analysis of other experiments, which showed (from memory) something like 50.02%

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that the 51.2% result is correct, or you don't. Which is it?

No, I don't believe he deliberately "fixed" the result of 51.2%

Why not?

I believe it is unlikely that human thought can alter the fall of dice, although I do not discount the idea.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

I've nothing more to say on this because I've already explained my position and you have studiously ignored it. If you wish to point to a claim I have made that is in need of reference then go ahead, otherwise this is getting tiresome.

Still nothing from you. No real argument. No references. All you do is sit back and criticize.

 

[baron]

Why not?

Because I can't conceive of a mechanism that I find acceptable and, being that I can't fully validate Radin's method and calculations either, I can't make conclusive judgement.

So, you believe that, when people try to influence the outcome of a coin being flipped by using their mind, the overall result is above chance.

You believe in a paranormal phenomenon, then.

Oh! *slaps forehead* Of course I do! Did I neglect to mention that? Silly me.

I also believe in unicorns, hobgoblins, Xenu, fairy princesses, alien moon bases, spirit guides and anything else you care to tell me I believe in.

Obviously me specifying my position in a way any 5-year-old could comprehend wasn't enough, so if it makes you happy, I concede whatever point you're trying to make. You win. Or whatever.

He didn't analyse to get to the figure. He simply calculated the results.

I've bolded the word that you may want to consider in relation to my previous posts.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that the 51.2% result is correct, or you don't. Which is it?

I don't know whether it's correct or not.

Why not?

I see no evidence.

If the fix exists and is as blatant as you say then please, make a name for yourself and spend the next 15 minutes documenting it. Put in on the home page of your site and you'll become an overnight hero of the skeptical community. Trust me, do that you won't have people queueing up to put you on ignore.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

"Both ways"...

I don't believe in aliens but this is the closest I've come to experiencing an alien thought process.

Still nothing from you. No real argument. No references. All you do is sit back and criticize.

If you read my posts you'll see I actually spend the vast proportion of my time attempting to answer your inane questions, not to mention clarifying my position when you actually tell me what I believe in then have the monster balls to criticise me for the words you yourself put in my mouth!

A pity the certainty of your conviction isn't enough for you to document your case of fraud against Radin on your site. After all, that's what it's for, isn't it?

It's almost like you have no evidence, just biased reasoning that goes something like this ~

* I, CFLarsen, don't believe in psi
* Radin has produced a significant positive in a psi experiment
* Therefore, Radin is a fraud

It seems your "argument" involves trying to force me into a corner and admit something I don't believe, at which point you can label me a woo and retire triumphant. Unfortunately for you, that will never happen.

Maybe you'd like to give up now. Up to you of course, although I can tell you now I don't have time to play your silly games any more, nor do I have the energy to deal with your comedy logic.

Come up with a sensible point of discussion or argument and then I'll be happy to engage you.

So, over to you for the last (likely indecipherable) word.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because I can't conceive of a mechanism that I find acceptable and, being that I can't fully validate Radin's method and calculations either, I can't make conclusive judgement.

But this isn't about you being able to conceive of a mechanism, nor is it about you being able to validate Radin's method or calculations.

This is solely about whether or not you accept Radin's results.

Isn't it?

Oh! *slaps forehead* Of course I do! Did I neglect to mention that? Silly me.

I also believe in unicorns, hobgoblins, Xenu, fairy princesses, alien moon bases, spirit guides and anything else you care to tell me I believe in.

Obviously me specifying my position in a way any 5-year-old could comprehend wasn't enough, so if it makes you happy, I concede whatever point you're trying to make. You win. Or whatever.

There is no need for this. If you want to accept Radin's results, you believe in psi.

I've bolded the word that you may want to consider in relation to my previous posts.

Adding now constitutes something other than results? You are seriously casting doubt on Radin ability to add?

I don't know whether it's correct or not.

It's a result. You said earlier that you accepted Radin's results. How can you now not accept his results? You, who are so knowledgable about his results?

I see no evidence.

If the fix exists and is as blatant as you say then please, make a name for yourself and spend the next 15 minutes documenting it. Put in on the home page of your site and you'll become an overnight hero of the skeptical community. Trust me, do that you won't have people queueing up to put you on ignore.

