Dean Radin - harmless pseudo-psientist.

[baron]

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

Largely inconclusive, weakly suggestive of unaccounted-for effect, worthy of further investigation

 

[CFLarsen]

Largely inconclusive, weakly suggestive of unaccounted-for effect, worthy of further investigation

"Largely", "weakly" and "worthy" are subjective.

 

[baron]

"Largely", "weakly" and "worthy" are subjective.

Wrong.

ob·jec·tive (əb-jĕk'tĭv)

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic

I based my assessment on evidence, therefore it's objective.

Another silly word game that you lost.

You really are a glutton for punishment.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wrong.



I based my assessment on evidence, therefore it's objective.

Another silly word game that you lost.

You really are a glutton for punishment.

Look up "largely", "weakly" and "worthy".

 

[fls]

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.

I don't think he made objective-type statements in this thread. When I said he was objective enough, I meant that when considering Radin's work, he didn't seem to allow Radin's agreement on Sylvia to unduly influence his usual means of assessment or how he chose to convey it.

Linda

 

[fls]

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

Largely inconclusive, weakly suggestive of unaccounted-for effect, worthy of further investigation

I don't disagree with this. It is the pretense of Radin as well as other promoters of nonsense/non-science/pseudo-science that reliable conclusions can be drawn from this kind of work, on this specific topic and in general, that I wish to counteract (coming back to the OP).

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't disagree with this. It is the pretense of Radin as well as other promoters of nonsense/non-science/pseudo-science that reliable conclusions can be drawn from this kind of work, on this specific topic and in general, that I wish to counteract (coming back to the OP).

Linda

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

 

[baron]

I don't think he made objective-type statements in this thread. When I said he was objective enough, I meant that when considering Radin's work, he didn't seem to allow Radin's agreement on Sylvia to unduly influence his usual means of assessment or how he chose to convey it.

We'll let it pass; maybe I've missed your meaning but I can't fathom how someone who admits to having no knowledge of Radin's work can have "consider[ed] Radin's work" in the first place.

I don't disagree with this. It is the pretense of Radin as well as other promoters of nonsense/non-science/pseudo-science that reliable conclusions can be drawn from this kind of work, on this specific topic and in general, that I wish to counteract (coming back to the OP).

So would it be fair to say, then, that a summary of your stance is that you believe Radin should not have come to solid conclusions on the basis of his evidence, but his experiments may possibly demonstrate an unaccounted-for effect that is worthy of further investigation?

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

Who is ignoring you? Who is believing in woo?

Personally, I've read your thoughts in this thread and acknowledged them, and I've also read the paper linked to by fls. Various points are brought up and suggestions made. I can't vouch for any of them as being a fool-proof explanation of the effect observed. That's not to say they're not, simply that I don't have enough evidence to conclude they are.

The consensus is that the most likely candidate for error can be found in the gambler fallacy, where the expectation allegedly increases after every calm image and resets after each activating one.

I have three problems with this.

First, AFAIK the gambler fallacy is based on, and measured by, conscious behavioural expectation. I know of no study (and the paper does not link to one) that correlates behaviour to skin response. So where's the evidence that the gambler fallacy even applies?

The paper cites computer simulations (one by Radin) as the near-conclusive proof but I can't see how a computer simulation built on an unproven premise has validity.

Secondly, even if the GF does apply (OK, I suspect it does to some extent, I'm simply highlighting assumption that have been made) where is the evidence that the expectation responses are ratcheted up consistent amounts after every calm image?

Who's to say there's not a tailing-off of expectation? A threshhold followed by stability or even a decrease? Indeed, there must be a threshhold. Nobody (I hope) would seriously suggest that a string of 500 calm images would result in the subject having a heart attack.

So what is this thresshold? Is it a 20 images? 10? Two? Where's the evidence of consistent expectation increase after calm images as recorded by skin monitors?

In the same way, who's to say that after an activating image, expectation returns to a baseline? Where's the evidence? Why would the subject not think, "Hey, that was horrible, I hope I don't get another like that", and consequently their expectation goes up even more?

Radin's experiment can't be cited as evidence for either the expectation ratcheting or the reset to baseline - obviously, as this is the experiment we're investigating! So where do these conclusions come from?

