Emoto and Dean Radin should win the million dollar?

[Vitor Moura]

Published in the peer-reviewed journal "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing", is it?

Looking at their website, Dean Radin, PhD is one of the co-editors in chief. Gee, I wonder how that article got published...

This Dean Radin explained in his blog. The link is in the first post of this thread, but it is here (again):

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/06/maybe-check-is-in-mail.html

I became a co-editor-in-chief of this journal in 2009, three years after publishing that paper. I had no connection with Explore prior to that. Nor did I have any affiliation or financial interest in Emoto's work then, or now.

 

[Vitor Moura]

So some crystals were prettier than others and so Randi owes you a million?

Not me, the article is not mine. Besides, I was thinking that the only thing that Randi wished was a double-blind protocol, but this seems not to be the case.

 

[sadhatter]

This Dean Radin explained in his blog. The link is in the first post of this thread, but it is here (again):

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/06/maybe-check-is-in-mail.html

I became a co-editor-in-chief of this journal in 2009, three years after publishing that paper. I had no connection with Explore prior to that. Nor did I have any affiliation or financial interest in Emoto's work then, or now.

1st, i guess we should just take his word for that then? I know that it doesn't raise any flags that the man became co-editor-in-chief of a magazine that just happened to give credence to his article before.

2nd His commentary about not having a financial interest in emoto's work is also something i cannot take at face value, as per this entire thread is about how he should have won a million dollars.

3rd he actually expects us to believe that he had no connection with the magazine before he became editor in chief? I wouldn't expect 8 year olds to believe that let alone adults.

 

[Vitor Moura]

Vic , are you the guy who asks for the free smile when you go into mcdonalds?

Did you think red bull really made you sprout wings from your back?

Do you think Jones soda really makes soda using brain juice from illithids?

Do you expect gobstoppers to truly be everlasting?

Deceptive publicity is very different of false publicity. The first is illegal, but not the second. Red bull is an example of false publicity.

If not then use the same reasoning you used when making the decision on these products. The mdc rules are clearly stated on the website and cherry picking a couple of sentences from james does not suddenly negate those clearly written rules. Use a touch of common sense when making judgments like these and your life will be a lot less frustrating.

But the protocol that is created for each claim is very different! The website can't create a single protocol to ALL claims, each claim needs a diferent protocol. So when Randi did that public statement, I was thinking that all Randi wished was a double-blind test. But ok, now I know that this is not the only thing that Randi wished.

 

[Vitor Moura]

2nd His commentary about not having a financial interest in emoto's work is also something i cannot take at face value, as per this entire thread is about how he should have won a million dollars.

He said in his blog (same link, in the commentary section):

When I conducted these studies (both of them) I was not aware that such a prize was available. Nor am I aware of the exact wording of the prize, or even if it was a serious offer.

About the rest, if you don't believe in Radin, you can try to contact the previous editor (or any other person of the Journal) about this. Or just don't believe in him.

 

[Sledge]

If the these guys can genuinely do what they claim, what's the problem with agreeing a test protocol per the normal MDC rules and doing it again?

 

[sadhatter]

Deceptive publicity is very different of false publicity. The first is illegal, but not the second. Red bull is an example of false publicity.



But the protocol that is created for each claim is very different! The website can't create a single protocol to ALL claims, each claim needs a diferent protocol. So when Randi did that public statement, I was thinking that all Randi wished was a double-blind test. But ok, now I know that this is not the only thing that Randi wished.

The protocol is whatever Randi says it is, not you vic. Feel free to set up your own million dollar challenge and set up your protocols however you wish. You were thinking all randi wanted was any double blind test by anyone, you were wrong, that is the long and short of it. You misunderstood something, that sucks, maybe next time you will change up your procedure for finding and processing information to avoid being wrong.

And also your one of the people who thought red bull gave you wings, how did i guess ( and if you say , " no i am not" then you have no ability to claim it was deceptive, you were not deceived.) . It is not deceptive, it was overestimating the intelligence of the average joe. And as you have proven, that can be very dangerous. Or....well more accurately, cause somewhat of an annoyance.

