Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[baron]

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

No. You said adding up.

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

There's the word, "add", in italics, specifically stated by you on two separate occasions.

Yet now it's "standard math". Is that more than "adding up"? Does it include the distribution calculations, the file-drawer calculations and adjustments? I'm confused.

This can easily be settled. I'll forget that you've just changed your argument again if you simply summarise the statistical methods that Radin used. Then I can judge whether he could have reasonably made errors without being incompetent or fraudulent. It should be very simple for you because it's just "standard math".

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

I see no evidence of issues but for the sixth time, I can't validate the maths so I cannot be sure; I suspect that issues do exist but that's not a scientific assessment.

Then, you believe in psi.

Listen to yourself.

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.

Clearly you're unable to understand basic logic so my answer that muddle of assumption is, whatever.

BTW It's dice, not coins.

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

I had to read that twice to be sure, but it appears you're actually correct about something.

You believe in psi.

Tell you what, I'll save you the bother of writing your next few well-thought out arguments

baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner

 

[CFLarsen]

I see no evidence of issues but for the sixth time, I can't validate the maths so I cannot be sure; I suspect that issues do exist but that's not a scientific assessment.

I didn't ask you to validate the maths. I asked you if you have problems with using meta analysis as a method. Do you?

baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner
baron believes in psi, ner ner ner ner ner

If Radin's result is OK, and it isn't due to psi, what is it due to?

 

[humber]

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.

I was referring to my experiences of this. Results are gathered showing a positive result. Woops...error that negates it. Repeating the now tighter experiment produces no positive result. Change experiment. All wooers seem to do this, including those making over-energy devices.

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.

Dismiss is not the correct word. Underwhelmed, maybe.

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.

Yes OK its Horizon, but Radin says;
"If your driving along a highway and if you get a bad feeling them maybe you probably ought to pay attention to it, because may be the bad feeling is relating to an event that is about to occur -and if you make a wrong decision on a highway you could end up dead."

An unstable tiny effect in the lab, is a clear and strong effect in real life.
Shades of homeopathy, I think.
He quite clearly links this spurious claim to the precognition photo trails. I do blame him for 'sacrificing that impartiality'. 'Economy with the truth' is also an acceptable euphemism?

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.

Books and TV, but not through the usual paths of peer-reviewed publications.

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.

There is nothing difficult about the trials. Cheap and easy hardware. Why not make that an 8 channel datalogger and get some more data? Why would it not be consistent? If the hypothesis allows for inconsistency as an attribute, then I am sure there will be an outcome.

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

The one that is linked from here; 'Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions'
There are some details, but not enough to remove all doubt. There is some effort to address possible sources of error, including a version of the gambler's fallacy that Ivor the Engineer mentioned.
The issue of cues from the computer is addressed, saying that the hard drive is accessed just before a photo it is displayed, but that could be used if the subject hears them, and I assume they do. Given the admission that the desired effect is tiny and difficult to report, why not completely eliminate that source of error by having all the photos in memory or USB stick? What else have they left just that little bit short of certainty?
As I said, he would be on the verge of an astounding discovery, yet you wouldn't know it.

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

Who assumes the role of Don Quixote? Who draws the caricature that science knows everything? Wooers do!

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.

I think that could answer the question. Interaction between the subjects and the experimental environment is a variable, and it is that which is being measured.

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

The photo presentiment tests, skin resistance is monitored. I also have to accept that the effect can also alter number generators remotely, and news of O J Simpson can be responsible for it. One bizarre and effect upon another.
At least with the skin resistance/photo tests there are some tangible elements, and fewer leaps. It would make more sense to nail this down, than trying a multitude of methods.

 

[baron]

I didn't ask you to validate the maths. I asked you if you have problems with using meta analysis as a method. Do you?

No.

If the disparate studies are of a reasonable quality, meta-analysis can be used successfully with little correction. If some of the studies are known or expected to be poor quality, or the quality is unknown, then this should be accounted for in the calculations. Proper file-drawer exclusion should be used to estimate the number of studies producing non-significant results that would be required to cause the meta-analysis to reduce to chance. I believe Radin does this.

But then again, if it's just "adding up", why would anyone have a problem with it?

If Radin's result is OK, and it isn't due to psi, what is it due to?

