Alex Tsakiris and the Skeptiko Podcast - CRITICAL LOOK AND OVERVIEW.

[Daylightstar]

I don't quite see your point, I would be as impressed if consciousness or attention or even psychic farting could affect the physical attributes of electrons or photons in a systematic way.

This, I believe, is because you already understand (rightly so in my opinion) that none of these things (can) have any effect on the double slit experiment.
In that sense it's all the same.

From the point of view of not knowing yet, testing the 'possible' influence of a real thing (consciousness) by substituting it for another real thing (focused attention) without testing for any differentiation or similarity (for the purpose of the test) between those two things is sloppy, very very sloppy indeed.
The devil is in the details.

And another thing:
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2012/01/consciousness-and-double-slit.html

attention was focused towards the double-slit as compared to away.

How does Radin believe he has been able to establish that for an effect to take place, attention has to be focused specifically on the double slit, as opposed to focusing attention on the beam generator?
Note that this last item is not the same as focusing attention away from the double slit.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can someone explain what exactly 'The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit to single-slit spectral power' means? What property is measured and how?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Can someone explain what exactly 'The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit to single-slit spectral power' means? What property is measured and how?

It's, y'know, science. It's sciencey-stuff done by scientists. Therefore quantum.

 

[Daylightstar]

It's fuzz talk for the effect he claims. I suppose to find out what effect he actually claims will maybe take some waiting until the paper comes out in June.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Can someone explain what exactly 'The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit to single-slit spectral power' means? What property is measured and how?

Jack, Dean is usually very active in the comments section, you should ask there for more details:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2012/01/consciousness-and-double-slit.html

 

[Piero]

First, naming a site Skeptiko when there is already a reputable site called Skeptico should be enough to dismiss Chakiris as a fraud.

Second, his interview with Coyne was embarrassing; he had one of the top evolutionary scientists in the world, and he kept asking nonsensical questions about quantum mechanics which he obviously does not understand. He's just another woo-peddler, and he's probably trying to match Chopra's income.

Please ignore him. Any further mention of his name on the internet will give him more Google hits and contribute to his endeavour,

 

[Arouet]

First, naming a site Skeptiko when there is already a reputable site called Skeptico should be enough to dismiss Chakiris as a fraud.

Oh, c'mon. I have my differences with Alex (Tsakiris by the way) but fraud? Give me a break!

He's just another woo-peddler, and he's probably trying to match Chopra's income.

I don't think he's making a dime of this.

Please ignore him. Any further mention of his name on the internet will give him more Google hits and contribute to his endeavour,

Honestly, whatever I may think of his ideas, he clearly is honest in his approach and appears to be doing this solely for the love of it. He doesn't seem to have monetized any of it so far (not that I would blame him if he did) and frankly has spent many of his own dollars on it.

Disagree with Alex all you want - I do - but there is no reason to question his integrity.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I pretty much agree with Arouet, and I would definitely hope one gets money for doing that much work. I'm starting to doubt his integrity a little bit though, look how hard it is for him to state his position simply and honestly on the double-slit experiment, here's our recent email exchange:

Hi Alex, I'd like to hear your reply to this question that I posted in the JREF-thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173466&page=8

You seem to think that consciousness has a special role to play in the double-slit experiment. Would you mind explaining your position on this as clearly as you can?

Thanks!

Kuko 4000

why not start a thread about this in the Skeptiko forum... introduce yourself... post your position... then send me a link and I will weigh-in.

Sorry Alex, I barely have time to keep the JREF thread alive these days, I don't think I can find motivation to sign in to another forum, I already posted something in the podcast comments under the name Banstyle.

My uneducated position re DSE is that consciousness is not relevant at all, it doesn't affect the physical properties of photons or electrons. I might be wrong about this, I'm no expert, but I'd like to see your position clearly and in sufficient detail so we can understand it better and have some expert physicists comment on it. We could both learn something interesting.

I'm really interested in your position on this, and I'm sure many others in the JREF forum are as well, as you said yourself, this is fundamental stuff. I hope you can find the time to reply asap. Posting on the JREF forum is a good way to keep the dialogue going between skeptics and believers, let's try to keep it up. If you find posting on JREF problematic, why not post the reply in your own forum, alert me on that, and I will copy paste it to the JREF forum.

Best,

K4

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3295-question-jref-forum-member.html#post87194

best,
Alex

Good stuff, we are still waiting for your own position on this, would be nice if you could say it in your own words and as clearly as possible so that there will be no misrepresentations and we can move on.

Best,

K4

get Jerry to agree to a follow-up and I'll tell him all about it.

Jerry? This has nothing to do with him, it's all about your position regarding wave-particle duality, double-slit experiment and consciousness. Is it really that difficult to express your thoughts about it honestly (like I did), you can post it in you own forum and I will copy and paste your position in the JREF thread. Please, let's be constructive and discuss this honestly and openly.

Best,

Kuko 4000

join the skeptiko forum... you'll enjoy it.

