Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:48 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are we supposed to keep looking for it until we find it...even if it doesn't exist?
Who do you consider to be "we", and what exactly do you have at stake?
Advertisements  
  #102  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:50 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Someone hoping to see evidence suggesting their hypothesis is correct will get really excited about some .005% variance in a statistic they are tracking and call it overwhelming. Someone convinced it's a waste of time will consider the same result underwhelming. It isn't particularly useful information, but having access to all available data so one can draw their own conclusions is.
Unfortunately, if one's results do not achieve statistical significance, they don't mean anything. It's not a matter of "one side claims this, the other disagrees, who's to say who's right?"

Another logical fallacy leaps to its death.
  #103  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:36 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Unfortunately, if one's results do not achieve statistical significance, they don't mean anything. It's not a matter of "one side claims this, the other disagrees, who's to say who's right?"
In an example I gave earlier a 4% greater than random chance was considered insignificant if looked at from the point of view of one researcher doing a small set of trials, but considered significant by another when it consistently appeared across ~33k trials.

You're right obviously in the big picture that data are either significant or not, but in the context from which you quoted we were talking about one posters opinion of what is 'underwhelming', not a review of any actual data or specific studies.

As I quoted someone saying earlier, the only thing that is significant at the end of the day are the data. Not whether or not our current understanding of things would allow for it, because our current of understanding of things changes over time. Not whether past attempts have proven successful. Just whether or not the data supports the hypothesis being tested right now.

I entered this thread making no claim about how often or to what degree data in these studies supported any hypothesis, but when pressed to produce an opinion for whatever reasons, I did a quick review of some of the work and some of it does actually indicate to me the potential for further research. I welcome whoever has the money and guts to pursue an interest they have in it to try. And for those I don't really see a lot of value in further research, why would I care if someone else does?
  #104  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:19 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I hesitate to even mention it at this point but since you clearly aren't aware of it Radin was employed by SRI International during those years and participated in most of those tests.
By "those years" are you referring to the infamous period of time Harold Putoff and Russell Targ of SRI promoted Uri Geller and other frauds?
  #105  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:23 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Who do you consider to be "we", and what exactly do you have at stake?
I'm just here to fight the ignorance, part of which is the "If there are two sides to an argument, both sides must be given equal consideration" fallacy, which is bullshit if one side has facts on its side and the other side doesn't.
  #106  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:23 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
In an example I gave earlier a 4% greater than random chance was considered insignificant if looked at from the point of view of one researcher doing a small set of trials, but considered significant by another when it consistently appeared across ~33k trials.
33k trials mostly by the same researcher. Rupert Sheldrake. Who's a crap scientist.
  #107  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:36 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
33k trials mostly by the same researcher. Rupert Sheldrake. Who's a crap scientist.
That isn't the point, again. As you yourself pointed out a later trial done by Radin and a skeptic collaborator couldn't reproduce the same results anyway. I was offering that as an example - when one of them saw a 4% variance he considered it to be insignificant but when another saw the same variance across 33k trials in a meta study he considered it highly significant - in response to Jackmanni saying "It's not a matter of "one side claims this, the other disagrees..." Using it as an example of how researchers might argue the significance of the same data wasn't an attempt to support however they arrived at that 4% figure, whether or not it was accurate, or whether or not is was actually significant - just that they had differing opinions of it's significance despite them both believing it to be accurate at the time.
  #108  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:37 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I'm just here to fight the ignorance, part of which is the "If there are two sides to an argument, both sides must be given equal consideration" fallacy, which is bullshit if one side has facts on its side and the other side doesn't.
Well if someone makes that argument go get 'em. I haven't.
  #109  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:43 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
By "those years" are you referring to the infamous period of time Harold Putoff and Russell Targ of SRI promoted Uri Geller and other frauds?
I'm referring to the years the US Government funded studies in psi. I think that included the crew you mention as well as a lot of other research in a large variety of areas.

