Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[fls]

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.

The scientific process is about convincing people that don't agree with you, though. I think most (but not all) people in the field of parapsychology start off with a belief in psi.

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

Of course they are both a form of judgement. The question is whether we are a better judge of what is definitely right from among several possibilities, or of what is definitely wrong. I have been considering this issue for quite a while and it seems we aren't very good when it comes to the former, but we are when it comes to the latter. We've had threads on this here, and I have yet to see a convincing example (particularly in the recent past) of a theory that was thought to be proven wrong that later turned out to be right, but lots of examples of people backing ideas they thought were right that later turned out to be wrong.

Linda

 

[The Atheist]

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").

Ok, but as I said earlier, there are a large number of reputable and respected universities which are involved in studying psi. Wouldn't that alone make this "mainstream science"?

Take theoretical neuroscience. That is recognised as a mainstream science subject, yet many of the areas cross over into Radin's field. One of the world's leading theoretical neuroscientists assures me that there is no possibility that the brain can be self-referencing and that cogito ergo sum cannot result from a brain which does not contain a "soul" or whatever you'd like to call it. He disagrees with Radin's work, yet his own is involving something far more complex and more extraordinary than Radin's psi.

I think the line between mainstream and alternative science has become pretty blurred, which is why, if Radin et al are going to be dismissed, we need to have a considerable body of data showing flaws in his work. As yet, that doesn't exist.

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.

Yet the departments of parapsychology are attached to departments of psychology at those universities, so there is at least tacit approval from a considerable body of professorial psychologists. Radin has a large number of supporters, and as the link in the original thread showed, some of them are scientists. I'm not even sure it's fair to say a majority of scientists disagree with radin, simply because most of them wouldn't give two hoots either way. I'd love to conduct a straw poll at universities to find out for sure what they think.

Just out of interest, you keep talking about mainstream scientists who disagree with Radin - can you name a few who have publicly stood up and dismissed it on the basis of either failing to replicate the results or as a result of finding errors in Radin's methodology or calculations? Wiseman is the only one I can think of and even he doesn't dismiss it, settling for stating that his checking of Radin's results showed anomalies in 2/3 cases. I spent quite a long time looking for informed opinion on the subject and found precious little.

 

[Beth]

The question is whether we are a better judge of what is definitely right from among several possibilities, or of what is definitely wrong. I have been considering this issue for quite a while and it seems we aren't very good when it comes to the former, but we are when it comes to the latter. We've had threads on this here, and I have yet to see a convincing example (particularly in the recent past) of a theory that was thought to be proven wrong that later turned out to be right, but lots of examples of people backing ideas they thought were right that later turned out to be wrong.

Linda

I believe that Einstein's cosmological constant would fit that description. If I understand the history of it correctly, Einstein himself became convinced that it was a mistake to include it and so did everyone else at that time. Now it is integral part of our current best description of the universe. Or at least, that's what I gather from perusing threads in the Science forum.

 

[Ersby]

Just out of interest, you keep talking about mainstream scientists who disagree with Radin - can you name a few who have publicly stood up and dismissed it on the basis of either failing to replicate the results or as a result of finding errors in Radin's methodology or calculations? Wiseman is the only one I can think of and even he doesn't dismiss it, settling for stating that his checking of Radin's results showed anomalies in 2/3 cases. I spent quite a long time looking for informed opinion on the subject and found precious little.

Could you be more specific? When you say "stood up and dismissed it", what "it" are you referring to? "Psi" as a theory or one of the experimental protocols that Radin has used?

And do you have any references for what Wiseman said? Again, you said "he doesn't dismiss it", without defining "it". I assume you mean presentiment, since Radin's pretty active in that field, but I'd like to be sure.

Maybe if someone posted a link to the original thread, things might be clearer.

 

[fls]

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?

The connection between psi and psychic is pretty direct. Psi research (and Radin) includes mediumship. I agree that it is unfair to connect Sylvia and Radin because the fault is her fraud, regardless of the setting. I chose her simply because she had been mentioned already, and without evidence for the existence of psi, the difference between her and less deliberately deceitful mediums is a matter of degree, not kind.

If we were talking about medicine, it would be unfair to criticize medical research because of the action of a deliberate quack. But if we are talking about homeopathy, the homeopath that fills all her/his medicine bottles with tap water isn't all that different from those that go through the process of dilutions. It still comes back to a discussion about the legitimacy of the entire field in the first place.