 

[sadhatter]

He said in his blog (same link, in the commentary section):

When I conducted these studies (both of them) I was not aware that such a prize was available. Nor am I aware of the exact wording of the prize, or even if it was a serious offer.

About the rest, if you don't believe in Radin, you can try to contact the previous editor (or any other person of the Journal) about this. Or just don't believe in him.

What would you expect him to say man?

" i sure did know about this and i am trying to get it and i was working behind the scenes at the magazine to sneak my article in, screw y'all"

This is the ultimate example of, if this guy is real ( Radin) what the hell would a fake look like? Does one need a curly mustache and a bag with a dollar symbol on it to get into your bad books?

I am contacting no one, your making the claim he somehow became the editor in chief of a magazine without ever being involved with the magazine. That is an extraordinary claim when one knows the first thing about how a magazine functions, and i would expect you to have some kind of evidence to back that up. I mean for a scientific journal to out of the blue pick someone they know nothing about and has never worked with them before , to be co editor in chief , would be just....stupid, it doesn't make a lick of sense.

You've backed yourself into a logical corner here due to your lack of knowledge of how a magazine/scientific journal would function. You have a hate on for randi, so your accepting at face value statements by radin that are simply insane when one has the slightest, and i mean the slightest knowledge of how a scientific journal works. Or for that matter, how people work. Do you know anyone who runs a business that would randomly pick a person to partner with without ever having worked with them before? If you do i have a couple of bridges, and some magic beans to sell them before they go bankrupt.

 

[Vitor Moura]

The protocol is whatever Randi says it is, not you vic.

Exactly. That's why - to his own good - he should have been more specific.

Feel free to set up your own million dollar challenge and set up your protocols however you wish. You were thinking all randi wanted was any double blind test by anyone, you were wrong, that is the long and short of it. You misunderstood something, that sucks,maybe next time you will change up your procedure for finding and processing information to avoid being wrong.

The problem is not only with who interprets, but is also with who explain. A bad explanation is only fault of Randi himself.

And also your one of the people who thought red bull gave you wings, how did i guess ( and if you say , " no i am not" then you have no ability to claim it was deceptive, you were not deceived.) It is not deceptive, it was overestimating the intelligence of the average joe. And as you have proven, that can be very dangerous. Or....well more accurately, cause somewhat of an annoyance

I am not saying I was deceived, I am saying that Randi should be more specific, specially when he does a public statement. I had a magazine - I think was Superinteressante - which Randi said something like that: "If you say you can fly by yourself (without any help), you just need go to my office and fly in front of me (or jump of my window, I don't remember the exact words)". Very simple, isn't? So I thought was the same case of the blind protocol. And publicity is very different of a challenge, or a contract. You are using a false analogy. In a contract all must be very, very detailed (that's what Randi should have did in his public statement). In a publicity they don't need to say all about the product, you will see all about the product in the product itself, in the package. And this is only one of the differences.

 

[Sledge]

Exactly. That's why - to his own good - he should have been more specific.

In what way is this not specific?

 

[sadhatter]

Exactly. That's why - to his own good - he should have been more specific.



The problem is not only with who interprets, but is also with who explain. A bad explanation is only fault of Randi himself.



I am not saying I was deceived, I am saying that Randi should be more specific, specially when he does a public statement. I had a magazine - I think was Superinteressante - which Randi said something like that: "If you say you can fly by yourself (without any help), you just need go to my office and fly in front of me (or jump of my window, I don't remember the exact words)". Very simple, isn't? So I thought was the same case of the blind protocol. And publicity is very different of a challenge, or a contract. You are using a false analogy. In a contract all must be very, very detailed (that's what Randi should have did in his public statement). In a publicity they don't need to say all about the product, you will see all about the product in the product itself, in the package. And this is only one of the differences.