And yet again, I am not even considering the merit of those studies or their results, much less defending either, when I simply answer a posters claim that they "dwarf any research than Radin has ever done" with the fact that it was Radin who did them.
  #110  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:48 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
That isn't the point, again. As you yourself pointed out a later trial done by Radin and a skeptic collaborator couldn't reproduce the same results anyway. I was offering that as an example - when one of them saw a 4% variance he considered it to be insignificant but when another saw the same variance across 33k trials in a meta study he considered it highly significant - in response to Jackmanni saying "It's not a matter of "one side claims this, the other disagrees..." Using it as an example of how researchers might argue the significance of the same data wasn't an attempt to support however they arrived at that 4% figure, whether or not it was accurate, or whether or not is was actually significant - just that they had differing opinions of it's significance despite them both believing it to be accurate at the time.
The point is that you keep offering crap as examples.
"What about this?"
"That so-called research you gave us turned out to be full of mistakes and/or fraud!"
"But that's not the point!"

You given us Radin, who most legitimate scientists rightfully disregard because of his sloppy methodology, a pile of research, the sum total of which adds up to bupkiss, and SRI, infamous for promoting frauds and fakes. To tell the truth, you've almost made the point that ESP and other woo doesn't exist better than any of us.
  #111  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:52 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I'm referring to the years the US Government funded studies in psi. I think that included the crew you mention as well as a lot of other research in a large variety of areas.

And yet again, I am not even considering the merit of those studies or their results, much less defending either, when I simply answer a posters claim that they "dwarf any research than Radin has ever done" with the fact that it was Radin who did them.
You don't "consider the merit of those studies" because you know that those studies failed, and that doesn't promote your agenda. By not ever telling the whole story(the results of the studies and research you are promoting), you are taking a side.
  #112  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:04 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The point is that you keep offering crap as examples.
"What about this?"
"That so-called research you gave us turned out to be full of mistakes and/or fraud!"
"But that's not the point!"

You given us Radin, who most legitimate scientists rightfully disregard because of his sloppy methodology, a pile of research, the sum total of which adds up to bupkiss, and SRI, infamous for promoting frauds and fakes. To tell the truth, you've almost made the point that ESP and other woo doesn't exist better than any of us.
This stands as a perfect example of pretty much every argument that has been made against my posts in this thread. You and naita are taking a simple statement of fact like 'this research exists' and somehow putting words in my mouth that I am saying "and it is right, and I want to defend it'. Or "this argument happened about the statistical significance of a result two researchers thought they were getting" to mean "and the data was right and I want to defend it."

If you could please stick to arguing the things I actually write instead of the motives you are incorrectly assigning to them or grossly misunderstanding, I might be interested in responding. But as it stands nobody arguing seems either willing or capable of doing that.

This is quickly turning into a "who's on first" routine and it has gotten extremely tiresome.
  #113  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:07 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You don't "consider the merit of those studies" because you know that those studies failed, and that doesn't promote your agenda. By not ever telling the whole story(the results of the studies and research you are promoting), you are taking a side.
I don't consider the merit of the studies because we were discussing who did them, not whether they deserve merit.

My only agenda is to discuss valid scientific research in ESP. Valid research does not have to produce results that support a hypothesis. Failed experiments are valid research.
  #114  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:08 AM
JohnGalt JohnGalt is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Med city USA
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
This stands as a perfect example of pretty much every argument that has been made against my posts in this thread. <snip>

This is quickly turning into a "who's on first" routine and it has gotten extremely tiresome.
It's not an original quote (it's been said before in this thread), but I going to say it again here: "I knew that was going to happen".
  #115  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:10 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
This is quickly turning into a "who's on first" routine and it has gotten extremely tiresome.
Then quit promoting crappy research done by sloppy scientists that leads nowhere, and give is one good example(that wasn't already followed up on and found to be crap by someone else, of course.) That's really all the OP was asking for. What you are doing is tiresome, because we have to run down the results of the piles of junk you throw at us because you seem to think that "quantity=quality".
  #116  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:14 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I don't consider the merit of the studies because we were discussing who did them, not whether they deserve merit.

