# The Conscious Universe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2000, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420 "2000-10-03T00:05:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/21 "2000-10-04T00:02:47Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I haven’t read the book. I don’t plan to, either, unless you can provide some compelling evidence for why it should be taken seriously. So, in order for you to even look at the evidence, I need to provide you with evidence of the evidence? Isn’t this just a tad unreasonable? The point of this thread was supposed to be about Radin’s book; not about the existence of the paranormal in general, but about RADIN’S BOOK. I do not feel that it is unreasonable to ask debaters to read the book the debate is about before they debate it. Now, several people have posted responses which actually refute statements made in the book, and for that, I’m thankful, because this is what I’m looking for. You say the ball is in my court to produce evidence. Well, the book contains a great deal of evidence, or so Dr. Radin says. I’m NOT trying to start a general debate on the paranormal; I’m trying to start a debate about RADIN’S BOOK. Why do so many people feel it is unreasonable to ask them to read the book before debating its conclusions? Do you understand why this is so frustrating? I come here asking for people to debate Radin’s book, and most of them just say, “No, I’m not interested.” If you’re not interested, then why post at all? And as for Bell’s Theorem, it states that no _local_ hidden variable theory can be true. _Nonlocal_ hidden variables could still exist, and one of Radin’s main points is that psi is _nonlocal._ But hey, I’m not a psi researcher. I’m not even a scientist. I just got this book by a guy who IS a psi resarcher and a scientist who makes some (to me) very convincing arguments about the existence of psi. All I wanted was the opinions of people who had READ THE BOOK, whether they agreed with it or not. Recently, there was a thread about a creationist book by a guy named Behe. Everybody disagreed with it, but all of them had either READ THE BOOK or had read articles by people who had. Do you mean to say you take psi research even less seriously than creationism? Is it any wonder that Dr. Radin declined my invitation to join this thread? He said that since no one was willing to read his book in the first place, it would just be a waste of his time. I agree. It’s a waste of his time, my time, and your time. I’m sorry I bothered you. Maybe I’ll have better luck with my next topic. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/22 "2000-10-04T00:20:14Z")
Oh, by the way, I DID read Ray Hyman’s report at the link above. Here are some quotes from it WITH the context: > [@](#): > > I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation. However, I am willing to assume that the effect sizes represent true effects beyond inadequacies in the underlying model. Statistical effects, by themselves, do not justify claiming that anomalous cognition has been demonstrated–or, for that matter, that an anomaly of any kind has occurred. > > So, I accept Professor Utts’ assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments “are far beyond what is expected by chance.” Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results. Operationally, the presence of anomalous cognition is detected by the elimination of all other possibilities. This reliance on a negative definition of its central phenomenon is another liability that parapsychology brings with its attempt to become a recognized science. Essentially, anomalous cognition is claimed to be present whenever statistically significant departures from the null hypothesis are observed under conditions that preclude the operation of all mundane causes of these departures. As Boring once observed, every success in parapsychological research is a failure. By this he meant that when the investigator or the critics succeed in finding a scientifically acceptable explanation for the significant effect the claim for ESP or anomalous cognition has failed. > > Having accepted the existence of non-chance effects, the focus now is upon whether these effects have normal causes. Since the beginning of psychical research, each claim that psychic functioning had been demonstrated was countered by critics who suggested other reasons for the observed effects. Typical alternatives that have been suggested to account for the effects have been fraud, statistical errors, and methodological artifacts. In the present discussion I am not considering fraud or statistical errors. This leaves only methodological oversight as the source for a plausible alternative to psychic functioning. **Utts has concluded that “arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws are soundly refuted.” If she is correct, then I would have to agree with her bottom line "that psychic functioning has been well established."** At this point, Hyman admits that **IF** the experiments are methodologically sound, that they **DO** provide evidence of psychic phenomena. Of course, he goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. **In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.** Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility–especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered. So what he’s saying here is, basically, “These experiments have to have SOME kind of flaw in them. I have no idea what that flaw might be, of course, but, gosh darn it, it MUST be there, because everyone KNOWS that psi doesn’t exist!” Well, you see, I **AM** willing to read **YOUR** sources. Why are you so bound and determined to avoid reading mine? ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/23 "2000-10-04T00:55:43Z")