Oh, for crying out loud...

If you can't see any evidence that he "fixed" the result of 51.2%, how can you at the same time dismiss it?

If you read my posts you'll see I actually spend the vast proportion of my time attempting to answer your inane questions, not to mention clarifying my position when you actually tell me what I believe in then have the monster balls to criticise me for the words you yourself put in my mouth!

A pity the certainty of your conviction isn't enough for you to document your case of fraud against Radin on your site. After all, that's what it's for, isn't it?

It's almost like you have no evidence, just biased reasoning that goes something like this ~

* I, CFLarsen, don't believe in psi
* Radin has produced a significant positive in a psi experiment
* Therefore, Radin is a fraud

It seems your "argument" involves trying to force me into a corner and admit something I don't believe, at which point you can label me a woo and retire triumphant. Unfortunately for you, that will never happen.

Maybe you'd like to give up now. Up to you of course, although I can tell you now I don't have time to play your silly games any more, nor do I have the energy to deal with your comedy logic.

Come up with a sensible point of discussion or argument and then I'll be happy to engage you.

So, over to you for the last (likely indecipherable) word.

Still no real argument from you. Still no references from you.

 

[baron]

Nothing new, as expected. It's all been covered so I've nothing to add.

I'll return to this thread if there's any resurrection of reasonable discussion, or if I find anything worthy of conversation in the PDFs that fls linked to (that I haven't read yet).

 

[CFLarsen]

Nothing new, as expected. It's all been covered so I've nothing to add.

I'll return to this thread if there's any resurrection of reasonable discussion, or if I find anything worthy of conversation in the PDFs that fls linked to (that I haven't read yet).

No, it hasn't all been "covered".

This isn't about you being able to conceive of a mechanism, nor is it about you being able to validate Radin's method or calculations. This is solely about whether or not you accept Radin's results.

Isn't it?


Are you seriously casting doubt on Radin's ability to add?

You said earlier that you accepted Radin's results. How can you now not accept his results? You, who are so knowledgable about his results?

If you can't see any evidence that he "fixed" the result of 51.2%, how can you at the same time dismiss it?

 

[blauregen]

Before you go "that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!", just think about the differential equations your brain implicitly solves when you track and catch a moving object.

I bow to your mathematical capacity, but I assure you doing it by continuous approximation is much easier.

 

[humber]

From #146

And that's why it's essential to do the investigation. These things come out.

I think you mean the open-minded approach? What if experimental error blows away the original premise? That happens often in pseudo-science, yet those who believe, rather than being a neutral observer, shift to another variant in the hope of regaining the effect. That is their M.O.

To be fair to Radin you can't make judgement on the basis of a TV show. You know as well as anyone that the editing they do is so that they can fit the subject matter into their agenda, whatever it may be. I don't have a problem with anyone criticising Radin - why would I? - but let's do it fairly.

That is quite the point. After seeing the programme, I hit the internet to find out more. I read the reference that describes the photographic experiments.
Like others, I wondered how such a protocol was developed. It seems less than obvious to me why it would be done in the proscribed manner.

The significant point is that I am left guessing. I have to think of possible leakages that may corrupt the result. So, at least in that sense, the results are nebulous, even though the claims are not.

You and I know that TV does not care about accuracy, but not Radin? Most watching this programme would see a scientist making claims about seeing into the future in an earnest and technical way (as apposed to the subjective manner of psychics). That is highly misleading. He should know this, and in my opinion, that makes him a fraud. Perhaps not of malice, but certainly of deception. He cannot be denied the right to conduct the experiments, but the means by which he releases the results is irresponsible, lending as it does tacit or explicit credence to all sorts of woo.

His claim is not trivial. If I were to discover this event, perhaps it would convince me to continue, but I would want the experiments to be bulletproof before I released the results. From a technical point of view, the trials are easy. I should not have to second-guess them. All potential sources of leakage should be clearly removed. Failures, and why the occurred, should be noted. I would make the rigour of the trials, commensurate with the significance of the claims. He should do all that work!

He has omitted so much of relevance, yet we are told of the 66MHz PC, which suggests to me that such details are obfuscation, rather than evidence of procedural rigour. (Another hallmark of pseudo-science.)