My only agenda is to discuss valid scientific research in ESP. Valid research does not have to produce results that support a hypothesis. Failed experiments are valid research.
How can you determine if the studies are valid without considering their merits, whether they are done on the up-and-up, whether the people doing them have a record of doing tight or sloppy research?
  #117  
Old 04-28-2016, 10:29 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
How can you determine if the studies are valid without considering their merits, whether they are done on the up-and-up, whether the people doing them have a record of doing tight or sloppy research?
OK I'll type this slowly.

Someone says "The paintings in the Sistine chapel dwarf anything that Michelangelo ever painted."

I reply that Michelangelo is who painted the Sistine chapel.

Can you pick out any part of that exchange where the quality of the painting would be relevant to the discussion? Is there any need to consider the merits of the work? Is there any indication to you that I am a fan of the painting or a critic of it?
  #118  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:01 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
OK I'll type this slowly.

Someone says "The paintings in the Sistine chapel dwarf anything that Michelangelo ever painted."

I reply that Michelangelo is who painted the Sistine chapel.

Can you pick out any part of that exchange where the quality of the painting would be relevant to the discussion? Is there any need to consider the merits of the work? Is there any indication to you that I am a fan of the painting or a critic of it?
If quality was not an issue, then this would had been acceptable in the Sistine chapel.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19349921

One can try to dismiss it, but what Radin has done is seen by the experts as what that lady made to that painting. And so do many others that do look at the "artwork" made so far.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-28-2016 at 11:04 AM.
  #119  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:07 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
That story is still hilarious. And still not the point.

I'm saying Michelangelo painted the Sistine chapel in response to someone saying that it dwarfs anything Michelangelo ever did. Not that it was good painting. I'm not trying to spread Christianity. I am not even thinking about the visual image of the paintings at all and yet I can still correct an ironically incorrect statement about them and who painted them.
  #120  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:10 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,377
Somehow I just knew that Crazyhorse wouldn't be willing to cut his losses and move on.
  #121  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:18 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Somehow I just knew that Crazyhorse wouldn't be willing to cut his losses and move on.
hey, just because he keeps bringing up Radin as a legitimate researcher(and ignores all the negative press about him) and throws tons on research at us over and over again(without mentioning that the research has come up with nothing worth writing home about and/or is filled with fraud and/or mistakes) doesn't mean he's promoting either one, right? He just wants to "Give The Other Side."
  #122  
Old 04-28-2016, 11:21 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,946
Yeah, if we take one study that shows some level of statistical significance, and then take a thousand studies that show the same level, the thousand studies are actually a lot more persuasive, even if the effect is smaller.

But the problem is that we're not criticizing the raw math. The problem isn't the math, the problem is the studies. A paper that shows a weakly significant effect, but has unreported methodological flaws is easy to dismiss. A thousand papers that show the same effect become highly significant because of the number of trials. But if all thousand papers suffer from the same sorts of systematic methodological flaws then the raw data they report doesn't get stronger the more times you report it. You have to throw it all out.

And the field of parapsychology is riddled through and through with methodological problems. Outright fraud by scammers is only the most obvious.

Of course this sort of thing happens all the time in mainstream science. Your study of some drug turns out not to have been properly double blinded. The guy studying the drug has a profit motive in finding it effective. The findings are statistically significant in the first trial, but irreproducable in future trials, 1 in 20 studies at the 95% confidence level will be wrong just by chance. Look at the huge kerfuffle happening right now about the irreproducability of regular old psychology experiments. All those pop-sci blurbs you see very often turn out to be idiosyncratic, no one can reproduce the experimental results.

Thing is, science going back to the 1700s has spent a lot of time investigating strange effects that followed unknown physical principles. A rock that could fog photographic film, despite emitting no light. Rocks that fall from the sky. Magnets, electricity, all sorts of funny effects that made no sense at the time, but are now mainstream.

And as I said above, human beings and other animals really do have all sorts of hidden senses. You can sense the buildup of carbon dioxide in your body, which leads to an agonizing need to breathe. But put the person in a room with just nitrogen and no oxygen and they will pass out without noticing anything. All sorts of aquatic creatures have the ability to sense electric fields, bats and dolphins navigate by sonar, fish can sense pressure waves via the lateral line, there are all sorts of ways that animals can sense their environment.