For the seventh time, it could be due to incorrect statistical analysis; poor quality experiments that haven't been weeded out, incorrect (original) results, incorrect calculation, insufficient weighting or any number of confounding factors that I'm not aware of.

Or it could be because Radin is a fraud. However, I have no evidence of this and neither do you.

Or it could be because psi is genuine.

Unlike a debunker I base my decisions on evidence, and whilst there is no proof that psi is genuine there is enough evidence of a possible effect to warrant further investigation.

And I think I've now done enough answering of your questions, being that you haven't answered a single one of mine or provided any new information, referenced or otherwise, for the past 90% of the thread.

 

[baron]

I was referring to my experiences of this. Results are gathered showing a positive result. Woops...error that negates it. Repeating the now tighter experiment produces no positive result. Change experiment. All wooers seem to do this, including those making over-energy devices.

I can't comment on your experiences, and of course there are woos in the world, and Radin does experience what you've described but he still allegedly obtains results that are significant, even after making allowances e.g.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node4.html

Dismiss is not the correct word. Underwhelmed, maybe.

I don't disagree.

Yes OK its Horizon, but Radin says;
"If your driving along a highway and if you get a bad feeling them maybe you probably ought to pay attention to it, because may be the bad feeling is relating to an event that is about to occur -and if you make a wrong decision on a highway you could end up dead."

An unstable tiny effect in the lab, is a clear and strong effect in real life.
Shades of homeopathy, I think.

That's very unfair. It's dramatic but he will have been asked to provide a "dramatic" example by the TV people. That aside, he stated nothing as fact, as my bolding shows.

He quite clearly links this spurious claim to the precognition photo trails. I do blame him for 'sacrificing that impartiality'. 'Economy with the truth' is also an acceptable euphemism?

Do other scientists go to great lengths to point out flaws in their theories when given a tiny time-slot on TV or an article in the paper?

Books and TV, but not through the usual paths of peer-reviewed publications.

I'm not aware of any work that Radin has discussed on TV or in a book without it having been the subject of a paper first. Do you have a link?

There is nothing difficult about the trials. Cheap and easy hardware. Why not make that an 8 channel datalogger and get some more data? Why would it not be consistent? If the hypothesis allows for inconsistency as an attribute, then I am sure there will be an outcome.

Suggest it to him. He's a personable chap. I'm not being flippant, see what he says.

The issue of cues from the computer is addressed, saying that the hard drive is accessed just before a photo it is displayed, but that could be used if the subject hears them, and I assume they do. Given the admission that the desired effect is tiny and difficult to report, why not completely eliminate that source of error by having all the photos in memory or USB stick?

How would hearing the HD access indicate what emotional content is contained in the image?

And if it is a factor and Radin didn't think of it then OK, it could -and should - be rectified, but is it that a big deal if Radin accounts for it? Furthermore, I could argue that having the images in memory on a low-memory PC might still cause HD access for the swapfile. USB? If it's an old PC it won't have USB. Yes, Radin could upgrade his equipment and do everything again, and if the HD is an issue that cannot be solved with his current set-up then I agree he should.

I think that could answer the question. Interaction between the subjects and the experimental environment is a variable, and it is that which is being measured.

So it isn't easy, as I said.

The photo presentiment tests, skin resistance is monitored. I also have to accept that the effect can also alter number generators remotely, and news of O J Simpson can be responsible for it. One bizarre and effect upon another.

Examine the evidence and make your own choices.

At least with the skin resistance/photo tests there are some tangible elements, and fewer leaps. It would make more sense to nail this down, than trying a multitude of methods.

That's what I'd do but then he would be open to other criticism for restricting his scope - "Oh, he clearly doesn't believe there's anything in the RNG / psi / dice stuff otherwise he'd look at those too!"

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Come on. You start off with "my impression" and use it to attack? This is exactly what I mean.

The best way to find out how often Bierman's kind of analysis happens is to check out the publications from the universities they work for. I've found so many dozens of the damn things that I figure they were trying to over-study it so badly that nobody would know what the hell was going on. It appears to be very much their SOP.

You've started with an a priori assumption about Radin's work. Isn't that what you're accusing him of doing?