While I’m at it, I figured I might as well throw in some quotes from Jessica Utts’s response to Hyman’s report, since, after all, there probably isn’t enough **evidence** to get anyone to read it. > [@](#): > > While critics are fond of relating, as Professor Hyman does in his report, that there has been “more than a century of parapsychological research (p. 7)” psychologist Sybo Schouten (1993, p. 316) has noted that the total human and financial resources devoted to parapsychology since 1882 is at best equivalent to the expenditures devoted to fewer than two months of research in conventional psychology in the United States. She goes on to address some of Hyman’s statements, such as: > [@](#): > > **2. "Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of phenomena (or a phenomenon) whose presence can be detected only by rejecting a null hypothesis (p. 8)."** > > While it is true that parapsychology has not figured out all the answers, it does not differ from normal science in this regard. It is the norm of scientific progress to make observations first, and then to attempt to explain them. Before quantum mechanics was developed there were a number of anomalies observed in physics that could not be explained. There are many observations in physics and in the social and medical sciences that can be observed, either statistically or deterministically, but which cannot be explained. The rest of this paragraph goes on to talk about the effects of electromagnetic fields on health. There is a statistically significant effect there, but no one has a proposed mechanism from how it works. Utts notes that just because we don’t have a proposed mechanism for something doesn’t mean it can’t exist. > [@](#): > > **3. "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results (p. 18)."** > > I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, I can name other phenomena for which students could not be expected to do a simple experiment and observe a result, such as the connection between taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks or the connection between smoking and getting lung cancer. What differentiates these phenomena from simple experiments like splitting light with a prism is that the effects are statistical in nature and are not expected to occur every single time. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but we can predict the proportion who will. Not everyone who attempts anomalous cognition will be successful, but I think we can predict the proportion of time success should be achieved. Note that Radin mentions the studies showing the relationship between taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks in his book. He shows the statistical evidence for that, and makes the claim that his statistical evidence for psi phenomena is just as rigorous as that. You wanted evidence from other sources? You got it. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/24 "2000-10-04T05:17:37Z")
In reading your OP I assumed that you wanted to discuss the ideas you found engaging in THE BOOK. Generally, I find that intelligent people are quite capable of discussing ideas without having read exactly the same source material. However, it appears you are interested only in discussing THE BOOK. Pity. Other people have written about and investigated psi phenomena, and other ideas exist which might have proven interesting despite being absent from THE BOOK. For instance: while Bell’s Theorem was originally structured in response to Bohm’s search for hidden variables to account for the results predicted by quantum mechanics, it has since been proven in other ways which make no reference to Bohm’s assumption of local hidden variables. Interestingly, Bohm’s own theories of quantum potential and implicate order are quite detailed and it would perhaps be interesting to discuss how the purported deviations from expected raondomness might be viewed as an effect of Bohm’s quantumpotential. Alternatively, it might be fun to discuss the results in comparison to other apparent violations of locality and proposed explanations. Oh well, maybe someone else will write A BOOK about that so we can have another thread. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/25 "2000-10-04T06:16:38Z")
**Spiritus Mundi** , I appreciate your response. It seems that you, at least, desire intelligent debate on this subject. For that I am very grateful. I don’t want this thread to degenerate into a flame war. I have apologized for my previous insults against DrMatrix, and I assure you, I won’t throw insults around again. I agree that there are other sources of information on psi phenomena out there that can be discussed. I used Radin’s book for this thread because it’s the only one on the subject I actually own. Well, besides the Time-Life books on the psychic, but they are mostly filled with interesting anecdotes rather than any scientific arguments. Radin’s book is also one of the most recent works on this subject, as far as I know. If you’ve got any other sources you feel would contribute to this debate, by all means, let me know. I’ll be more than happy to read them. So, let’s start over. FORGET about the book. Let’s just deal with Radin’s main ideas instead. For instance, he says that the state of the evidence for psi is as convincing as the evidence in any other branch of science. Obviously, you disagree. Tell me why you don’t find the evidence convincing. Keep in mind Ray Hyman’s quotes above, in which he admits that if the experiments had no methodological flaws, they would indeed be proof of the existence of psi, then goes on to say that he can’t think of any flaws in the experiments, but that there must be some. That doesn’t sound very convincing for the skeptical side. Here’s hoping we can have a pleasant debate from here on without any emotional outbursts from ANYONE, including me. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Malik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/48db29/32.png) [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/26 "2000-10-04T06:50:46Z")
ricksummon, your posts are difficult to read. I’m not trying to be mean to you, but my eyes are old and tired, as is my brain. I need line breaks and paragraph structure nowadays just to be able to make sense of stuff. One problem with psi research are methods of “statistical correlation.” Essentially, using traditional methods of determining statistical significance, you say that an experiment shows “meaning” if the null hypothesis has a ~5% chance of explaining the result. The problem with that method is that if you do enough experiments _by definition_ 5% of them will show spurious “meaning”. I’m very intrigued by Robert Matthews’ alternative of iteratively applying Bayes theorem to evaluate objective results against subjective estimates of confidence ([Facts _versus_ Factions: the use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rajm/openesef.htm)). Regardless of the outcome of various experiments, in order to confidently ascribe a mechanism of causation, you first have to propose a theory that provides strong _predictive_ value. In other words, you have to find some way of predicting the outcome of an experiment _before_ you do it, not waiting until it’s done and looking for correlations. Correlation is _never_ proof of causation; there are too many ways for correlations to fool even the best scientists to place much confidence in it alone. Likewise, the amount of study, or the presence or absences of scientists who “believe” in a theory has no relevance, pro or con, towards the its truth. The alchemists worked for centuries to turn lead into gold by chemical means and yet (aside from a nuclear reactor) _never_ acheived success. I would _love_ it if psychic phenomena were to be conclusivelyl demonstrated, and a real predictive theory were to emerge. I remain skeptical of psychic phenomena not because I don’t _want_ to believe in it, but because, so far, I have never seen convincing evidence in its favor. What pisses people here off is when someone comes in, not understanding scientific empiricism, and calls us closed-minded for not immediately subscribing to their pet belief. Scientific people are the most _open_-minded people there are; just look at the bizarre metaphysics we have to swallow to explain Quantum Mechanics. But swallow it we must because the _facts_, the observations _compel_ us to. > [@](#): > > For instance, he says that the state of the evidence for psi is as convincing as the evidence in any other branch of science. Obviously, you disagree. Tell me why you don’t find the evidence convincing. You haven’t offered any evidence. You’ve offered some guy’s _claim_ that _he_ finds the evidence compelling. We’re absolutely _not_ accusing anyone of outright lying, but people’s standards of acceptance vary widely. What we want to see is the actual experiment: a complete description of the methodology, all the raw data gathered, the mathematical and statistical methods applied to analyze the data, and the logical basis for assuming the conclusion from the data. This is not asking for something extraordinary, this is the **normal** form for communicating scientific research. ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/27 "2000-10-04T07:29:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ricksummon \* > \*\*Have any of our resident skeptics here read the book The Conscious Universe by Dean I. Radin? \*\* Yes, actually. I married a _True Believer_ (whom I love and respect) and as I have always been inquisitive I’ve been reading from her library. I appreciate the opportunity to broaden my experiences. Radin’s book was interesting and respectable. In fact, I recently participated in a ganzfeld experiment - I got to sit in a room with red light shining on my ping-pong ball covered eyes while wearing an EEG skull-cap and white noise spewing headphones. I got the right answer, which means I’m psychic.[sub]Note to the irony challenged: Kidding.[/sub] \*\* > [@](#): > > 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. > \*\* I have brought this book up in the past [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22701) and in other threads I can’t find. I’m very interested in the RNG experiments, though I suspect that eventually they too will vanish into the ether of parapsychology. I hope they do not as I really want to bend minds with my spoon (sorry Ayesha), but these things always seem to evaporate. I read that Radin was working on a telepathic switch based on this phenomenon - now **that** would be convincing. The ganzfeld stuff is based on meta analysis, and was exciting to me until I read more about [other meta analyses that disagreed](http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html). My own experience with ganzfeld was less than impressive, it appeared from a cursory glance at the data that there was no deviation from chance. There was more data sorting-out to be done, but so far, so-so. I really do like the ‘field consciousness’ stuff, too, but I want more data on this, and **predictable** experimental results. The RNG and field consciousness stuff comes closest to this, and could very