Linda

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

Let me refresh your memory:

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:

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

Processes in the brain that affect the macro world.

...outside the body?

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

Yes.

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.

I showed you that he didn't include it in his conclusion: He ignored that there was a spike where there shouldn't have been one, if his theory was right.

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.

What you are doing right now is moving the goal posts. You asked for examples, you got them. Now, you want "thousands".

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.

Where does he go wrong? Be specific. References, sources, etc.

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.

If you don't see the given examples as cheating, then it won't matter what you are presented with.

You've explained precisely nothing.

Demonstrably untrue.

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.

I said I was talking about the meeting in New York in 2002.

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.

What about the results?

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.

Because you told me to.

So, how do I disprove psi?

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.

Here is something from Radin that obviously comes as a big surprise to you:

(T)here are only about twenty to forty people around the world who are looking into parapsychology from a scientific point of view.
Closer to Truth, "Can ESP affect your life"

Do you understand the consequences of this wrt his peers reviewing his research? They all know each other and work together, on some level. That's not what peer review means in science.

Have you noticed something? I keep posting references, quotes and evidence. What do you do, besides claim that it is up to others to prove you wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, but as I said earlier, there are a large number of reputable and respected universities which are involved in studying psi. Wouldn't that alone make this "mainstream science"?

Take theoretical neuroscience. That is recognised as a mainstream science subject, yet many of the areas cross over into Radin's field. One of the world's leading theoretical neuroscientists assures me that there is no possibility that the brain can be self-referencing and that cogito ergo sum cannot result from a brain which does not contain a "soul" or whatever you'd like to call it. He disagrees with Radin's work, yet his own is involving something far more complex and more extraordinary than Radin's psi.

I think the line between mainstream and alternative science has become pretty blurred, which is why, if Radin et al are going to be dismissed, we need to have a considerable body of data showing flaws in his work. As yet, that doesn't exist.



Yet the departments of parapsychology are attached to departments of psychology at those universities, so there is at least tacit approval from a considerable body of professorial psychologists. Radin has a large number of supporters, and as the link in the original thread showed, some of them are scientists. I'm not even sure it's fair to say a majority of scientists disagree with radin, simply because most of them wouldn't give two hoots either way. I'd love to conduct a straw poll at universities to find out for sure what they think.

Just out of interest, you keep talking about mainstream scientists who disagree with Radin - can you name a few who have publicly stood up and dismissed it on the basis of either failing to replicate the results or as a result of finding errors in Radin's methodology or calculations? Wiseman is the only one I can think of and even he doesn't dismiss it, settling for stating that his checking of Radin's results showed anomalies in 2/3 cases. I spent quite a long time looking for informed opinion on the subject and found precious little.

Please defend your claim that:

1. Psi exists.
   
2. Psi is strong enough to influence gambling at casinos and playing the lottery.

The onus is on you.

 

[fls]

Ok, but as I said earlier, there are a large number of reputable and respected universities which are involved in studying psi. Wouldn't that alone make this "mainstream science"?

Take theoretical neuroscience. That is recognised as a mainstream science subject, yet many of the areas cross over into Radin's field. One of the world's leading theoretical neuroscientists assures me that there is no possibility that the brain can be self-referencing and that cogito ergo sum cannot result from a brain which does not contain a "soul" or whatever you'd like to call it. He disagrees with Radin's work, yet his own is involving something far more complex and more extraordinary than Radin's psi.

I think the line between mainstream and alternative science has become pretty blurred, which is why, if Radin et al are going to be dismissed, we need to have a considerable body of data showing flaws in his work. As yet, that doesn't exist.

I don't think the presence of some researchers at mainstream universities makes it a mainstream science. Compare it to something like CAM which has also infiltrated mainstream universities. Anatomists aren't using the results of research into acupuncture to search for structures that could account for meridians. Only a few fringe chemists perform research into the 'memory' of water on the basis of the results of homeopathic studies. Even if some of the researchers in these fields are associated with mainstream universities, their results, if true, should be informing and permeating other fields of study. If there is a new force at work, surely physicists would need to take this into account when performing their studies even if they weren't (for some bizarre reason) exquisitely curious as to what particle carries this force and how it helps inform them as to the TOE. Instead, it makes small inroads into areas of overlap (as expected), without generating wider interest.