I believe he is a "real" scientist. As I've said, I suspect he's making errors but I see no malice in his work and until others provide evidence then I'll stick to that view.

No, for the above reasons, I do not see him as a real scientist. He's also playing the rather trite open-minded-science-doesn't-know-everything card.

As FLS remarked, there are few cases where denial has resulted in the long term pillory of an idea. Black holes, gravitational constants and plate-tectonics cannot be empirically tested on the kitchen table, but Radin's claims can. That's a big difference. Why move from what you could definitely prove in the lab, to the wide world and O.J. Simpson?

 

[baron]

Are you seriously casting doubt on Radin's ability to add?

You said earlier that you accepted Radin's results. How can you now not accept his results? You, who are so knowledgable about his results?

So, I gather what you're saying is that if you were asked to do a meta analysis on hundreds of studies you would add the results together. Nothing more. You'd "add them all together" and come up with a figure?

If you had to do analysis of

148 experiments by 52 investigators involving 2,569 people, and 2.6 million dice rolls, with over 150,000 dice throws in 31 control studies

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...lpaper.doc+radin+dice+51.2&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6

...you'd just "add everything up" and hey presto, a percentage would appear.

You wouldn't bother adjusting for homogeneous distribution. You wouldn't bother factoring in a file-drawer effect. You would do no analysis or mathematical adjustment, you'd just add them all together.

If you can provide evidence that meta analyses involve simply "adding everything together" then I'll consider answering your question.

So, for the last time, I'm not knowledgeable enough to confirm or deny his results, but I don't see any evidence of fraud or mathematical error.

If you can't see any evidence that he "fixed" the result of 51.2%, how can you at the same time dismiss it?

In what way have I dismissed it? Oh, I forgot, I dismissed it because you say I have to either fully accept it, in which case I apparently must believe in psi and all its implications, or I have to fully reject it, in which case I must label Radin a fraud.

You have put forward one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something.

I think you mean the open-minded approach? What if experimental error blows away the original premise? That happens often in pseudo-science, yet those who believe, rather than being a neutral observer, shift to another variant in the hope of regaining the effect. That is their M.O.

Experimental error should be accounted for, and has been on all the experiments for which I've seen data. I can't vouch for the maths but it's there and the experimenters usually make the claim that the errors cannot account for the effect.

That is quite the point. After seeing the programme, I hit the internet to find out more. I read the reference that describes the photographic experiments.
Like others, I wondered how such a protocol was developed. It seems less than obvious to me why it would be done in the proscribed manner.

I have reservations too, but not enough to dismiss the work or the people doing it. I also concede that my reservations, as yours, might simply be the result of ignorance about the necessary process and the equipment.

The significant point is that I am left guessing. I have to think of possible leakages that may corrupt the result. So, at least in that sense, the results are nebulous, even though the claims are not.

Indeed.

You and I know that TV does not care about accuracy, but not Radin? Most watching this programme would see a scientist making claims about seeing into the future in an earnest and technical way (as apposed to the subjective manner of psychics). That is highly misleading.

You missed my point. I wouldn't be surprised if they took many dozens of hours footage of Radin, then picked 8 minutes to broadcast (the 8 minutes that best fits the BBC's agenda). It's not possible to make judgment based on that. As for Radin himself, yes, I'm sure he welcomes the publicity and is willing to sacrifice some perceived scientific impartiality as a result, but in his position I don't blame him.

He should know this, and in my opinion, that makes him a fraud. Perhaps not of malice, but certainly of deception. He cannot be denied the right to conduct the experiments, but the means by which he releases the results is irresponsible, lending as it does tacit or explicit credence to all sorts of woo.

I disagree. I don't see any major issue in the way he releases the results. He didn't "release" anything on TV, he simply showed one aspect of his research.

His claim is not trivial. If I were to discover this event, perhaps it would convince me to continue, but I would want the experiments to be bulletproof before I released the results. From a technical point of view, the trials are easy. I should not have to second-guess them. All potential sources of leakage should be clearly removed. Failures, and why the occurred, should be noted. I would make the rigour of the trials, commensurate with the significance of the claims. He should do all that work!