My final issue is the proportion of error, and could expectation (if it is indeed a factor) account for the effect. Maybe, but again I don't see any proof. Indeed, it appears that it's unlikely.

In summary, expectation may be the cause of the effect but I'll need a heck of a lot more evidence before I'm satisfied.

 

[tsig]

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

I read your well thought out posts and was pretty sure you wouldn't get and answer.

I think we are seeing a variation on an old pattern.

Innocent seeker of knowledge.

Argues details incessantly.

Choses semantics over real facts.

My predictions:

Your not true skeptics

Ad homs and leaving in a huff.

 

[baron]

I read your well thought out posts and was pretty sure you wouldn't get and answer.

You mean apart from my answer in the post above, which you ignore?

I think we are seeing a variation on an old pattern.

Innocent seeker of knowledge.

Argues details incessantly.

Choses semantics over real facts.

My predictions:

Your not true skeptics

Ad homs and leaving in a huff.

Nothing sensible to contribute? Nope, far easier to be a lazy debunker who can't even be bothered to read the thread let alone investigate the evidence.

You're not as entertaining as CFLarsen so you're now on ignore.

 

[The Atheist]

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

(bolding mine)

*splutter*

Did you miss the post where I stated that your approach was brilliant and nominated your post?

 

[CFLarsen]

You're not as entertaining as CFLarsen so you're now on ignore.

Why do you think "largely", "weakly" and "worthy" are objective terms?

 

[baron]

You're not as entertaining as CFLarsen so you're now on ignore.

Why do you think "largely", "weakly" and "worthy" are objective terms?

That doesn't mean I can't ignore you until such time as you contribute something meaningful.

 

[blauregen]

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

Make skepticism sound more woo-ish. Rave about the enormous productivity and peace of mind a person who rid themselves of irrational beliefs can achieve.

It is woo too, but i read on a thread here an ardent statement in this direction, so i think it is koscher for a skeptic.

 

[baron]

OK, this thread is dead so I'm off. Got work tomorrow anyway.

 

[fls]

I don't disagree with this. It is the pretense of Radin as well as other promoters of nonsense/non-science/pseudo-science that reliable conclusions can be drawn from this kind of work, on this specific topic and in general, that I wish to counteract (coming back to the OP).

Linda

Got any ideas how to do this? Everyone just ignores me and carries on believing in their more emotionally satisfying woo when I provide mundane explanations. How do you promote scepticism without appearing to be a spoilsport/smartass?

(Note: I think Ivor was referring to his reception outside of this forum rather than the response he received in this particular thread. At least, that's how I'm going to answer it.)

I'm not going to pretend to have the answers - I'm looking for them as well. One suggestion I have is to take the approach you took earlier in this thread. Showing other interesting ways of considering the results makes you look curious rather than a spoilsport.

Linda

 

[tsig]

You mean apart from my answer in the post above, which you ignore?



Nothing sensible to contribute? Nope, far easier to be a lazy debunker who can't even be bothered to read the thread let alone investigate the evidence.

You're not as entertaining as CFLarsen so you're now on ignore.

Funny how I never mentioned your name but you sure fit that shoe well.

And I see we have reached the ad homs right on schedule.

That was the fastest ignore ever.

 

[fls]

We'll let it pass; maybe I've missed your meaning but I can't fathom how someone who admits to having no knowledge of Radin's work can have "consider[ed] Radin's work" in the first place.

I would imagine in much the same way as he considers "black holes" and "quantum mechanics" and the "lost city of Atlantis". In this day and age, we can evaluate very little on our own. Someone who develops skills in recognizing red flags and in finding reliable sources of opinion is better off (I think) than someone who attempts their own inexpert evaluation of everything that comes across their desk.

So would it be fair to say, then, that a summary of your stance is that you believe Radin should not have come to solid conclusions on the basis of his evidence, but his experiments may possibly demonstrate an unaccounted-for effect that is worthy of further investigation?

That's a reasonable summary. I'm almost always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. If that was all Radin was doing I'd agree that he was mostly harmless (as long as I wasn't expected to pay for it ).

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Linda is correct; I was referring to outside the forum. I know you guys hang on every word I type.

TA, thanks for nominating my post.

 

[The Atheist]

Linda is correct; I was referring to outside the forum. I know you guys hang on every word I type.

Ah, well all you need to do is appear on Oprah!