Have any of our resident skeptics here read the book The Conscious Universe by Dean I. Radin? For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, it’s a book that purports to offer scientific evidence for some types of paranormal phenomena. One example I can think of off the top of my head is that random number generators are affected by the collective emotional states of the country, with diagrams indicating statistically significant variations during the Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, and the OJ Verdict. Now, I realize that just because it’s in a book doesn’t make it true, even if it is by a guy with a Ph.D., so I’d like to know what kind of arguments our resident skeptics have against it.
First off, there is no such thing a pure random number generator. The output of random number generators (or more accurately pseudo-random number generators) is determined by an initial seed value. The initial seed is usually based upon the time since some particular date-time. I don’t see how this could be sensitive to “Academy Awards, the Super Bowl, and the OJ Verdict”.
Sounds like BS to me.
When Dr. Radin refers to “random number generators”, he ISN’T talking about the pseudo-random formulas that use an initial seed value. He’s talking about TRULY random devices that use radioactive decay to generate values. If there’s some hidden variable that makes this non-random, it hasn’t been discovered by science yet. And I’d like some SCIENTIFIC rebuttals of Dr. Radin’s book here, not just “Sounds like BS to me.” If you talk like that, people might mistake you for a creationist, and God knows we don’t want that! 
I’d just like to say that anyone who’s tempted to reply to this thread with a response like “Sounds like BS to me” without anything to back it up should consult my signature first.
Sounds like BS to me.
Finding an after-the-fact correlation between an anomoly and a current event has no scientific meaning. Now, if this guy were to use current events to predict the behavior of a nuclear-decay random-number generator, I would sit up and take notice.
I’m sorry, I work with computers and when I hear random number generators, I think of pseudo-random number programs.
The idea the the “collective emotional states of the country” could have an effect on fundamental laws of physics, still sounds like BS to me. “The OJ verdict”??? Come on. The collective emotional state of the country after the OJ verdict had an effect on the fundamental laws of physics. Can you actually say that statment without laughing? I can’t say it without laughing; I could barely type it. Did you find that book in the humor section, maybe?
If you really want something to rebut hidden variables, you should look into Bell’s Theorem. In Quantum Mechanics, Bell’s Theorem pretty much rules out hidden variables.
No one has ever mistaken me for a creationist.
I think you seem to have missed the point of my previous posts. Taking up a contrary position to an argument IS NOT just saying “No, it isn’t!” How the hell many times do I need to put that in my signature before you’ll read it?! If you think that saying “the paranormal doesn’t exist because I say so” makes you a skeptic, well, I say THAT sounds like BS to me. A skeptic should debate based on the evidence. Why does everyone on this board support evolution over creation? First, because there’s no evidence for creation; second, because there is a MASSIVE body of evidence for evolution. For years, skeptics have been claiming that there is no evidence for the paranormal. Well, Dr. Radin seems to disagree. His book is FILLED with experimental data on the subject. For instance, the example I gave involving random number generators and the OJ verdict. Dr. Radin’s hypothesis was that during periods of greater emotional intensity for a large number of people (what he calls “field consciousness”,) the random number generators would deviate more significantly from chance than at other times. In his experiment, Dr. Radin ran three separate random number generators in his lab, while one of his colleagues in Princeton and another in Amsterdam ran their own RNGs at the same time. ALL FIVE devices registered deviations from chance greater than 100:1 AT THE SAME TIME that the OJ verdict was announced. (For details of this experiment, check p. 166 of Dr. Radin’s book.) And, just for your information, all the RNGs showed normal results at other times. So, to answer your question, Dr. Radin CAN predict the behavior of RNGs based on the collective emotional state of the country. You may think it’s “BS”, but can you prove it? Dr. Radin has given his evidence. Can the skeptics refute his results scientifically, or is name-calling the best they can do? I say to you, read the book, and then either PUT UP some evidence against it or SHUT UP. This has been said to the creationists before, and they decided to shut up. Well? What’s it gonna be?
They laughed at (fill in the blank), and he turned out to be right. Well, they laughed at Bozo, too.
I found this excerpt from The Conscious Universe, if anyone wants to check it out. Here is a quote I really like:
:BeepBeepBeep: Oops, there goes my BS detector again.
