Which part(s) of Radin's book do you want to discuss? Your choice.
Rather than his book, let's have a look at his claims. He says that the reason we won't accept them is because they are very slight and require immense testing. Accordingly, they don't fit things like the MDC, because a protocol is impossible to work out.
Let's put a stake at 5% variance from chance.
You go away and work out a protocol which can accurately reflect that 5% variation. If you come up with something workable, we can present it to Radin for comment. A means of funding it would be helpful as well.
Even doing 1000 coin tosses at each-way odds, you'd hardly be surprised at 525-475. How many thousands of times would it be necessary to repeat that to be classed as "better than chance"? Go away, do the maths.
Good call!
Instead of being watered down to invisible, Radin is settling for almost invisible. The other reason homeopathy is an excellent comparison is that homeopathy does create a placebo effect. Psi studies concentrating on small changes are easily interpretable as anomalies.
I claim that UFOs carrying intelligent life from other planets are here, but are simply undetectable by current scientific methods. Also, invisible Bigfoots. And Chupacabras.
Is promoting ideas such as these (which differ little from Radin's claims) harmless? I guess it depends on how you define "harm."
Personally, I think that pointing out the silliness of such claims is a positive thing.
I agree, but it's useful to be able to counter facts with facts. Most peer reviews of psi "studies" are carried out by other members of the psi fraternity and there is little independent work.
I think the claims you're comparing it to aren't the same at all. He's not claiming invisibility and he's not claiming fairies - he is saying it's testable and I agree with him. The trouble appears to be that when Richard Wiseman did some serious work on Radin & others' ganzfeld results, the numbers were so small as to be meaningless. To hold the required number of tests would be an enormous undertaking and one which isn't about to happen.
Where is the harm in his claims? Poisoning the well by referring to Sasquatch is all very well, but I fail to see how anyone is going to undergo any kind of harm by having what is almost a deist belief. Deists are quite acceptable in the skeptical world - how does Radin differ?
How can we point out the silliness of the claims if we cannot accurately state what's required to debunk them, let alone provide that evidence?
And what do chupacabras have to do with it? I shot one of them in my garden last week. Braised in a white wine sauce, they're superb.
I think that the relevant question to ask is that if you cannot detect them, how can you claim they exist?
To borrow Carl Sagan's metaphor, I have an invisible, incorporeal dragon in my garage.
Again, that's not quite his claim - he claims that the effects exist and
are measurable.
If you can find a realistic way to test his claims - go ahead.