easily be refined to the point where it would convince me. I guess it just takes money and time, neither of which I have to donate to the cause. So, in short, it is an interesting book, but I view it as a starting point. What is ‘stage 2’? “The effect may be there, but so weak as to be borderline uninteresting.” That’s where I’m at right now, with the caveat that further data has **always** in the past moved me back to stage 1 (“There is no effect.”) This time could be different, but I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/28 "2000-10-04T19:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > What we want to see is the actual experiment: a complete description of the methodology, all the raw data gathered, the mathematical and statistical methods applied to analyze the data, and the logical basis for assuming the conclusion from the data. This is not asking for something extraordinary, this is the normal form for communicating scientific research. I certainly agree with this statement. However, it does seem a bit unreasonable to ask me to copy hundreds of entire scientific articles and type them into this message board. That’s why I wanted to discuss the book, which contains a great deal of such data, plus a list of sources for further study. I’m not a parapsychologist, just an interested citizen. I’ve never done any experiments of my own, nor have I written any scientific articles. You ask me for evidence; I offer you a book written by a man who’s spent his lifetime gathering the data from hundreds of experiments, some of which he’s done himself, and compiling it into an easy-to-read form, and you say, “Nah.” How can I take your requests for evidence seriously when you won’t even read the evidence offered? When I brought up Ray Hyman’s quote, I did so because he’s a known skeptic, so he’s got no incentive to lie in favor of psi, AND he’s had the chance to personally examine a great deal of the experimental data. Even he agrees that it’s convincing. Of course, that’s not exactly what he said, but the full quote is above in the thread. As noted before, I am perfectly willing to discuss other sources of information besides Radin’s book. Do you have any skeptical literature I could read? Then bring it on! All I have is this one book. I don’t have the time or inclination to go to the university library and read every single psi experiment published since 1882. I don’t have the statistical knowledge to do my own meta-analysis. I’m not an expert in the field of parapsychology. Does that mean I can’t debate this topic? I’d like you all to look at **douglips** ’s post here. This is **exactly** the response I was looking for. He’s read the book, he thinks it’s interesting, but he’s not totally convinced of its validity. That’s perfect! Just one more thing. Dr. Radin **HAS** made predictions of experimental results. For instance, he was able to predict how psi performance could be influenced by the intensity of the geomagnetic field. If you want to find out more about it, then all you have to do is re-- do I really need to say it? ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/29 "2000-10-04T20:17:57Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by ricksummon \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I’d like you all to look at **douglips** ’s post here. This is **exactly** the response I was looking for. He’s read the book, he thinks it’s interesting, but he’s not totally convinced of its validity. That’s perfect!\*\* Umm, thanks for validating my pathetic existence? 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*\* > Just one more thing. Dr. Radin **HAS** made predictions of experimental results. For instance, he was able to predict how psi performance could be influenced by the intensity of the geomagnetic field. If you want to find out more about it, then all you have to do is re-- do I really need to say it? > \*\* The main reason I’m not a raving believer after this is that the effects are of the ‘who cares’ variety. I guess that’s firmly “stage 2” territory for me. In addition, there seems to be a lot of reasoning that appears to me at first glance to be [ad hoc hypotheses](http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html). In the case of the magnetic field thing, I remember being underwhelmed by Radin’s account of it - maybe I missed something. In the ganzfeld experiment I participated in, they were attempting to determine if classically trained musicians were more psi capable than others. I heard later during the analysis phase someone speaking of some of the things they should try to analyze the data for - “Did you read Dr. X’s study of sidereal time and its effect on psi? We should study the data for that. Too bad we didn’t plan the sessions based on that…” At times it seems like what Feynman would call [Cargo cult science](http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html) - waving dead chickens over stuff without knowing if it works or not, but doing it because that’s the way it’s always been done. What I’m really trying to say is that it seems some of the experiments try to account for way too many variables with too small a sample size. Fortunately, not all of it seems that way - Radin’s book is a good example, but it needs to be thoroughly critiqued before it will get me beyond stage 2. Another good example is a study done by Marilyn Schlitz and a psychologist (I think) from England, named Wiseman (I think.) They did some studies of the ‘being stared at’ sense, and Schlitz (a believer) gets positive results while Wiseman (a skeptic) does not. I remember one statement that was along the lines of > [@](#): > > An interesting effect was that (some group of people) had higher positive results, but since we didn’t predict this effect it will need to be tested in further studies to be validated. They noted the effect in the data, but did not jump to a conclusion because they realized it could have just been an artifact of slicing data and that it must be replicated to be validated. To sum up, some of this is “good science”, in that it is being done in a rigorous way. My experience thus far is that all the exciting reports I’ve seen have eventually evaporated under scrutiny. This makes me expect that the rest will also, but I do not rule out the possibility that they will be upheld and I can say “I was the first to say this was legit.” (stage 4. 