But all these senses have some sort of physical basis, even if the basis is not yet understood. A goldfish swimming along in the dark will stop before it rams into the side of the tank. How? ESP? No, SP. Sensory perception, just a sense that human beings don't have. Do human beings have subtle unrecognized senses? Yes, and we've discovered lots of them. Will we discover more? Probably. But that's not what we're talking about.
  #123  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:05 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
hey, just because he keeps bringing up Radin as a legitimate researcher(and ignores all the negative press about him) and throws tons on research at us over and over again(without mentioning that the research has come up with nothing worth writing home about and/or is filled with fraud and/or mistakes) doesn't mean he's promoting either one, right? He just wants to "Give The Other Side."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Somehow I just knew that Crazyhorse wouldn't be willing to cut his losses and move on.
This is an amazing thread.

I posted a link to a bunch of psi research requested by the OP and expressed no opinion at all about the merits of the research itself. I commented that the guy who curates the list seems to actually employ correct scientific method to his own work in that field, at least in the few of the studies of his I read, and certainly in comparison to much of the other work the OP might find on the subject.

I pointed the OP to a big collection of data without any comment about what if anything it indicates or whether or not it has been refuted by subsequent research.

This simple act somehow so threatened our gallery of resident skeptics that you feel the need to assign motives to my posts that I never had or indicated, misinterpreting my replies to unrelated tangents in the thread and making them out to be all part of some agenda related to the OP. This is like trying to talk to a wounded wildcat. You are so coiled in bitter defense of some entrenched position you hold you are lashing out at shadows that don't even pose a threat to your beliefs if you actually read and understood them.

What I don't understand is that a bunch of really good and scientifically correct studies can also be found just as easily that conclude there is currently no evidence to suggest any aspect of psi, but instead of linking the OP to those you are simply wasting my time and theirs with misplaced arguments and displays of what can only be described as either horrid reading comprehension or agenda-driven mischaracterizations of my posts intended to prevent any useful or interesting discussion on the subject at all.
  #124  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:14 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
You linked to bad studies gathered by a disgraced researcher with a very spotty reputation, then tried your best to spin straw into gold...and failed.
  #125  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:16 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You linked to bad studies gathered by a disgraced researcher with a very spotty reputation, then tried your best to spin straw into gold...and failed.
The OP asked what scientific work has been done in the field. For better or worse that is what I gave him. If you can find better research post it instead of attacking my motives.
  #126  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:18 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
The OP asked what scientific work has been done in the field. For better or worse that is what I gave him. If you can find better research post it instead of attacking my motives.
You just didn't link to it-you promoted it and Radin in several posts.
  #127  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:27 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
But all these senses have some sort of physical basis, even if the basis is not yet understood. A goldfish swimming along in the dark will stop before it rams into the side of the tank. How? ESP? No, SP. Sensory perception, just a sense that human beings don't have. Do human beings have subtle unrecognized senses? Yes, and we've discovered lots of them. Will we discover more? Probably. But that's not what we're talking about.
This is a well reasoned post. It almost got lost in the torrent of nonsensical objections to talking about what research exists so far. You are making some assumptions and stating them as being facts but it is still well reasoned.

The portion of your post quoted above is an example of why in many cases "more research is warranted" is the correct conclusion for studies in psi. And the conclusions that many skeptical and highly qualified scientists outside of psi research have drawn about them as well.