I'm not sure what you mean by a considerable body of data showing flaws in his work. I think the flaw is that it (i.e. the ganzfeld effect) can't be consistently reproduced even within the parapsychology community. I don't think he's convinced anyone that there is even something to refute. Rather than actively attempting to dismiss Radin et al, I think scientists in other fields are waiting to be shown something that even deserves their attention.

Yet the departments of parapsychology are attached to departments of psychology at those universities, so there is at least tacit approval from a considerable body of professorial psychologists. Radin has a large number of supporters, and as the link in the original thread showed, some of them are scientists. I'm not even sure it's fair to say a majority of scientists disagree with radin, simply because most of them wouldn't give two hoots either way. I'd love to conduct a straw poll at universities to find out for sure what they think.

I suspect they don't care. They are waiting for mainstream scientists that have expertise in the relevant fields to let them know when there is something of interest.

Just out of interest, you keep talking about mainstream scientists who disagree with Radin

Have I? I didn't mean to, if I did. My main point is that he has been ignored outside of parapsychology.

- can you name a few who have publicly stood up and dismissed it on the basis of either failing to replicate the results or as a result of finding errors in Radin's methodology or calculations? Wiseman is the only one I can think of and even he doesn't dismiss it, settling for stating that his checking of Radin's results showed anomalies in 2/3 cases. I spent quite a long time looking for informed opinion on the subject and found precious little.

Ray Hyman has also addressed his work.

Linda

 

[fls]

I believe that Einstein's cosmological constant would fit that description. If I understand the history of it correctly, Einstein himself became convinced that it was a mistake to include it and so did everyone else at that time. Now it is integral part of our current best description of the universe. Or at least, that's what I gather from perusing threads in the Science forum.

That's a good example and I'll take it (even though I'm not sure that they count as the same thing (I don't have enough knowledge to tell)). I was hoping that a bit of a 'prove me wrong' attitude might get some hits.

Linda

 

[baron]

Let me refresh your memory:
When I pointed out that nobody is doing this, you replied:

I have genuinely no idea what you're talking about.

...outside the body?

Processes. In. The. Brain.

I don't see anything in those four words that indicate "outside the body".

If you have a point to make, please make it and be done. I'm getting tired of looking back several pages each time you post in order to patch together all these silly snippets that appear to represent your thought processes.

I showed you that he didn't include it in his conclusion: He ignored that there was a spike where there shouldn't have been one, if his theory was right.

I thought so. So he didn't omit it from his statistical analysis. Thank you for confirming that.

What you are doing right now is moving the goal posts. You asked for examples, you got them. Now, you want "thousands".

And I addressed each both of them. I just thought that since you label Radin a fraud you might have more evidence than an omission from an experimental account and an anecdote about a presentation.

Where does he go wrong? Be specific. References, sources, etc.

Right, so you have asked a third time. Despite me saying twice my maths isn't good enough to pinpoint the errors you ignore me and ask the same question yet again.

I've read most of his analyses and, from a layman's perspective, it seems that he has not performed the analysis properly in some cases. For example, he does not appear to specify with sufficient clarity what would constitute a perfect hit prior to the analysis, and I can't see how his statistics account for that. However, they might, and because I don't fully understand his method of error accommodation I can't say for sure.

If you don't see the given examples as cheating, then it won't matter what you are presented with.

Seeing you don't have anything else to present I wouldn't let that worry you.

I said I was talking about the meeting in New York in 2002.

That's been done to death. You told me your issue and I addressed it. Let's not go through it every single time you post.

What about the results?

I've found no fault with his results. As I said, it's his analysis that I have problems with.

So, how do I disprove psi?

First off, it involves not being an ass. Prove you can do that and I'll consider revealing stage 2.

Here is something from Radin that obviously comes as a big surprise to you:
(T)here are only about twenty to forty people around the world who are looking into parapsychology from a scientific point of view.

Not really, as I'm already familiar with that claim. Don't judge others by your own standards.

Do you understand the consequences of this wrt his peers reviewing his research? They all know each other and work together, on some level. That's not what peer review means in science.

So because they know each other and may have worked together they are unprofessional? Interesting bias. And even if this were true, so what? What point are you making?