Do you even fucking READ these posts, DrMatrix?! Not once did I make the argument that “they laughed at Einstein.” The fact is, Dr. Radin HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE for his position! What the fuck have you done? Make snide remarks! Is that what you call a debate? When I posted this topic, I had one thing in mind. I wanted a skeptic to give me ONE GOOD REASON why I should believe that these results aren’t true. I’m afraid “DrMatrix said so” isn’t good enough. Where are David B and Gaudere when you need them, huh? They’re willing to debate CREATIONISTS seriously, for Christ’s sake! Sure, they’re skeptics, and they probably don’t believe that these results are true either. But I bet they could give me a real argument as to why they’re not. This is supposed to be a forum for DEBATE, in case you hadn’t noticed. So what if Dr. Radin says he isn’t doing “proof-oriented” experiments anymore? Do biologists do “proof-oriented” experiments for the benefit of the creationists? You know what? I’ll make you a deal. If you really want to debate me, I’ll buy you a copy of this book myself so you can read it for yourself. Then, and ONLY then, will you be qualified to make counter-arguments. As they say, I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. But I’m sure all you’ll do is shoot off your mouth again. I’ll say it again, and I hope to God you listen this time. Give me ONE GOOD REASON why I shouldn’t believe that these results are real. If all you’ve got is a smart remark, then SHUT THE HELL UP. I came here hoping I could get some serious debate on this subject. If you’re incapable of that, then I suggest that “Great Debates” really isn’t your cup of tea.
You know something, my previous post does look like I implied you said “They laughed at (fill in the blank), and he turned out to be right.” You said no such thing. This was based on something that Dean Radin said in the excerpt I linked to above. He said:
Part of his defense is that skeptics proclaim that the idea appears to violate the Laws of Science? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Biologists are not sitting around doing proof-oriented experiments, but the proof is there. The only researchers that take psi research seriously are psi researchers.
I would like thank you for your kind offer to send my a copy of the book. However, I cannot accept. I read the excerpt and it is too silly for me to take seriously and not quite silly enough to be read as humor.
You are quite right that “DrMatrix says so.” is a weak arguement indeed. I gave you ONE GOOD REASON. Perhaps it got lost in my “smart remarks”. Here it is again: Bell’s Theorem pretty much rules out hidden variables necessary for any of the foolishness.
That is just what I was thinking.
OK. rick, calm down, babe. Your sig line indicates to me that you understand the basic premises from which arguments must ensue, and that’s good, but I think you’re not following the logic back around far enough.
The thing about an argument is that the original proposition (with which we’re all supposed to contend) must be supported with enough information that various points may be disputed, besides the original proposition. (Otherwise, you’re liable to get “No it isn’t” for an answer.) So far, you’ve provided someone’s outrageous proposition (the collective unconscious affects the laws of physics) and have cited one factual claim to support it.
Dr. Matrix provided his understanding of how random number generators operate, then when you clarified this, he suggested that Bell’s Theorem rebutted hidden variables. These both seemed like valid responses to me.
Joe Malik explained why he was unconvinced by “after-the-fact” correlations, and suggested that an accurate prediction of behavior based on current events would provide more compelling evidence. This also seems like a valid response.
If you’re going to continue asking for debate on Dr. Radin’s claim, you should be prepared to cite more of the “evidence” provided in the book.
I’ll only say this once, and I hope to the IPU that you listen. THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS! For any extraordinary claim, you should always ask for extraordinary proof, otherwise you have NO GOOD REASON to believe the claim. If you want us to address Dr. Radin’s results, you should provide a description of the specific experiments, their results and Dr. Radin’s conclusions.
If you don’t want to provide enough information for truly skeptical responses, then ask a moderator to move this thread to the 'Pit, where we can respond more appropriately.
Haven’t read the book, but I have a couple of questions for you. Is there anything other than statistical correlations in it? I mean, is there a proposed mechanism, or any sort of independant verification cited? We’ve all heard the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” line before, and Radin’s defence of the Ganzfeld experiments, despite its flaws in methodology, already cast doubt on his objectivity. Selection bias, whether conscious or not, has been laid at his feet before, and his fondness for meta-analysis of other studies isn’t a particularly endearing trait either, considering the profound troubles that parapsychologists traditionally have had with designing decent experiments.