It may not be a psi theory that proves to be the cause for many of the phenomenon under investigation by people doing research in psi.
  #128  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:33 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
That story is still hilarious. And still not the point.
I'm just saying. And it remains very relevant, the quality of a work (in this case the ESP research) is very relevant to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I'm saying Michelangelo painted the Sistine chapel in response to someone saying that it dwarfs anything Michelangelo ever did. Not that it was good painting. I'm not trying to spread Christianity. I am not even thinking about the visual image of the paintings at all and yet I can still correct an ironically incorrect statement about them and who painted them.
The point I made then is missed, it is not only the experts that are dismissing a bad painter researcher like Radin, but that also people that do look at fortean phenomena for a living also agree that Radin attempts to paint a picture of ESP that is at odds with what it is really going on; the failure of Radin to even acknowledge the admitted frauds that he used in his books and research is like horrible brush strokes in a fresco or canvas.
  #129  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:42 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
In other words, when we disparage Radin's crap research over here, pointing out the tons of crap research he did over there doesn't really make your case, and it certainly doesn't make him Michelangelo.
  #130  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:50 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You just didn't link to it-you promoted it and Radin in several posts.
No, I just linked to it. When that triggered a firestorm of opposition from your ilk I read more and noted that to me some of the results he claims to see and others claim to have replicated do merit further investigation. The same conclusion that a whole lot of people outside of psi research also have. The biggest critics of his work or any of the work linked on his website - people cited right in this thread in direct refutations of some of their data or test protocols - still conclude that more research is needed. Neither they, nor I, are promoting Radin in particular or anyone else by doing so.

If you read Lemur866's post and my reply to it, you may begin to understand why. Any good scientist with an open mind would. Any thinking person with an open mind would.
  #131  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:54 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
A good scientist recognizes and rejects fraud when it is encountered. What does this make Radin?
  #132  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:57 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
In other words, when we disparage Radin's crap research over here, pointing out the tons of crap research he did over there doesn't really make your case, and it certainly doesn't make him Michelangelo.
"In other words" meaning ones I didn't say? I don't know.

And as to the rest of this nonsensical babbling, I can't even tell if you're joking or actually misunderstand this entire conversation that badly. And in either case I know there is no point in continuing it. I would prefer to talk about psi research.

Quote:
A good scientist recognizes and rejects fraud when it is encountered. What does this make Radin?
I don't know. What does it make the rest of the scientific community that agrees more research is warranted in many of the phenomena under investigation by psi researchers, Radin or otherwise?
  #133  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:03 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I don't know. What does it make the rest of the scientific community that agrees more research is warranted in many of the phenomena under investigation by psi researchers, Radin or otherwise?
It makes it a total non sequitur to the question I asked.
  #134  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:05 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I'm just saying. And it remains very relevant, the quality of a work (in this case the ESP research) is very relevant to this.



The point I made then is missed, it is not only the experts that are dismissing a bad painter researcher like Radin, but that also people that do look at fortean phenomena for a living also agree that Radin attempts to paint a picture of ESP that is at odds with what it is really going on; the failure of Radin to even acknowledge the admitted frauds that he used in his books and research is like horrible brush strokes in a fresco or canvas.
This all may be true but I think it would be more meaningful if you were telling it to someone who was arguing in favor of any one, single, specific claim Radin has ever made. I don't think you'll find any such arguments by me in this thread. I said it appeared to me that his approach to the subject is a lot more scientific than almost any other you will find in the area of psi, and later that after reading some of his studies, and more importantly the replications of those studies, that more research in the subject would be interesting. And most experts who are dismissing him (I don't know who you're referring to specifically) are also probably perfectly open to more research being done, after making whatever corrections to the protocol or analysis that they find fault with.
  #135  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:07 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It makes it a total non sequitur to the question I asked.
I'm sorry but I just can't help you learn to read and comprehend the English language.
  #136  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:08 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
If you read Lemur866's post and my reply to it, you may begin to understand why. Any good scientist with an open mind would. Any thinking person with an open mind would.
I read it too, it is clear that he is talking about the Radin's studies also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
But the problem is that we're not criticizing the raw math. The problem isn't the math, the problem is the studies. A paper that shows a weakly significant effect, but has unreported methodological flaws is easy to dismiss. A thousand papers that show the same effect become highly significant because of the number of trials. But if all thousand papers suffer from the same sorts of systematic methodological flaws then the raw data they report doesn't get stronger the more times you report it. You have to throw it all out.
The take home lesson for the OP and others is that Radin could be pointed at, but as an example of what not to do, a complete answer to what the OP requested should include a note like that and that more research is needed indeed, and Radin shows why and what is needed to avoid his flaws as we need to find what senses are involved, if any.