Have you noticed something? I keep posting references, quotes and evidence. What do you do, besides claim that it is up to others to prove you wrong?

Always good to end a post on a joke. A link to your own site and a line from a book, there's no stopping you and your reference sources.

What do you do, besides claim that it is up to others to prove you wrong?

Prove me wrong about what? What would you like references to? 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.

(If you're waiting for me to post references to something that proves psi exists then you'll be waiting a long time because I never claimed it does, nor will I without sufficient evidence)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ok, I've been doing a bit more reading up on the presentiment experiments and other possible explanations for the results. Before I get onto that I think everyone should be aware of what the result of a hypothesis test means, because there seems to be some confusion from reading some of the posts in this thread.

The result of a hypothesis test gives the probability of the observed data given the null hypothesis is true. It says nothing about the probability of the alternate hypothesis being true, or the probability of the null hypothesis being true for that matter. One advantage psi and other paranormal research has over mainstream science is many of the null hypotheses in the latter are obvious strawmen, whereas in psi the null is often reasonable given our current state of knowledge.

When selecting alternate hypotheses from the infinite number available, most mainstream scientists tend to be fairly conservative with the amount of well supported science they are going to challenge by declaring their alternate hypothesis the most likely explanation for the results of an experiment. On the other hand, Radin has decided to deduce from his experiment faster-than-light transfer of information is both possible and occurs in everyday circumstances. That's a pretty big hypothesis, don't you think? I can think of an unlikely alternate hypothesis which is consistent with the evidence and does not tear-up well established physics: The participants manage to sub-consciously predict the output of the random number generator, not perfectly, but well enough to have better than chance results during the experiment. 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.

So the question is why come up with an alternate hypothesis which implies mainstream science is fundamentally wrong about the nature universe, when a (slightly) less extreme hypothesis explains the results and fits with what experiments in other scientific fields indicate to be at least possible?

Reading about other explanations for the results of these presentiment experiments, I came across an interesting analysis, which assumed the expectation of an emotional image increases after a calm image is displayed (a.k.a. The Gambler’s fallacy). If the results are processed in a certain way, this one effect can introduce significant bias into the results. The problem with using this as an explanation is the results were not processed in the way outlined in the analysis. But it did give me a couple of ideas.

The first thing to notice about the experimental setup is the trials are not independent as far as a participant is concerned, thus I think the assumption participants would fall for the gambler’s fallacy is reasonable. This would result in the expectation of an emotional image increasing every time an emotional image was not displayed i.e. a string of clam images leads to higher expectation of an emotional image being next. I also think it’s reasonable to assume a ratcheting-up of expectation would have a direct effect on the physiological parameters measured.

Secondly, notice how the results are analysed; the change in skin conductance is plotted, compared to the first sample in the trial. So what makes the difference between the averages of the calm and the emotional trials before the image is presented is the rate of decay of skin conductance from the first sample in the trial.

So I’m wondering is what the effect would be of a different rate of change of skin conductance, depending on the absolute level of skin conductance at the start of a trial, on the results of the analysis?

 

[baron]

Ivor the Engineer - Valid points. I'm trying to get hold of some raw data (individual graphs) for these experiments but have so far been unsuccessful.

 

[fls]

In regards to the pre-sentiment experiments, here are some links to research from a previous thread on this topic that I thought were interesting.

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf

Linda

 

[baron]

In regards to the pre-sentiment experiments, here are some links to research from a previous thread on this topic that I thought were interesting.

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf

Linda

Look interesting, some light bedtime reading...

 

[The Atheist]

Could you be more specific? When you say "stood up and dismissed it", what "it" are you referring to? "Psi" as a theory or one of the experimental protocols that Radin has used?

Yeah, sorry. Psi in general, Radin's conclusions on presentiment in particular.

I don't think the presence of some researchers at mainstream universities makes it a mainstream science.

To you and me, sure, but I think the "average Joe" wouldn't know the difference. This is the huge difference between Radin & co and the Sylvia/Uri/Popov [sp?] of the world - those ones make it up as they go along, while Radin & the Parapsychology Foundation do attempt scientifically-approved methods of study.

And mainstream science does sometimes get it wrong.