Again, you misunderstand, you say it many times. It is not james fault if you do not understand, the mdc rules, like many things from advertising to stereo manuals are made with people of average reading comprehension and logical abilities in mind. Unfortunately if your abilities are lower than this, you may have trouble understanding the meanings and intent of commentary, rules, regulations, among many other things.

A bad explanation is subjective, but there is a good benchmark as to if an explanation passes muster. And that is very simple " do the majority of people of average intelligence or above understand it?" The world is not obliged to cater to the lowest common denominator , and as we can see with the mdc, most people, believer, skeptic and other can read the rules and understand them. And the jref is not obliged to make a special dumbed down mdc rulesheet for every tom dick and harry that may not understand the rules. That is simply silly.

So my advice is stop making assumptions, and if the rules themselves as clearly printed on this website are hard to understand for you, as they seem to be, then work on your reading comprehension. There is nothing wrong with not understanding something, but to demand the world cater to your misunderstanding is just egotistical.

 

[sadhatter]

In what way is this not specific?

This bit, to me would end any and all argument to those with average reading ability.

"Completing this form is mandatory; there are no exceptions to this rule."

And when in combination with this

"Applicant will declare agreement by signing this form where indicated before a notary public and returning the form to the James Randi Educational Foundation. Applicant must state clearly what is being claimed as the special ability upon which they wish to be tested, and test protocols must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, so that no judging or voting process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test(s) may be properly designed and carried out."

It shows clearly that the form must be filled out, and that the process must be agreed by both applicants , not to mention that the signature needs to be done in front of a notary public.

No where does it say " james commentary, or simplification of the rules of the challenge for media purposes trumps any and all rules in this section.".

Vic, if any of this is not getting through i will be more than glad to explain it some more.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

You are so angry!

I am not angry, I'm trying to understand if you are really that foolish or are you just trolling.

Your basic assumption is that Dr.Emoto refuses to take an "easy" $1,000,000 and tons of publicity for his research without having any idea why.

Let's use Occom's Razor here, shall we?
What is more likely? That Emoto has some strange and unexplained reason not to take the money? That is somehow unaware of it?

Or is it because the research is entirely BS and he doesn't want to publicly expose it the way that Geller and Poppof and others like them? Not to mention that the research itself will be checked by courts themselves to be discredit even further?

I don't know why Emoto or Radin don't claim their million, I will ask Radin about this.

Good. Please let us know what their reply is.

 

[Vitor Moura]

I am contacting no one, your making the claim he somehow became the editor in chief of a magazine without ever being involved with the magazine. That is an extraordinary claim when one knows the first thing about how a magazine functions, and i would expect you to have some kind of evidence to back that up. I mean for a scientific journal to out of the blue pick someone they know nothing about and has never worked with them before , to be co editor in chief , would be just....stupid, it doesn't make a lick of sense. You've backed yourself into a logical corner here due to your lack of knowledge of how a magazine/scientific journal would function.

I don't see any problem if the previous editor was a fan of Radin's work and called him to take his place. In any case, why don't you ask Radin how he became editor-in-chief?

You have a hate on for randi,

Oh, are you a psychic to know my feelings? Randi admits he did wrong public statements about Sheldrake.

First Sheldrake:

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

Now Randi:

http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html

My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since.

So, I have my reservations when Randi do public statements, sure. He was wrong before (and he admitted it, as you can see) But I don't hate him.

so your accepting at face value statements by radin that are simply insane when one has the slightest, and i mean the slightest knowledge of how a scientific journal works. Or for that matter, how people work. Do you know anyone who runs a business that would randomly pick a person to partner with without ever having worked with them before?

Did you never saw The Apprendix with Donald Trump? Here in Brazil we had "O Aprendiz" with Roberto Justus, and Justus created "O Sócio" . I think it could be translated by "The Partner" which in a few weeks of the show the winner created a society with Justus and won 1 million dollars.