As pointed before, the evidence so far is very underwhelming, meaning that the more research that is needed is clearly one that avoids the mistaken path of Radin.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-28-2016 at 01:08 PM.
  #137  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:08 PM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 14,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
Did you read my link? The USA spent 17 years and $20 million (nearer $50 million on today's money value) and found nothing of value.
I expect that dwarfs the research Radin has done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I hesitate to even mention it at this point but since you clearly aren't aware of it Radin was employed by SRI International during those years and participated in most of those tests.
Ho ho!
No I wasn't aware that Radin was involved in 17 years of testing which found absolutely nothing; then decided to reopen the research and has still found nothing!

Why on earth do you think Radin has anything to offer?
  #138  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:16 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
Why on earth do you think Radin has anything to offer?
I'm pretty sure he has a list of links to various psi research on his website to offer.
  #139  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:16 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
This all may be true but I think it would be more meaningful if you were telling it to someone who was arguing in favor of any one, single, specific claim Radin has ever made. I don't think you'll find any such arguments by me in this thread. I said it appeared to me that his approach to the subject is a lot more scientific than almost any other you will find in the area of psi
[Full stop]

The problem is that you still continue to ignore that virtually all scientists and even skeptics that look at researchers like Radin agree that what Radin is doing is pseudo science, not science.

BTW I did link early to this, but it is clear that you decided not to look at it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

Quote:
Radin published the book The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena (1997). The book contained many errors. The British mathematician I. J. Good in the scientific journal Nature gave the book a negative review. Good discovered flaws in Radin's method for evaluating the file-drawer effect.[1] According to Victor Stenger:

Quote:
Radin is aware of the file-drawer effect, in which only positive results tend to get reported and negative ones are left in the filing cabinet. This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data. Even the most fervent parapsychologists recognize this problem. Meta-analysis incorporates a procedure for taking the file-drawer effect into account. Radin says it shows that more than 3,300 unpublished, unsuccessful reports would be needed for each published report in order to “nullify” the statistical significance of psi. In his review of Radin’s book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it “a gross overestimate.” He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly.[2]
So there are many experts that looked at the research already made by Radin, like John Stenger, who was an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic.

So, again, avoid Radin. There should be more research done but clearly not by the likes of him.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-28-2016 at 01:19 PM.
  #140  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:18 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The take home lesson for the OP and others is that Radin could be pointed at, but as an example of what not to do,...
Also as an example of someone who has a big list of links to psi research on his website.
  #141  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:23 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
This is a decent essay on the state of modern paranormal research. IT was written in 2000, but it gives a good overview of what is going on.
  #142  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:29 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
[Full stop]

The problem is that you still continue to ignore that virtually all scientists and even skeptics that look at researchers like Radin agree that what Radin is doing is pseudo science, not science.

BTW I did link early to this, but it is clear that you decided not to look at it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dean_Radin



So there are many experts that looked at the research already made by Radin, like John Stenger, who was an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic.
I have looked at your link, and a bunch of others (Before this thread I only sort of peripherally even knew anything about Radin. I've read more about him while answering posts here than I had in my entire life previously) I can't quite understand why anyone would have such fierce objections to using a list of links on his website as a starting point to read what research has been done in psi, not only by him but practically any major study in psi since the 1940's, in a thread about what research has been done in psi, even if they agree with rational wiki.