The experiments are simple yes, but they are not "easy" because the effect, should it exist, is very small and does not appear to be consistent. Yes, he could tighten up on his experimental procedure (IMO - I might be wrong) but to dismiss him because of that? Nope, I'll wait for more evidence.

He has omitted so much of relevance, yet we are told of the 66MHz PC, which suggests to me that such details are obfuscation, rather than evidence of procedural rigour. (Another hallmark of pseudo-science.)

I don't follow you. What PC? Are you talking about the papers he has published? What has he omitted?

No, for the above reasons, I do not see him as a real scientist. He's also playing the rather trite open-minded-science-doesn't-know-everything card.

That "card" has its uses, especially against those who take the "safe" option and maintain science does know everything.

As FLS remarked, there are few cases where denial has resulted in the long term pillory of an idea. Black holes, gravitational constants and plate-tectonics cannot be empirically tested on the kitchen table, but Radin's claims can. That's a big difference.

As I said, the alleged effect is small and unstable. It also involves human interaction as a primary factor, so of course it's going to be tricky to pin down. Study any aspect of human performance, between individuals or for an individual, and you're going to get variances. Critics of Radin don't seem to want to allow for this.

Why move from what you could definitely prove in the lab, to the wide world and O.J. Simpson?

Not sure what you mean. The 9/11 and OJ studies were performed in a lab.

 

[fls]

Absolutely, and thank christ he does - very few other scientists bother. It's all very well for Randi to jump up and down, but in the world's eyes it's just an older version of Chris Angel and the $1,000,000 cheque for Callahan and Geller. Showman vs showman, big deal.

Wiseman, on the other hand, has the approach that Ivor the Bloody Legend did above - something's going on, but what the hell is it? I think Wiseman could (and would) most likely find errors in all of Radin's research, but it would take him the same 20 years that Radin has spent researching. I'd be surprised if he couldn't think of better things to do, but in the meantime, it does seem - and your own links confirm it - that the world of "legitimate" parapsychology, that which resides in actual universities, is providing peer reviews of at least some worth.

My impression is that those studies are very much the exception, rather than the norm - that what is SOP in any other field is seen as cynical nitpicking by the believers or draws special praise from the skeptics.

Link? I don't see it handy.

There isn't anything to link to. All I've got is the hard copy.

Given that probably 95+% of the public has no idea who it is, that's not going to be an easy question to ask. While I hesitate to use the term, I suggest that Sylvia Browne's penetration is probably far greater than Dean Radin's.

That said, I'd bet that the sheer numbers who would die for Oprah saw him on that and probably believe every word. Add to that the public perception that people with a Master's degree in electrical engineering are usually pretty smart, and that he lectures at university, and I'd be surprised if the vast majority of people who've ever heard of him think those skeptical of his work without evidence are the true nutters.

I don't think you mean without evidence, but rather without explanation. That his work is unpersuasive to those that don't agree is usually considered sufficient evidence for skepticism (it is the way science works, after all).

Linda

 

[CFLarsen]

So, I gather what you're saying is that if you were asked to do a meta analysis on hundreds of studies you would add the results together. Nothing more. You'd "add them all together" and come up with a figure?

If you had to do analysis of

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...lpaper.doc+radin+dice+51.2&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6

...you'd just "add everything up" and hey presto, a percentage would appear.

You wouldn't bother adjusting for homogeneous distribution. You wouldn't bother factoring in a file-drawer effect. You would do no analysis or mathematical adjustment, you'd just add them all together.

Nonsense. I'm saying that all these only require standard math.

If you can provide evidence that meta analyses involve simply "adding everything together" then I'll consider answering your question.

Let me get this straight: Do you have issues with Radin's use of meta analysis? The method he uses to get his result?

So, for the last time, I'm not knowledgeable enough to confirm or deny his results, but I don't see any evidence of fraud or mathematical error.

Then, you believe in psi.

In what way have I dismissed it? Oh, I forgot, I dismissed it because you say I have to either fully accept it, in which case I apparently must believe in psi and all its implications, or I have to fully reject it, in which case I must label Radin a fraud.

You have put forward one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something.

If you accept the percentage, then you believe in psi. The experiments tested for psychokinesis: The participants tried to influence the outcome of a coin flip with their minds.

According to Radin, those experiments showed a higher percentage than the control groups.

You believe in psi.