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

Pity. If it ever comes online, can you PM me a link, please? I hada theory that all Capricorn women were spawn of the Devil, so I may have to re-think that now.

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

Not entirely. There have been plenty of examples of science starting off with nutters. I'll be as surprised as you if Radin joins that group, but while he's making negligible and irrelevant claims, I think he's a bad target.

I'll give you an example:

At the moment, my main target is a piece of pseudoscience called Fuelstar, which claims to be a fuel-saving device. The only "evidence" in place is that one of NZ's leading forensic and petrochemical chemists says that it works. He says this without ever having submitted the device for peer-review. This is clearly pseudoscience and his refusal to allow that peer-review is a chink in their armour which I have been able to turn into a gaping hole.

If I then turn around attack Radin, who is using the scientific methods of enquiry I'm demanding elsewhere, I look a hypocrite. I think attacking Radin on the basis of insufficient evidence is poor play and potentially damaging to other avenues we are attacking.

RSLancaster posted in this thread. Imagine an anti-Sylivia type looking at RSL's website; if RSL attacks Radin - who is attacking Sylvia Browne - who ends up smelling of roses? The guy with the website, or the guy with the PhD?

Books and TV, but not through the usual paths of peer-reviewed publications.

I think you're completely wrong here. From what I can tell by piecing together dates, it appears that most or all of the data was pre-published by university presses.

 

[CFLarsen]

For the seventh time, it could be due to incorrect statistical analysis; poor quality experiments that haven't been weeded out, incorrect (original) results, incorrect calculation, insufficient weighting or any number of confounding factors that I'm not aware of.

Yes, it could. But you rule this out.

Or it could be because Radin is a fraud.

Yes, it could. But you rule this out.

Or it could be because psi is genuine.

Oops.

 

[humber]

That's very unfair. It's dramatic but he will have been asked to provide a "dramatic" example by the TV people. That aside, he stated nothing as fact, as my bolding shows.

He said it as if it were a very real possibility, he was not diffident. I assume it was a remark significant to his theory. I don't see him in as in anyway a victim.

Do other scientists go to great lengths to point out flaws in their theories when given a tiny time-slot on TV or an article in the paper?

I am not talking about other scientists. They are not making the claim, he is.

I'm not aware of any work that Radin has discussed on TV or in a book without it having been the subject of a paper first. Do you have a link?

I don't think I implied that, but the The Journal of Scientific Exploration is an 'alternative' journal.

How would hearing the HD access indicate what emotional content is contained in the image?
And if it is a factor and Radin didn't think of it then OK, it could -and should - be rectified, but is it that a big deal if Radin accounts for it? Furthermore, I could argue that having the images in memory on a low-memory PC might still cause HD access for the swapfile. USB? If it's an old PC it won't have USB. Yes, Radin could upgrade his equipment and do everything again, and if the HD is an issue that cannot be solved with his current set-up then I agree he should.

That I don't know, and neither does he. He's looking for a tiny inexplicable effect. Rule out nothing. If the subject is close enough the hear the drive, then he can hear the operator too. Maybe their is a difference of brightness between the two sets of pictures, and that generates a noise in the operator's monitor, and that can be heard. Leakage has been a problem in other psi tests.
He's the scientist making the heretical claim. He needs to rule out error wherever possible. It's not very difficult. He should not be having such errors at this stage. All technical difficulties could be readily overcome for pocket money.

That's what I'd do but then he would be open to other criticism for restricting his scope - "Oh, he clearly doesn't believe there's anything in the RNG / psi / dice stuff otherwise he'd look at those too!"

[/QUOTE]
You would. I would. The advantages are clear. If the evidence is good, it won't matter what he could have done, but a credible showing in this test would add weight to the other claims.

 

[baron]

Yes, it could. But you rule this out.

Rubbish. I've said from the begining that it's not only possible, but likely! I believe I have stated this eight times now.

Yes, it could. But you rule this out.

I have stated consistently that I see no evidence that Radin is a fraud. I'm not going to mispresent my views to suit your biases.

Oops.

After reading your posts I can understand how a conclusion based on evidence might alarm you.

You don't analyse, you debunk. Your position isn't based on skepticism, it's based on bias. You don't argue with logic, you use (inept) trickery to try and discredit those you're debating.

That's why you've nothing left to offer but "Oops".