The kinds of fraud or at least let's say intellectual dishonesty he is accused of in these various links could all be true, I don't know. But it isn't evident in the few studies I read and it has absolutely no bearing on whether a link on his site to a 50 year old study he had nothing to do with is clickable or not.
  #143  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:29 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Also as an example of someone who has a big list of links to psi research on his website.
Anybody can compile a Big List O' Research, and we've already shown you over and over again why his judgment is questionable at best.
  #144  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:36 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This is a decent essay on the state of modern paranormal research. IT was written in 2000, but it gives a good overview of what is going on.
Good work. It is a bit outdated but a genuine contribution to the thread. I like the part where he says:

Quote:
A lot more research is required before the phenomenon of psi can become established and accepted, let alone have any use whatsoever.
Quote:
Anybody can compile a Big List O' Research, and we've already shown you over and over again why his judgment is questionable at best.
Anybody can, but I can't find many who did especially that many in one place ranging decades and neatly grouped by topic.
  #145  
Old 04-28-2016, 02:20 PM
CurtC CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
No, I just linked to it.
You endorsed that site, not just linked to it.

If you had introduced the link with "here's something I found where someone tries to apply the scientific method to studying psi," that would have been one thing. Of course it would have been better to complete the picture by adding that he's been thoroughly discredited by all the legitimate scientists because his "scientific" methods were far from it, and he refused to correct them.

But you said "A guy named Dean Radin is one of the legitimate and well credentialed scientists who hasn't given up on the idea."

That's a lot more than a disinterested link. Not to pile on here, but you're trying to backtrack and we can read what you said.
  #146  
Old 04-28-2016, 02:33 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I have looked at your link, and a bunch of others (Before this thread I only sort of peripherally even knew anything about Radin. I've read more about him while answering posts here than I had in my entire life previously) I can't quite understand why anyone would have such fierce objections to using a list of links on his website as a starting point to read what research has been done in psi, not only by him but practically any major study in psi since the 1940's, in a thread about what research has been done in psi, even if they agree with rational wiki.

The kinds of fraud or at least let's say intellectual dishonesty he is accused of in these various links could all be true, I don't know. But it isn't evident in the few studies I read and it has absolutely no bearing on whether a link on his site to a 50 year old study he had nothing to do with is clickable or not.
Sounds a lot like if you want me to respond to a google vomit.

When that happens one only has to look at the first example to see who is more accurate so I did look at his links. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

To begin with, he makes a lot of hay out of his group being affiliated with the AAAS, not a good start.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...2045957AAwoUQA
Quote:
Here is a key quote from the AAAS (thanks for your link) highlighting where the AAAS opinion now stands on paranormal belief:

"...many Americans are scientifically illiterate. Scientific illiteracy has harmful implications not just for individuals, but it may also be hazardous to our national security....The NSF report goes on to express concern over the enduring popularity of belief in pseudo-science and the paranormal, which is an element of scientific illiteracy."

I think if the AAAS could get a magic wish, they'd wish they never accepted the PA as affiliates. Now they are pretty much stuck with them. It's probably embarassing for them.

EDIT:
To correct a pretty lame attempt at deception from another answerer, the quote is indeed from an NSF report but that report is being publicly endorsed by AAAS leaders (specifically by the Project Coordinator, AAAS Science and Human Rights Program), and therefore does undeniably represent the views of the AAAS.
Indeed, embarrassing as the 2010 report also notes that:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7s2.htm
Quote:
19. The pseudoscience section focuses on astrology
because of the availability of long-term national trend indicators
on this subject. Other examples of pseudoscience
include the belief in lucky numbers, the existence of unidentified
flying objects (UFOs), extrasensory perception (ESP),
or magnetic therapy.
So, what about the very first paper Radin cites? Well, it turns out that more research was done already.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12778776/
Quote:
RESULTS: 8 non-randomised and 9 randomised clinical trials were located. The majority of the rigorous trials do not to support the hypothesis that distant healing has specific therapeutic effects. The results of two studies furthermore suggest that distant healing can be associated with adverse effects.