If there is a new force at work, surely physicists would need to take this into account when performing their studies even if they weren't (for some bizarre reason) exquisitely curious as to what particle carries this force and how it helps inform them as to the TOE. Instead, it makes small inroads into areas of overlap (as expected), without generating wider interest.

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.

I don't think he's convinced anyone that there is even something to refute.

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.

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.

In regards to the pre-sentiment experiments, here are some links to research from a previous thread on this topic that I thought were interesting.

http://m0134.fmg.uva.nl/publications/2002/expectationbias_PA2002.pdf

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf

Linda

Yeah, they're highly relevant.

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.

 

[The Atheist]

Ok, I've been doing a bit more reading up on the presentiment experiments and other possible explanations for the results....

Mate, that is an exceptional post and nominated accordingly.

Truly sceptical and critical thinking. A C Doyle will be resting warm in his grave tonight.

 

[Damien Evans]

How small? Be specific. You have "read his books", you have "researched Radin & Co thoroughly", so it should be easy for you.



Wrong. Precognition is the ability to predict events before they happen, period:





You are totally ignorant of what Radin really claims:



Tell you what: Why don't you get back when you have actually studied Radin's claims, in detail, instead of merely regurgitating whatever you can suck up from a quick Google search?



If you want to discuss SkepticReport as such, do so in another thread.






"Which scientist does not select his own data?"?

Such statements serve only to expose your ignorance: If he is doing real science, he doesn't select his own data.



It isn't, by far. But these claims are crucial to Radin's claims of scientific evidence of a global consciousness. Misrepresenting the data the way he does casts serious doubt about the rest of what he does.



Where does Wiseman say he was "unable to refute them"?



You refuse to address criticism of Radin's research, then.

*sigh*

Wake me up when Claus says something useful.

 

[Damien Evans]

Ah, as I expected, my $100 was safer than a man in church.

CFLarsen, let me remind you again that this thread isn't about me claiming anything. You claim to be able to refute Radin's claims.

For the fifth time, please go ahead and do so.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[The Atheist]

I wouldn't hold your breath.

I'm not!

I finally had to resort to using the "Ignore" button - I'd always wondered what it was for. Now I know: it makes the forum readable.

(The pages are a hell of a lot shorter too!)

 

[CFLarsen]

I have genuinely no idea what you're talking about.

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?

Processes. In. The. Brain.

I don't see anything in those four words that indicate "outside the body".

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

If you have a point to make, please make it and be done. I'm getting tired of looking back several pages each time you post in order to patch together all these silly snippets that appear to represent your thought processes.

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.

I thought so. So he didn't omit it from his statistical analysis. Thank you for confirming that.

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

And I addressed each both of them. I just thought that since you label Radin a fraud you might have more evidence than an omission from an experimental account and an anecdote about a presentation.

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.

Right, so you have asked a third time. Despite me saying twice my maths isn't good enough to pinpoint the errors you ignore me and ask the same question yet again.

I've read most of his analyses and, from a layman's perspective, it seems that he has not performed the analysis properly in some cases. For example, he does not appear to specify with sufficient clarity what would constitute a perfect hit prior to the analysis, and I can't see how his statistics account for that. However, they might, and because I don't fully understand his method of error accommodation I can't say for sure.

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

That's been done to death. You told me your issue and I addressed it. Let's not go through it every single time you post.

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

I've found no fault with his results. As I said, it's his analysis that I have problems with.

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

First off, it involves not being an ass. Prove you can do that and I'll consider revealing stage 2.

Stop being childish. How do I disprove psi?

Not really, as I'm already familiar with that claim. Don't judge others by your own standards.

Sure you were.

So because they know each other and may have worked together they are unprofessional? Interesting bias. And even if this were true, so what? What point are you making?

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.

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.

Always good to end a post on a joke. A link to your own site and a line from a book, there's no stopping you and your reference sources.

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

Prove me wrong about what? What would you like references to? 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.

(If you're waiting for me to post references to something that proves psi exists then you'll be waiting a long time because I never claimed it does, nor will I without sufficient evidence)

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.

I'm not!

I finally had to resort to using the "Ignore" button - I'd always wondered what it was for. Now I know: it makes the forum readable.

(The pages are a hell of a lot shorter too!)

It speaks volumes that the moment you are asked to provide evidence of your claims that psi exists, and that psi is strong enough to influence gambling at casinos and playing the lottery, you put me on ignore.