 

[CFLarsen]

Rubbish. I've said from the begining that it's not only possible, but likely! I believe I have stated this eight times now.

Yet, you have no problems with Radin's 51.2% result, and you have no problems with how he got it: Meta analysis.

You can't have it both ways.

I have stated consistently that I see no evidence that Radin is a fraud. I'm not going to mispresent my views to suit your biases.

So, you rule it out.

After reading your posts I can understand how a conclusion based on evidence might alarm you.

You don't analyse, you debunk. Your position isn't based on skepticism, it's based on bias. You don't argue with logic, you use (inept) trickery to try and discredit those you're debating.

That's why you've nothing left to offer but "Oops".

You believe in psi.

 

[baron]

He said it as if it were a very real possibility, he was not diffident. I assume it was a remark significant to his theory. I don't see him in as in anyway a victim.

He believes it is a real possibility. I don't see an issue.

I am not talking about other scientists. They are not making the claim, he is.

In what way? Are you saying his claims are the most extraordinary in science? I hate to bring the word "quantum" into this argument but are you seriously saying that purely from a credibility perspective claims regarding quantum theory are more palatable?

I don't think I implied that, but the The Journal of Scientific Exploration is an 'alternative' journal.

Well, you said "Books and TV, but not through the usual paths of peer-reviewed publications.", so I beg to differ. Moreover, if the "up-market" journals decline to publish much of his stuff, what would you have him do?

That I don't know, and neither does he. He's looking for a tiny inexplicable effect. Rule out nothing.

In principle I agree, but I can tell you straight that there is no conceivable way that the sound of an HD being accessed could give away the nature of an as-yet unseen image. That would win the $1m prize.

If the subject is close enough the hear the drive, then he can hear the operator too. Maybe their is a difference of brightness between the two sets of pictures, and that generates a noise in the operator's monitor, and that can be heard.

I don't understand. If the images appear on the monitor then surely the subject can see them anyway.

Leakage has been a problem in other psi tests.
He's the scientist making the heretical claim. He needs to rule out error wherever possible. It's not very difficult. He should not be having such errors at this stage. All technical difficulties could be readily overcome for pocket money.

I think it is difficult, very difficult, to rule out all possible sources of error. What needs to be done is that all sources need to be documented and the risks calculated. If the risk of issues occurring due to a particular error source is beyond a certain threshhold then the error source needs to be eliminated or mitigated. If that's not possible it must be accounted for in the scope of the analysis. The remaining error sources should be either insignificant or, again, accounted for as a group correction in the analysis (my terminology may be off but as I say I'm not great on stats)

You would. I would. The advantages are clear. If the evidence is good, it won't matter what he could have done, but a credible showing in this test would add weight to the other claims.

I've already agreed on that. He needs to get his act together and get on with it.

 

[baron]

You believe in psi.

Sorry, did I say you used "inept trickery"?

I take that back.

Your technique is nowhere near that sophisticated.

 

[humber]

He believes it is a real possibility. I don't see an issue.

He is making unsupported claims about paranormal events. That is an issue.

In what way? Are you saying his claims are the most extraordinary in science? I hate to bring the word "quantum" into this argument but are you seriously saying that purely from a credibility perspective claims regarding quantum theory are more palatable?

It is not a matter of subjectivity. Is this effect QM?

Well, you said "Books and TV, but not through the usual paths of peer-reviewed publications.", so I beg to differ. Moreover, if the "up-market" journals decline to publish much of his stuff, what would you have him do?

Books, yes. TV, yes. Wikipedia says the journal not mainstream.
What to do? Get some incontrovertible evidence. Phone Nature or Randi

In principle I agree, but I can tell you straight that there is no conceivable way that the sound of an HD being accessed could give away the nature of an as-yet unseen image. That would win the $1m prize.

No you can't. The way the disk seeks can be correlated with the image. Images are 'returned' to be re-used. Hence possibility of a pattern. Hence bias. The images are set up before sound is though to be important. Assuming that all other times are unimportant, is a mistake.

I don't understand. If the images appear on the monitor then surely the subject can see them anyway.