CONCLUSION: Since the publication of our previous systematic review in 2000, several rigorous new studies have emerged. Collectively they shift the weight of the evidence against the notion that distant healing is more than a placebo.
Just as it was noted by many, the issue is that Radin also omits mentioning that indeed more research was done and the study that Radin cites first should had been replaced with the updated ones, a long time ago. No such luck and by now one has to point out that Radin then is resorting to deception by not acknowledging the march of science.

http://edzardernst.com/2015/04/dista...meta-analyses/
Quote:
Given these reservations, my conclusion from an analysis of the primary studies of distant healing would be dramatically different from the one published by the authors: DESPITE A SIZABLE AMOUNT OF PRIMARY STUDIES ON THE SUBJECT, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DISTANT HEALING REMAINS UNPROVEN. AS THIS THERAPY IS BAR OF ANY BIOLOGICAL PLAUSIBILITY, FURTHER RESEARCH IN THIS AREA SEEMS NOT WARRANTED.
  #147  
Old 04-28-2016, 03:11 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
But you said "A guy named Dean Radin is one of the legitimate and well credentialed scientists who hasn't given up on the idea."

That's a lot more than a disinterested link. Not to pile on here, but you're trying to backtrack and we can read what you said.
You're interpreting that statement in another context than I posted it, but you're right I wasn't precisely clear. I didn't know I would be defending it in another context later.

I would have made clear that I had no knowledge, or practically no knowledge, at all about anything he has ever done in psi. I based that statement on his background in science (mainstream regular science) and his education.
  #148  
Old 04-29-2016, 03:21 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
What is the straight dope on ESP? Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind reading, for example? Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims?
It isn't mainstream. A lot of it is crackpot stuff. (No real science.) At best it is fringe. Some of it is presumably quackery. (Academics not practicing real science.)

Crank.net distinguishes between fringe, cranky, crankier, crankiest and illucid. Also bizarre. The Koestler Parapsychology Unit of the University of Edinburgh wins a cranky rating. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (now defunct) was considered fringe.

http://www.crank.net/esp.html
http://www.crank.net/paranormal.html
  #149  
Old 04-29-2016, 05:36 AM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 14,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
Ho ho!
No I wasn't aware that Radin was involved in 17 years of testing which found absolutely nothing; then decided to reopen the research and has still found nothing!

Why on earth do you think Radin has anything to offer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I'm pretty sure he has a list of links to various psi research on his website to offer.
Does he link to the 17 years of testing that found nothing?!

Look - after decades of investigation and millions of dollars spent no evidence of ESP has been found.
At this point anyone discussing ESP investigation without having any evidence is either deluded, fanatical or going for publicity (and sponsorship.)
  #150  
Old 04-29-2016, 06:19 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
Does he link to the 17 years of testing that found nothing?!

Look - after decades of investigation and millions of dollars spent no evidence of ESP has been found.
At this point anyone discussing ESP investigation without having any evidence is either deluded, fanatical or going for publicity (and sponsorship.)
I don't know but I think a lot of the work the government asked them to do was in the area of "remote viewing" and he does have some links to remote viewing research in general.

I cant really fault a working scientist for researching the data his boss asked him to under a contract with the government. At the time he was just a scientist working for a huge research institute involved in all kinds of research contracts and had no "psi agenda" or anything to prove. That institute was hired by the USA to do research in a topic they were interested in, not Radin personally or the institute itself.

Now, yes he is clearly seems to be working within a mindset that psi exists and he just needs to find ways to demonstrate it through research and analysis of past research, but that, too, is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself as long as they are honest about the research and the results. In a casual search of his published work he is still applying good scientific method to the experiments and protocols, it seems he is just a little too fanatical about insisting there is significance in results that are not necessarily significant. This is often human nature, he emphasizes that which supports his point of view and diminishes that which undermines it, but I agree it is not the right approach to science.

I just find it kind of ironic that my intention in linking to a collection of psi research links on his website was just to provide some references of what research has been done in the field, not necessarily by him specifically, or any endorsement of psi in general, and this simple action drew the wrath of our resident skeptic's corner instantly. And it was clear they didn't even know or care to know what interest I might have, or how I found that list or why I was sharing it - just instant accusations of posting with an agenda, supporting a "all points of view are always valid" mentality, and I don't even remember what all else... This is ironic because one of his big arguments it seems is that if anyone even mentions psi they are assaulted from all sides by what can only be described as "fanatical" skeptics. Whatever I might think of his other contributions to science I have to say I see really good evidence he is right about that. Fanatics are never good whatever side of an argument they are on.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017