🙂 ) Whether we’ll get my dream of psi input to computers or not remains to be seen - I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/30 "2000-10-04T20:43:16Z")
All that psi stuff is just BS. PeeQueue (I’m sorry, I really had to…) ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/31 "2000-10-04T20:56:29Z")
A quick question ricksummon: Does Radin tell you in the book what his methods of assessing the emotional moods of the nation are? ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/32 "2000-10-04T21:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Radin’s book is a good example, but it needs to be thoroughly critiqued before it will get me beyond stage 2. **Douglips** , you must be a gift from God. That is **exactly** what this debate is supposed to be about! I **WANT** Radin’s book to be critiqued. I want the skeptics to critique the **HELL** out of it. But if no one reads it, that can’t happen. Do you mean to tell me that not even CSICOP has read the book? There’s **got** to be an article in the _Skeptical Inquirer_ about it somewhere. (By the way, did you notice that CSICOP is pronounced the same as Psi-Cop from Babylon 5? Maybe the whole organization is being run by telepaths eager to conceal their existence! 🙂 ) How does Radin determine what the emotional state of the nation is? Well, I have to admit, it’s pretty subjective. For instance, in his analysis of the Academy Awards, he had some people decide which parts of the show were “high interest” and which parts were “low interest.” The RNGs showed greater deviations from chance during the “high interest” parts. Now, you’re probably saying, “But that’s not scientific! You can’t objectively determine what’s ‘high interest’!” I agree that this part is a bit suspect. However, you have to admit that it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the emotional state of the nation was **VERY** intense when the OJ verdict was announced. Plus, all you need are TV ratings to determine how many people were interested in things like the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl. And as for you, **PeeQueue** , I’ve just got one thing to say: (in Darth Vader voice) **I find your lack of faith disturbing.** Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to get back to Hogwarts and practice my _Avada Kedavra_ curse. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/33 "2000-10-04T21:55:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ricksummon \* > \*\* > How does Radin determine what the emotional state of the nation is? Well, I have to admit, it’s pretty subjective. For instance, in his analysis of the Academy Awards, he had some people decide which parts of the show were “high interest” and which parts were “low interest.” The RNGs showed greater deviations from chance during the “high interest” parts. > > Now, you’re probably saying, “But that’s not scientific! You can’t objectively determine what’s ‘high interest’!” I agree that this part is a bit suspect. However, you have to admit that it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the emotional state of the nation was **VERY** intense when the OJ verdict was announced. Plus, all you need are TV ratings to determine how many people were interested in things like the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl. > \*\* Well, I knew before asking that it wouldn’t be all that scientific. Some real things are just not amenable to objective measurement, emotions among them. I should have phrased my concerns more fully. Specifically, I wondered whether the emotional responses gathered were gathered after the fact, or whether the questions were asked during the event. I’m still abit troubled by the abstract I linked to because it tends to ‘explain away’ the lack of any finding, not just a lesser degree of response, when Mother Teresa died, as opposed to the Academy Awards for instance. I question whether one can use TV ratings as an indicator of emotional response, rather than just general interest. I tend to think Mother Teresa should have provoked a response greater than the oscars, but maybe that’s my own bias talking. In any case, even if Radin is on to something, it may be that the type of emotion is a factor. There is a great opportunity coming up though, to test his theories. He should make a prediction on election day. Surely that is something that focusses national attention and stirs many emotions. That could be the perfect venue to get skeptics to sit up and take notice if his prediction were published beforehand and came to pass. ---