Alex, what difference does it make if I join the forum or not? Why do I have to jump totally arbitrary hoops to read your position on this? I'm not going to stay there in any case, I just don't have enough time for yet another forum presence. Why can't you just clear things up in your own words, in your own forum and in the specific thread, if for some reason you don't want to do it by email or in the original JREF thread? I will copy and paste your comments in full. We are trying to discuss your show and the accuracy of your position in the JREF forum, that's where I want to keep it. I just don't want to misrepresent your position, do you understand this? Isn't this a good thing?

So once again, could you please clarify in your own words and as clearly as possible what you meant by this:

Alex Tsakiris: It’s the observer effect, Jerry. It’s the double-slit experiment. It’s our…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: Yeah, okay, what does that have to do with…

Alex Tsakiris: Are photons waves or particles, right? So it’s like…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: What does that have to do with evolution?

Alex Tsakiris: It has to do with evolution because what we find is that it’s consciousness. If we put our consciousness one way or another it measures this way or that way. We no longer have laws of physics the way that you talk about them in this high school science way in your USA Today articles.

The latest email is from 6 days ago, no reply from Alex. It's time to move on.

PS. I'm comfortable publishing our emails publicly because Alex did this too in his own forum, I didn't mind it, but was a bit surprised.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Moving on since Alex is not interested in stating his own position clearly. Going by all the things that I've read and heard, Alex Tsakiris seems to think that consciousness can change the physical properties of photons in the double-slit experiment, and to put it more clearly, he believes that meditators can affect this as well by focusing their attention to the experiment.

This is his source:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2012/01/consciousness-and-double-slit.html

Clearly I think this is not the case, any physicists willing to weigh in?

 

[Arouet]

you might want to start a new thread on that experiment.

 

[Daylightstar]

... - but there is no reason to question his integrity.

Alex ambushing and then 'slaying' his guests with stuff they are not familiar with, is that not a reason to question his integrity?

The word integrity in context with Alex Tsakiris immediately brings back memories of his monoloque follow up show with respect to Ben Radford and the psychic detective case.
Was that monoloque follow up show not a reason to question his integrity?

If not, why not?

 

[Daylightstar]

... he clearly is honest in his approach ...

Clearly?

 

[Arouet]

Alex ambushing and then 'slaying' his guests with stuff they are not familiar with, is that not a reason to question his integrity?

I don't like that he does that and have complained to him directly about that several times. But that's different than calling him a fraud!

The word integrity in context with Alex Tsakiris immediately brings back memories of his monoloque follow up show with respect to Ben Radford and the psychic detective case.
Was that monoloque follow up show not a reason to question his integrity?

If not, why not?

I don't like his tactics at times, but then again, I don't like a lot of people's tactics. The accusation was that he is a fraud, and that goes way too far. Whether he is justified in his position or not, there is no reason to suspect that he doesn't believe it. There is no evidence that Skeptiko is some sort of racket.

There's a lot I disagree with Alex - but there is no evidence that he's a scam artist- which is what the accusation was.

Criticise him for legitimate things, but it serves no one to launch baseless accusations of fraud and scamming people out of money. That goes too far.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Whether he is justified in his position or not, there is no reason to suspect that he doesn't believe it.

I would suggest that perhaps he is equally as dishonest with himself as with other people. The email exchange above suggests that he sincerely believes that the double-slit experiment shows that consciousness determines reality (or whatever it is he actually purports to believe), and has read papers on the subject that he has completely agreed with, but that he doesn't really have much understanding of it and hasn't put the thought in to gain an understanding of it. Were he to try to describe what he believes in his own words, he'd find himself unable to do so, so he dodges around the question and then ignores it to avoid having to face the fact that he doesn't really have a clear idea of what it is that he actually does believe.

I add the caveat here that I don't know much about Tsarkis at all, but this is the impression I've got from the little I do know.

 

[Daylightstar]

Arouet, you are quoting me but are responding mostly to Piero's post, without responding to my questions.

I don't like that he does that and have complained to him directly about that several times. But that's different than calling him a fraud!
....

Sure, but I didn't suggest he could be called a fraud. In response to your statement about not seeing a reason to question Alex's integrity, I asked whether Alex ambushing and 'slaying' his guests with stuff they are not familiar with, would not be a reason to question his integrity.

...
I don't like his tactics at times, but then again, I don't like a lot of people's tactics. The accusation was that he is a fraud, and that goes way too far. Whether he is justified in his position or not, there is no reason to suspect that he doesn't believe it. There is no evidence that Skeptiko is some sort of racket.

There's a lot I disagree with Alex - but there is no evidence that he's a scam artist- which is what the accusation was.

Criticise him for legitimate things, but it serves no one to launch baseless accusations of fraud and scamming people out of money. That goes too far.

With the lack of evidence for Skeptiko being a racket, I agree.

However, I made no such accusation. I asked whether Alex's monologue follow up on the Ben Radford/psychic detective show would not be a reason to question Alex's integrity, and if not why not.

 

[Arouet]

I would suggest that perhaps he is equally as dishonest with himself as with other people. The email exchange above suggests that he sincerely believes that the double-slit experiment shows that consciousness determines reality (or whatever it is he actually purports to believe), and has read papers on the subject that he has completely agreed with, but that he doesn't really have much understanding of it and hasn't put the thought in to gain an understanding of it. Were he to try to describe what he believes in his own words, he'd find himself unable to do so, so he dodges around the question and then ignores it to avoid having to face the fact that he doesn't really have a clear idea of what it is that he actually does believe.