In the BBC programme, he has another monitor other than that displaying the image to the subject. If this is used to monitor the PC ( as a test, for monitoring or setup) it could respond to different brightnesses and alert the subject. (He does not appear to control for brightness.) It is not clear from how this aspect is handeled. It cannot be eliminated as a source of error. You would be surprised how basic some errors are.

I think it is difficult, very difficult, to rule out all possible sources of error. What needs to be done is that all sources need to be documented and the risks calculated. If the risk of issues occurring due to a particular error source is beyond a certain threshhold then the error source needs to be eliminated or mitigated. If that's not possible it must be accounted for in the scope of the analysis. The remaining error sources should be either insignificant or, again, accounted for as a group correction in the analysis (my terminology may be off but as I say I'm not great on stats)

I disagree that it is at all difficult. As far as post-processing is concerned, I am reminded of 'garbage in garbage out'. Post-hoc thresholds..not me.

I've already agreed on that. He needs to get his act together and get on with it.

Act first, books and TV later.

 

[baron]

He is making unsupported claims about paranormal events. That is an issue.

He has made a judgement based on evidence. It's different to yours. That doesn't make it unsupported. In fact, it's demonstrably not unsupported.

Yes, some of his conclusions smack of woo, but why make a big deal out of it? As I've said all along, why judge subjectively when hard facts are available?

It is not a matter of subjectivity.

Believability is precisely a matter of subjectivity. We're not talking about evidence in this instance, we're talking about how outrageous the claim seems and IMO Radin's claims don't come close to the incredulity factor of what has already been proven in quantum theory.

Books, yes. TV, yes. Wikipedia says the journal not mainstream.
What to do? Get some incontrovertible evidence. Phone Nature or Randi

As I said, the up-market journals consider many other factors apart from evidence. Politics and stigma must also be considered.

And "phone Randi"? Even if such a get-together was feasible you'd take the word of a retired magician in matters of science? Randi's great for whackos like Sylvia Browne but, no disrespect indended, I wouldn't trust him any more than my mate down the pub to peer review scientific data.

No you can't. The way the disk seeks can be correlated with the image. Images are 'returned' to be re-used. Hence possibility of a pattern.

Then we differ on that point. I say no way in a billion years could someone learn to predict images on the basis of what the HD sounds like when accessing them.

More importantly, I'm not actually sure what the HD noise issue is all about. Surely the images are retrieved from HD and displayed directly on the monitor? How does it makes sense for them to be retrieved first? If this happens then they must be going into memory and I can't understand why pre-loading memory would be necessary on a PC; indeed, it would require special processing in order to do this.

I'm not disputing the issue (yet), as you say Radin mentioned it so it must have some impact, but I don't understand it, so can you explain?

I'm not disagreeing that if it's feasible to eliminate the HD sound then it should be done, if only the give the subject a quieter atmosphere and prevent criticisms, regardless of how valid they are.

In the BBC programme, he has another monitor other than that displaying the image to the subject. If this is used to monitor the PC ( as a test, for monitoring or setup) it could respond to different brightnesses and alert the subject. (He does not appear to control for brightness.) It is not clear from how this aspect is handeled. It cannot be eliminated as a source of error. You would be surprised how basic some errors are.

Are you saying the image appears on another monitor before it appears on the subject's monitor? Because if you are that's astonishing. It invalidates the entire experiment and I would have no hesitation in dismissing that particular set-up and any results obtained from it.

I disagree that it is at all difficult. As far as post-processing is concerned, I am reminded of 'garbage in garbage out'. Post-hoc thresholds..not me.

That's not true in science. Allowance for error is a standard part of the scientific method.

Act first, books and TV later.

But he did! How could he have written a book without doing the work first? (EDIT: more to the point, how else is he going to get sufficient funding for his work - people aren't exactly throwing money at him)

 

[humber]

So I understand that evidence is evidence, no matter how gathered ? It is the very quality, and hence the veracity that is in doubt. It is not resistance to the hypothesis per se, even though I think it is unlikely, but that I have to assume a great deal in Radin's favour to even make a fist of it.

Believability is precisely a matter of subjectivity. We're not talking about evidence in this instance, we're talking about how outrageous the claim seems and IMO Radin's claims don't come close to the incredulity factor of what has already been proven in quantum theory.