And what Radin said is that in 2006 he didn't have any involvment. Things can change in 3 years.

 

[Vitor Moura]

In what way is this not specific?

This way:

Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant.

So when Randi did that public statement concerning Emoto, he gave the impression that the only specfic rule was the double blind protocol.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't see any problem if the previous editor was a fan of Radin's work and called him to take his place. In any case, why don't you ask Radin how he became editor-in-chief?



Oh, are you a psychic to know my feelings? Randi admits he did wrong public statements about Sheldrake.

First Sheldrake:

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/randi.html

In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

Now Randi:

http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html

My experience with Rupert Sheldrake has all been by e-mail, and my attempts to test his wonders have been refused. In describing his "dog" tests some years back, I made an error, promptly admitted it, and seemed at that point to have been written off his list as an incompetent, a condition that's remained ever since.

So, I have my reservations when Randi do public statements, sure. He was wrong before (and he admitted it, as you can see) But I don't hate him.



Did you never saw The Apprendix with Donald Trump? Here in Brazil we had "O Aprendiz" with Roberto Justus, and Justus created "O Sócio" . I think it could be translated by "The Partner" which in a few weeks of the show the winner created a society with Justus and won 1 million dollars.

And what Radin said is that in 2006 he didn't have any involvment. Things can change in 3 years.

So now we have you slowly admitting the truth, the previous editor was a fan of radins work, so much so that he called him to replace him. Yet you can still with a straight face say that radin had never done any work with them before? Even if this is true you have shown us directly that one of the people who was reviewing the work was very enamored with radin, which is the opposite of what one wants in a proper peer reviewed journal.


But all this is simply icing on the cake, read the outlined parts of the mdc application, they clearly state that the rules are printed there, not in commentary randi makes, not in blog postings, but right where we linked. If you do not understand that, and the clear language it is put in, then i suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension. It is literally one of the clearest documents i have read, if you, after reading it do not understand fully that the rules are printed there, and that nothing trumps that, then you are not comprehending it.

But seeing as you ignored that totally, i have a feeling your more here because you enjoy the argument , than you actually are having problems understanding a clearly worded document.

 

[sadhatter]

This way:

Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant.

So when Randi did that public statement concerning Emoto, he gave the impression that the only specfic rule was the double blind protocol.

Even if he said " This is going to be the double blind protocol" the application is clear that the application must be filled out, and that the rules therin must be followed. Did radin do this in front of a notary public? Did radin then bring the form to the jref? And after that did they both agree on the methodology to be used in the test?

If not to any of those ( and other rules i have not quoted) then, by the very obvious wording in the application there was no MDC money going to be paid.

He gave no impression, as you have said, you made an assumption. Your assumption is wrong, like most assumptions are. Deal with it and stop blaming others for your lack of comprehension.

 

[godless dave]

If the these guys can genuinely do what they claim, what's the problem with agreeing a test protocol per the normal MDC rules and doing it again?

Or even publishing in a real journal?

 

[Sledge]

Or even publishing in a real journal?

Yes, that also seems a reasonable request. Any answers to these, Vitor?

 

[Vitor Moura]

I am not angry, I'm trying to understand if you are really that foolish or are you just trolling.

By me this conversation was over a long time ago...

Your basic assumption is that Dr.Emoto refuses to take an "easy" $1,000,000 and tons of publicity for his research without having any idea why.

No, it's not. My assumption was that Randi only wished that Emoto used double blind protocols to give the million dollars, and since he did it, my intention was to know the reasons why Emoto didn't receive the million dollars. Now I know. Needs more than a double blind protocol. And for me all the conversation was over in this point.

Good. Please let us know what their reply is.

I already did, it's in the commentary section.

When I conducted these studies (both of them) I was not aware that such a prize was available. Nor am I aware of the exact wording of the prize, or even if it was a serious offer.

I must remember you that Radin himself in the 2006 article gave a normal explanation for his findings, so he was not saying that his results could only be explained by something paranormal.