Make no mistake. I disagree with Alex on a lot! The only point I was making is what you have laid out: which is that he believes what he says and writes. He's not a fraud. I may think he is wrong, but I also think he's presenting his real opinions. That's all. I've got 5000 posts on his forum presenting a view that differs from his!

Arouet, you are quoting me but are responding mostly to Piero's post, without responding to my questions.

Sorry, I was just pointing out that I was responding more to the allegation of fraud than other critiques of Alex.

Sure, but I didn't suggest he could be called a fraud.

You seemed to be agreeing with the other post, my mistake!

In response to your statement about not seeing a reason to question Alex's integrity, I asked whether Alex ambushing and 'slaying' his guests with stuff they are not familiar with, would not be a reason to question his integrity.

That depends on how you view it. I don't like that practice and have been vocal about it. So have others on Skeptiko. But I'll tell you how Alex sees it. From his point of view, skeptics have their views without having done adequate research in parapsychology. So while he hears people about the ambushing issue, he also doesn't mind much because one of the points he's trying to make is that skeptics haven't done the research, and therefore shouldn't come to the conclusion that psi doesn't exist without having done it. He's trying to embarass the skeptics to make a point. I don't like the tactic, but from his point of view he's not being dishonest but trying to shed light on what he sees as a valid critique of the skeptic community.

So, I don't like the tactic, but dishonest is not quite the right word.

With the lack of evidence for Skeptiko being a racket, I agree.

However, I made no such accusation.

that's fine, I just thought you were agreeing with the other poster.

I asked whether Alex's monologue follow up on the Ben Radford/psychic detective show would not be a reason to question Alex's integrity, and if not why not.

Oh, no question he uses the monologues to skewer his skeptical guests then acts surprised when skeptics don't want to come on the show! But again: dishonesty is the wrong word. It's a cheap tactic, to be sure.

Look, there's lots to criticise Alex for. I just don't think we should invent stuff. Leave his integrity aside and attack the merits of his arguments instead!

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Sorry, I was just pointing out that I was responding more to the allegation of fraud than other critiques of Alex.
...

Yes, that was clear.

...
So, I don't like the tactic, but dishonest is not quite the right word.
...
But again: dishonesty is the wrong word. ...

The examples I gave would be enough reason for me to question his integrity. Which is why I asked about questioning his integrity specifically.
As far as dishonesty is concerned, I could possibly agree that it's not quite the right word. Which is why I asked about questioning his integrity.
I would however not boldly claim that he is clearly honest in his approach.

What do you think would be a more fitting word?

... I just don't think we should invent stuff. ...

Do you claim that I invent stuff when I ask whether Alex's integrity could be questioned, considering the examples of Alex's conduct I gave?

... Leave his integrity aside and attack the merits of his arguments instead!

Actually, I see no reason to leave Alex's (as Skeptiko host) integrity aside, since it appears on topic and surrounded by question marks.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Look, there's lots to criticise Alex for. I just don't think we should invent stuff. Leave his integrity aside and attack the merits of his arguments instead!

I agree, we should concentrate on the arguments. However, I have to also wonder why it's so difficult for him to formulate his position clearly and in his own words so that we could make sense of it? Just look at our e-mail exchange.

 

[Daylightstar]

... attack the merits of his arguments instead!

I agree, we should concentrate on the arguments. ...

Cool. Which arguments?

... I have to also wonder why it's so difficult for him to formulate his position clearly and in his own words so that we could make sense of it? Just look at our e-mail exchange.

 

[Arouet]

The examples I gave would be enough reason for me to question his integrity. Which is why I asked about questioning his integrity specifically.
As far as dishonesty is concerned, I could possibly agree that it's not quite the right word. Which is why I asked about questioning his integrity.
I would however not boldly claim that he is clearly honest in his approach.

Yeah, it's subtle. I don't really classify rhetorical devices under dishonesty. But really my point isn't much deeper here than I think Alex is sincere in his beliefs and presentation of them. Do I know for certain? No ,but having listened to most of his podcasts and argued with him quite a lot over on Skeptiko I have no reason to doubt him.

What do you think would be a more fitting word?

Unfair, cheap trick, ambushing....

Do you claim that I invent stuff when I ask whether Alex's integrity could be questioned, considering the examples of Alex's conduct I gave?

sorry, back on the fraud again!

I agree, we should concentrate on the arguments. However, I have to also wonder why it's so difficult for him to formulate his position clearly and in his own words so that we could make sense of it? Just look at our e-mail exchange.

I'm not sure he can formulate it better! At least, he doesn't tend to in all the posts I've seen him do on Skeptiko! Alex tends to draw heavily on arguments of authority. He'll list a bunch of parapsychologists, describe all their degrees and universities, and then say: they agree with this, or they disagree with that skeptic. He doens't tend to get into the nitty gritty. At least not that I've seen.