I don't find QM to be outrageous. If you try and fit it into innate ideas about the world -"folk physics" - then you certainly to be contradicted. Native credulity is often insulted by worldly objects such as flying Jumbo jets. I don't think incredulity or intuitive satisfaction are adequate measures of a hypotheses' validity.
Also QM works, and has a mathematical description that can be used to make predictions. Because it is indeterminate, does not mean it is guessing, or that anything goes.

As I said, the up-market journals consider many other factors apart from evidence. Politics and stigma must also be considered.
And "phone Randi"? Even if such a get-together was feasible you'd take the word of a retired magician in matters of science? Randi's great for whackos like Sylvia Browne but, no disrespect indended, I wouldn't trust him any more than my mate down the pub to peer review scientific data.

Stigma from being a bit dishonest. Making up stories about 'future crash'. Wildly extrapolating upon a scintilla of evidence.
Yes, I would. Randi is honest. He was good enough for Nature, when they wanted someone to debug Beneviste. Magicians know what gets under our radar.

Radin says that the subject could learn to associate an upcoming target with a noise from the HD. He tackles this by retrieving the picture just before presentation - hence no warning. However, the subject only has to recall the sound of the previous picture and count from there. He's just shifted the problem one step.

As you say, so many things that should be done. Until they are done, you don't get out to play.

Are you saying the image appears on another monitor before it appears on the subject's monitor? Because if you are that's astonishing. It invalidates the entire experiment and I would have no hesitation in dismissing that particular set-up and any results obtained from it.

I mean that the operator may be able to see the image on another monitor, not visible, but audible to the subject. The monitor where the data appears to be displayed. That could leak in some way too.
I think the HD is enough to be a problem.

I am concerned about the way he seems to have a rolling reference on the skin sensor. This could lead to problems, and bit unnecessary, if the data is to be later processed. Some information is lost, I believe. Skin resistance measurements are tricky. They respond to movement and subject mood. Sound alone could add an error, even if the subject is not consciously tracking the HD. The devil is in the detail, that's for sure.

He did the work I imagine, but not well enough to be accepted. Being successful at that, would have made the books and TV unnecessary.

 

[fls]

Come on. You start off with "my impression" and use it to attack? This is exactly what I mean.

The best way to find out how often Bierman's kind of analysis happens is to check out the publications from the universities they work for. I've found so many dozens of the damn things that I figure they were trying to over-study it so badly that nobody would know what the hell was going on. It appears to be very much their SOP.

You've started with an a priori assumption about Radin's work. Isn't that what you're accusing him of doing?

I'm not sure why you assumed that I made this assumption a priori, but my references to my impressions and observations are a posteriori - i.e. they were formed after I reviewed Radin's (as well as others') work.

When I talk about SOP I am referring to the field of parapsychology. I think you are speaking about pre-sentiment? I would agree that I have seen more attention paid to addressing bias than was paid to potential sources of bias in other areas of parapsychology.

Pity. If it ever comes online, can you PM me a link, please? I hada theory that all Capricorn women were spawn of the Devil, so I may have to re-think that now.

You could just buy the magazine, I suppose.

Not entirely. There have been plenty of examples of science starting off with nutters.

But nutter or not, what persuaded us was the additional collection of evidence.

I'll be as surprised as you if Radin joins that group, but while he's making negligible and irrelevant claims, I think he's a bad target.

I'll give you an example:

At the moment, my main target is a piece of pseudoscience called Fuelstar, which claims to be a fuel-saving device. The only "evidence" in place is that one of NZ's leading forensic and petrochemical chemists says that it works. He says this without ever having submitted the device for peer-review. This is clearly pseudoscience and his refusal to allow that peer-review is a chink in their armour which I have been able to turn into a gaping hole.

If I then turn around attack Radin, who is using the scientific methods of enquiry I'm demanding elsewhere, I look a hypocrite. I think attacking Radin on the basis of insufficient evidence is poor play and potentially damaging to other avenues we are attacking.

But drawing extraordinary conclusions on the basis of inadequate evidence is one of the avenues I am interested in attacking, even if it is not yours.

RSLancaster posted in this thread. Imagine an anti-Sylivia type looking at RSL's website; if RSL attacks Radin - who is attacking Sylvia Browne - who ends up smelling of roses? The guy with the website, or the guy with the PhD?