Here, for example, is an abstract of his random number experiments: http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/diana.html
He compares two funerals, Mother Teresa and Princess Diana. He claims no results with the former, and a skewed dataset with the latter. To this he attributes a difference in the moods of the world populace because one was more tragic compared to the other. Forgive me if this seems like post hoc reasoning to me, but consider me a tad unconvinced. Here is a quote from the Skeptic’s Dictionary describing apophenia:
Sounds like a bit of this going on to me. In fact, this is precisely the problem with the whole idea in my opinion: any seemingly positive result is taken as evidence, while any lack of result is easily explained away. And, even his supporters must admit that the Academy Awards is hardly an event likely to generate more emotion than Mother Teresa’s funeral. There’s simply too much wiggle room when describing the emotional state of an individual, let alone the entire country or the world, for me to find this sort of experiment to be proof of, or even indicative of anything.
I did a metacrawler search on “Dean Radin” and came up with several links. I present these three without snide remarks.
Study says full moon can bring gamblers better luck
UNLV researcher baffled over his recent dismissal
I don’t know what you expect from me, but let me just say this: This is not the Pit; I will not stoop to your level. And if you don’t like my snide remarks, you should be careful invoking the likes of David B and Gaudere. I’m not saying they will get snide with you, but I have seen them get snide upon occasion.
Look, DrMatrix, I’m sorry if I got angry at you. It’s just that it gets very frustrating when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC debate and all I get is “it’s BS” in return. If you haven’t read the book and have no desire to, then you’re not the debater I was looking for. I’m invoking our esteemed moderators names because they are TRUE skeptics. They’d actually READ the book, THEN they’d make arguments against it. For those of you who want more evidence, the book is 362 pages long. I mean, what do you want me to do, type in the entire book on this message board, including the charts? The book is out there for anyone to read. There’s no Area 51 conspiracy to hide it. When I started this thread, I was looking for a skeptical response, but I was looking for skeptics who had actually READ THE BOOK and were willing to provide arguments to refute it. I’ll say this again, and I promise I’ll say it calmly this time. This thread is supposed to be about debating Dr. Radin’s book, The Conscious Universe. In order to effectively participate in such a debate, one must read the book first. If you’re not willing to do that, fine, but PLEASE don’t fill up bandwidth with wisecracks. Once again, I apologize for getting overheated. Thank you.
Just to clarify: when I say I’d rather not see any wisecracks or snide remarks, I mean something like this:
I started this thread without any insults, then I got responses like this, so I got angry and sent out some insults of my own. I realize this was unprofessional of me and I do apologize. I just think that DrMatrix should not paint himself as the wronged party here. He was, after all, the first to sling the mud. I’ll be more than happy to refrain from doing so if he will as well.
Dr. Radin is one of the few prponents of PARAPSYCHOLOGY left in the US. I used to be interested in this myself, but the fact is, NOBODY has EVER demostrated that these (parapsychological)phenomena exist. My arguements against such abilities:
(1) if they did exist, those that had them would have a tremendous evolutionary advantage over those who did not-think about it-if you could know that a deer would be at a certain spot 9in advance) you would be a pretty succesful hunter-you and your children would never starve.
(2) after 130+ years of honest experimentation, NOBODY has ever been able to demostrate Psi
3) those who have such abilities would find it very easy to get rich on lotteries, las vegas casinos. Lotteries and casinos never pay out more that the laws of chance allow.