**Author:** ![douglips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@douglips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/douglips)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/34 "2000-10-04T22:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Do you mean to tell me that not even CSICOP > has read the book? There’s got to be an article in the Skeptical Inquirer about it somewhere. \*\* Oh, no. CSICOP has definitely read the book and yes, there are a few articles in the SI about this: [ul][li][Research Review: New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings](http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html) - in which discussions of the meta-analyses of the ganzfeld work take place. Excerpt:[/li] > [@](#): > > …Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem, in conjunction with the late University > of Edinburgh parapsychologist Charles Honorton, published a remarkable article > in Psychological Bulletin, one of psychology’s two most prestigious review > journals. … > > With the aid of a statistical technique termed meta-analysis, which permits > researchers to quantitatively pool results across a number of studies, Bem and > Honorton reported what appeared to be strong, if not convincing, evidence for > ESP. The subjects in their meta-analysis obtained overall target “hit” rates of > approximately 35 percent, where chance performance would be only 25 percent. > Moreover, Bem and Honorton reported several psychologically meaningful > predictors of Ganzfeld performance. Subjects who 1) were artistically creative > (music, drama, and dance students recruited from the Julliard School), … > > Bem and Honorton’s findings, which were widely disseminated in both the popular > and academic press, have stirred fresh hopes in the parapsychology community > that a truly replicable method of eliciting ESP effects may at last be at hand. Moreover, they have been cited in several popular books, including Dean Radin’s _The Conscious Universe_ > > This is essentially where things stood until a few months ago, when Julie Milton of > the University of Edinburgh and Richard Wiseman of the University of > Hertfordshire published an updated meta-analysis of thirty recent Ganzfeld studies > not reviewed by Bem and Honorton. \*\*Milton and Wiseman’s findings, which were > published recently \*\*(“Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous > Process at Information Transfer,” Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391), > **stand in stark contrast to those of Bem and Honorton and raise serious questions > concerning the replicability of the Ganzfeld findings.** Specifically, Milton and > Wiseman reported a mean effect size across all thirty studies of .013, which > corresponds to essentially chance performance and can most charitably be > described as negligible. Emphasis mine. Also, the ‘Wiseman’ mentioned above is the same one I mentioned previously. [li][The Best Case for ESP?](http://www.csicop.org/genx/ganzfeld/index.html) - a sort of Bem vs. Hyman grudge match. Haven’t read it yet.[/li] [/ul] **Outside of CSICOP:** [list][li][This review of _The Conscious Universe_](http://bbs.cruzio.com/~quanta/review.html) appeared in Nature.[/li] > [@](#): > > Radin’s book is well written and provides a good summary of the arguments supporting the existence > of ESP, with about 600 references. It is less good on the counter-arguments. Readers should also consult "ESP and > Parapsychology: A Critical Evaluation by C. E. M. Hansel (Buffalo 1980) where much fraudulent work is exposed. > Radin quotes Hansel as saying that three P values, each of 0.01, amount to one of 10^-6, and that he (Radin) > would find that convincing. But the product of independent P values is not a P value. The product has to be > transformed by a method due to R. A. Fisher. Both Hansel and Radin have overlooked this. In the present > example, the composite P value is 1/9000 not 1/1,000,000. [li][Responses by Radin and Josephson](http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html)[/li] > [@](#): > > _Radin:_ > I am encouraged by the fact that a statistician of Good’s repute did not discover any genuine flaws in my comprehensive analysis of the > empirical evidence for psi phenomena, and I hope this note motivates readers to study the evidence for themselves. [li][Another response](http://bbs.cruzio.com/~quanta/badgood.html), from Nick Herbert - which I sense **ricksummon** will like.[/li] > [@](#): > > Good’s flawed review does not do justice to Radin’s careful work. Read “The Conscious Universe” and decide for > yourself whether or not his evidence favors the existence of ESP. That’s all I’ve got time for now. Be excellent to each other. ---
**Author:** ![Lux\_Fiat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bc79bd/32.png) [@Lux\_Fiat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lux_Fiat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/35 "2000-10-04T22:37:55Z")
I’m having a really difficult time conceiving of a way that one could determine how a random number generator can deviate from chance. _It’s random_. You can’t say, “Well, it shouldn’t be doing that,” because there’s no _should_ to randomness. You get what you get. Where’s the control? Perhaps my lack of understanding comes from an unfamiliarity with statistical methods. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420/36 "2000-10-04T22:54:05Z")
Well, **Lux Fiat** , as nearly as I can tell, these random number generators produce binary numbers, with a 50% chance of getting a 0 and a 50% chance of getting a 1. So, if you get either 0’s or 1’s more often than 50% of the time, you’re deviating from chance. We know this because most of the time, the RNGs produce 50% 0’s and 50% 1’s. That’s the control. The experiments determine whether these probabilities can be influenced by psi phenomena, and, according to Dr. Radin, they can indeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-conscious-universe/35420.md?page=1)