To me it looks like RSL is objective enough not to give someone a free pass just because they agree with him on some other point.

Linda

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure why you assumed that I made this assumption a priori, but my references to my impressions and observations are a posteriori - i.e. they were formed after I reviewed Radin's (as well as others') work.

Ok, maybe it's just the way I read it.

To me it looks like RSL is objective enough not to give someone a free pass just because they agree with him on some other point.

Linda

I'm not giving him a free pass in any way, and others are welcome to approach it as they like. In the end, our perception of Radin is little different.

 

[baron]

So I understand that evidence is evidence, no matter how gathered ? It is the very quality, and hence the veracity that is in doubt. It is not resistance to the hypothesis per se, even though I think it is unlikely, but that I have to assume a great deal in Radin's favour to even make a fist of it.

I don't understand your point. He's factored error into his calculations and come to various conclusions. What don't you like about that process?

I don't find QM to be outrageous.

Really?

Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.

If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.

It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

I guess you disagree with these people. No offense, but I go with them, not you. Their views are certianly backed up by my reading (although I'm well aware they don't need me to support their statements)

I don't think incredulity or intuitive satisfaction are adequate measures of a hypotheses' validity.

Yes, exactly, that's the point I just made! It was you who dismissed Radin's claim as "heretical".

Also QM works, and has a mathematical description that can be used to make predictions. Because it is indeterminate, does not mean it is guessing, or that anything goes.

That's irrelevant. As I made clear we are discussing subjective credulity in relation to this point.

Stigma from being a bit dishonest. Making up stories about 'future crash'. Wildly extrapolating upon a scintilla of evidence.

You're exaggerating out of all proportion.

Yes, I would. Randi is honest.

Let's not go there. I don't want to get into a discussion about Randi's honesty or lack of it, so I'll just suggest you do some research.

He was good enough for Nature, when they wanted someone to debug Beneviste. Magicians know what gets under our radar.

We're not talking about exposing tricksters, we're talking about science.

To be clear: You are happy for retired magicians to peer review scientific papers and you will take their conclusions as final? I need to clarify this is what you're saying, as I view it as very important.

I mean that the operator may be able to see the image on another monitor, not visible, but audible to the subject. The monitor where the data appears to be displayed. That could leak in some way too.

Whoa! Wait a minute! You originally said that the image appearing in advance on the operator's monitor may cause a noise, thus alerting the subject. You stated this because it was one of the flaws you were unhappy about and you specifically bemoaned that Radin didn't seem to be addressing it.

I agreed and said if there is another monitor displaying images in advance, out of view or otherwise, that would invalidate the experiment.

But you now say well, the operator "may" be able to see the image on another monitor.

I conclude you don't actually know if images are displayed on another monitor at all, and if they are you don't know if they're displayed in advance.

If I'm wrong, fair enough; I ask you again, please clarify the actual documented set-up of the experiment.

If I am correct, however, please tell me why you criticise Radin for not addressing experimental failings that don't exist.

I am concerned about the way he seems to have a rolling reference on the skin sensor. This could lead to problems, and bit unnecessary, if the data is to be later processed. Some information is lost, I believe. Skin resistance measurements are tricky. They respond to movement and subject mood. Sound alone could add an error, even if the subject is not consciously tracking the HD. The devil is in the detail, that's for sure.

What would the alternative be? Why would less data be better than more?

He did the work I imagine, but not well enough to be accepted. Being successful at that, would have made the books and TV unnecessary.

So you're saying he, and other scientists who do not achieve conclusive results quickly, should give up?

 

[baron]

To me it looks like RSL is objective enough not to give someone a free pass just because they agree with him on some other point.

Sorry, I'm not letting this one go by.

I don't want to get at RSL - he does a superb job exposing Browne - but are you saying he's been objective in this thread?

He first likened Radin's work to claims about invisible bigfoots, then when challenged he admitted

Knowing very little about (and having even less interest in) Radin's work

and despite this, went on to dismiss that very same work as

Useless. Silly. Frivolous. Meaningless.

This you consider objective?

Using your own argument, just because RSL does a sterling job on Browne doesn't mean we should give him a free pass on any other point.

 

[CFLarsen]

This you consider objective?

How would you describe Radin's work objectively, then?