It’s interesting that you bring up Las Vegas casinos, egkelly, because that very topic is covered in Dr. Radin’s book in Chapter 11. The point is, though, that psi effects are generally very small and hard to detect. You won’t find any instances of people who are able to telekinetically make every single slot machine pay off, and Dr. Radin doesn’t claim that such people exist, either. Psi debates often sound a lot like creationist debates. A scientist says, “What would it take to make you believe in evolution?” and the creationist says “A reptile would have to give birth to a bird,” even though that’s NOT what the theory of evolution predicts. Similarly, when a parapsychologist asks a skeptic, “What would it take to make you believe in psi?” he says something like, “Luke Skywalker would have to levitate my Buick,” even though that’s NOT the kind of effect that any serious psi researcher believes in. One of the previous posters commented that Dr. Radin has no proposed mechanism for how psi works. Well, that’s true, but just because he doesn’t know HOW psi works is no reason to believe it DOESN’T work. Ancient peoples believed that lightning was caused by the anger of the gods. Later, scientists discovered that lightning was an electrical charge created in the clouds. If you were a scientist in the Renaissance, you might say, “I KNOW lightning isn’t the anger of the gods, but I don’t know how else it could work.” Even so, you wouldn’t dispute the EXISTENCE of lightning, because you can see it. Contrary to popular X-Files-ian perceptions, psi effects are very small and often difficult to see, so this may not be the best analogy. Dr. Radin, though, has provided evidence in his book that seems to demonstrate that the effects are statistically significant and cannot be explained purely by chance. If you’re really interested in finding out about this evidence, then all you need to do is READ THE BOOK. That’s all I’m asking here. If you can read the book cover to cover and still come away unconvinced, that’s OK with me. I never said anyone had to believe it. I DID say that I wanted people to tell me WHY they came away unconvinced after reading the book. This is a debate. We can agree to disagree. But tell me WHY you disagree with Radin’s book first. Thank you.
I don’t plan to, either, unless you can provide some compelling evidence for why it should be taken seriously. I have read the exerpts and links posted by Dr M, and I am familiar with Bell’s Theorem. The ball is in your court but I have yet to see you serve up anything meaningful after the initial OP.
Frankly, a position that begins by equating correlation with causation sems to require more detailed reinforcement.
BTW, does the author pretend to explain why an emotional event in the US (OJ trial) had an effect on random number generators in Amsterdam? Or does he alternatively explain how if these effects are global the emotional effects of a given minority (say, the population of the US) could override the “global emotional field”. (Gawd – I actually typed that with a straight, er, finger)
Oh, and does the author happen to discuss whether the overwhelming majority of people have ot have the same emotional response (which pretty much rules out the OJ verdict, anyway.)
Hey, and as long as we’re talking about OJ, how does the author explain a deviation in observations tied to such a specific time when it is a certainty that only a small percentage of the folks who reacted to the OJ news learned of it in the exact minute that it was announced?
It’s worth noting that some Psi researchers claim that Psi can have small effects in random or pseudo-random number generators.
If even a slight change in the odds was achieved, I’m sure that this would still make Vegas very nervous.
BTW, I’m just jumping into here without knowing anything about the book, but if the effects are replicable, then why worry about their size? Even replicable tiny events, if statistically significant, and without errors or tampering in the experiment would still qualify for, say, the JREF 1.1 million.
Where do you get that idea? I haven’t ever come across such an interchange between a parapsychologist and a skeptic. All I’ve seen is
“What would it take to make you believe in psi?”
“Several tightly controlled replicated experiments, using magicians and statisticians to design the experiments, with pre-defined success criteria and statistical analyses, demonstrating above-chance results at a statistically significant level, and after review and discussion by the general scientific community.”
“Oh, well then never mind.”
I haven’t read “The Conscious Universe” I did look at chapter 1 at The Conscious Universe Chapter 1: Introduction. I can comment only a few items from the introduction.
The opening paragraph, defining the four stages of scientific acceptance, is a strawman argument. The stages that he describe do occur on occasion, but are hardly typical of the operation of science.
The first half of the introduction is also misleading, not citing any negative findings and presenting facts in a manner that appears intended to deceive; for example "In the 1990s alone, seminars on psi research were part of the regular programs at the annual conferences of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Association, and the American Statistical Association. " True. These seminars were called in an attempt to bend over backwards to accomodate those who promote parapshychology (contrast that with the four stages from the first paragraph), and the results of all thoise seminars were conclusions that nothing’s been demonstrated.
The Ray Hyman quote:
is taken terrifically out of context, and gives the opposite impression from that Hyman wanted to convey. See Hyman’s report at Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena, Professor Utts’ report at AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING, and Professor Utts’ response to Hyman’s report at RESPONSE TO RAY HYMAN’S REPORT. This fact leads me to suspect all of Radin’s quotes and references.
All in all, I’m not impressed enough to obtain and read the book.
You might be interested in this review and this response.