# The Straight Dope On ESP. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 26, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173 "2016-04-26T08:17:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/141 "2016-04-28T18:23:35Z")
[This is a decent essay on the state of modern paranormal research](http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/psi.html). IT was written in 2000, but it gives a good overview of what is going on. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/142 "2016-04-28T18:29:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [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. > > [Dean Radin - RationalWiki](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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/143 "2016-04-28T18:29:20Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/144 "2016-04-28T18:36:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [This is a decent essay on the state of modern paranormal research](http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/psi.html). 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: > [@](#): > > A lot more research is required before the phenomenon of psi can become established and accepted, let alone have any use whatsoever. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/145 "2016-04-28T19:20:28Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/146 "2016-04-28T19:33:25Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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](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/index?qid=20080522045957AAwoUQA](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080522045957AAwoUQA) > [@](#): > > 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](http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7s2.htm) > [@](#): > > 1. 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. \*\* > **[Distant healing--an "update" of a systematic review - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778776/)** > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > **[Distant healing: two new systematic reviews and meta-analyses](http://edzardernst.com/2015/04/distant-healing-two-new-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses/)** > > Distant healing is one of the most bizarre yet popular forms of alternative medicine. Healers claim they can transmit 'healing energy' towards patients to enable them to heal themselves. There have been many trials testing the effectiveness of the... > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/147 "2016-04-28T20:11:20Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/148 "2016-04-29T08:21:07Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > 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](http://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. > **[Crank Dot Net | extrasensory perception](http://www.crank.net/esp.html)** > > Crank Dot Net: extrasensory perception > **[Crank Dot Net | paranormal](http://www.crank.net/paranormal.html)** > > Crank Dot Net: paranormal ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/149 "2016-04-29T10:36:45Z")
> [@glee](#): > > 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!:smack: > > Why on earth do you think Radin has anything to offer? > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/150 "2016-04-29T11:19:33Z")
> [@glee](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![txjim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f07891/32.png) [@txjim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/txjim)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/151 "2016-04-29T13:15:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Too late to edit: If you are talking about [this Dean Radin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin), I wouldn’t trust his ability to gather information about the subject, let alone pass judgment on it. Wow, an electrical engineer turned parapsychology researcher. I have no doubt he attempted electronic ESP detectors. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/152 "2016-04-29T13:22:23Z")
> [@txjim](#): > > Wow, an electrical engineer turned parapsychology researcher. I have no doubt he attempted electronic ESP detectors. As a scientist, he’s one hell of a violinist. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/153 "2016-04-29T13:38:30Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. Of course. But then the argument goes to having both ways: > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. :rolleyes: I never heard of the guy before, and I then did bother to check if his links were valid; and while he does link to research, it is clear that he cherry picks the ones that are favorable to his point of view and does not tell to the readers about the more numerous critical publishes science. That is cherry picking and the basic problem with that is that then your cite with no other counter point or warming only leads others to think that the research he picked is the current understanding of the issue. As it is clear, you did not know the problems Radin had and so me and others mention them. When you cited him you did tell us that: “A guy named Dean Radin is one of the legitimate and well credentialed scientists who hasn’t given up on the idea.” As CurtC noted “That’s a lot more than a disinterested link.” And that is not only because of the discredit and bad research Radin has, but add to that one of the most telling properties of a classic pseudo scientist: his chronic cherry picking goes not only to his research but to his links too. It is like in a discussion of evolution you linked to a list of “cites” in answers in genesis. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. And this also shows that what others noted is correct, you still can not see that calling him “legitimate” was a problem; as it is the refusal to note that the big problem with his list is that he prefers to show research that was cherry picked. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/154 "2016-04-29T13:48:37Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. Never back down, never give an inch! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/155 "2016-04-29T13:49:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this also shows that what others noted is correct, you still can not see that calling him “legitimate” was a problem; as it is the refusal to note that the big problem with his list is that he prefers to show research that was cherry picked. Like I said several posts ago what I described as “legitimate” were his background in science and his education. I don’t see that as a problem. What is a problem is that people immediately assumed I meant some view of his on psi was legitimate. I can see how that happened but pretty much only because there were a lot of itchy trigger fingers out there waiting for anyone to dare make a wrong move on their watch in the skeptic’s corner. And I’m not so sure the list is cherry picked. In fact it leads to a lot of failed experiments. Failures are evidence as much as successes are and it seems to include a good mix of failed theories in the assorted studies. FWIW I don’t include any of your criticism, and you have been one of the most critical, among the “fanatical skeptics” I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/156 "2016-04-29T13:51:09Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > Never back down, never give an inch! > 🙂 And, apparently in some cases, never read for comprehension! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/157 "2016-04-29T13:57:26Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Like I said several posts ago what I described as “legitimate” were his background in science and his education. > > I don’t see that as a problem. What is a problem is that people immediately assumed I meant some view of his on psi was legitimate. I can see how that happened but pretty much only because there were a lot of itchy trigger fingers out there waiting for anyone to dare make a wrong move on their watch in the skeptic’s corner. > > And I’m not so sure the list is cherry picked. In fact it leads to a lot of failed experiments. Failures are evidence as much as successes are and it seems to include a good mix of failed theories in the assorted studies. > > FWIW I don’t include any of your criticism, and you have been one of the most critical, among the “fanatical skeptics” I mentioned. Piffle, if I was fanatical I would had know about him a long time ago, what you call fanaticism is really just proper skepticism. > **[The Power of Replication – Bems Psi Research](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-power-of-replication-bems-psi-research/)** > > I love reading quotes by the likes of Karl Popper in the scientific literature. A recent replication of Bem's infamous psi research, Feeling the Future, gives us this quote:Popper (1959/2002) define > [@](#): > > Proper Skepticism > > Prominently displayed at the top of the Society for Psychical Research’s website is this quote: > > ``` > “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.” – C.G.Jung > > ``` > > Clearly that quote reflects the prevailing attitude among psi researchers of external skepticism of their claims and research. Every skeptic who has voiced their opinion has likely been met with accusations of being dismissive and closed-minded. > > But this is a straw man. Skeptics are open to new discoveries, even paradigm-changing revolutionary ideas. Often I am asked specifically – what would it take to make me accept psi claims. I have given a very specific answer – one that applies to any extraordinary claim within medicine. It would take research simultaneously displaying the following characteristics: > > 1 – Solid methodology (proper blinding, fresh data set, clearly defined end points, etc.) > > 2 – Statistically significant results > > 3 – Absolute magnitude of the effect size that is greater than noise level (a sufficient signal to noise ratio) > > 4 – Consistent results with independent replication. > > Most importantly, it would need to display all four of these characteristics simultaneously. Psi research, like most research into alternative medicine modalities like homeopathy and acupuncture, cannot do that, and that is why I remain skeptical. These are the same criteria that I apply to any claim in science. > > In addition, I do think that prior probability should play a role – not in accepting or rejecting any claim a priori, but in setting the threshold for the amount and quality of evidence that will be convincing. This is reasonable – it would take more evidence to convince me that someone hit Bigfoot with their car than that they hit a deer with their car. There is a word for someone who accepts the former claim with a low threshold of evidence. > > You can convince me that psi phenomena are real, but it would take evidence that is at least as solid as the evidence that implies that such phenomena are probably not possible. > > **It is also important to recognize that the evidence for psi is so weak and of a nature that it is reasonable to conclude it is not real even without considering plausibility. But it is probably not a coincidence that we consistently see either poor quality or negative research in areas that do have very low plausibility.** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/158 "2016-04-29T14:04:02Z")
And I have to insist on the cherry picking by Radin, if he does not remove a link that points to research that was debunked years ago, he is doing just allowing what I call the poisoning of the well; as in continue to peddle information that is not viable anymore but to him. It is like a gardener that does not bother to prune his trees of dead branches. It is not a good idea to tell others to rely on his services. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/159 "2016-04-29T17:19:54Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I don’t see that as a problem. What is a problem is that people immediately assumed I meant some view of his on psi was legitimate. I can see how that happened but pretty much only because there were a lot of itchy trigger fingers out there waiting for anyone to dare make a wrong move on their watch in the skeptic’s corner. You keep saying you don’t have a horse in this race, and yet you keep using terms such as “the skeptic’s corner”. You can’t have it both ways. The consensus in the thread before your input was that the sum of scientific investigations have shown ESP to be bunk and positive results to be explainable by poor controls, research bias, etc. and so forth. You then throw in a link list and proceed to alternately fiercely defend it and disavow any responsibility for the content. It was very natural of those of us who already knew of Radin’s research and considered it part of the body of ESP science that has been shown to be wrong, to assume you thought it weighed heavier than the negative results, and your waffling between “I didn’t really know anything about Radin, why are you treating my like a proponent of ESP?” and “you there in the skeptic corner aren’t treating this scientifically” is getting really tiring. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/160 "2016-04-29T17:31:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I don’t think that brains that emit EM radiation would be completely unaffected by EM radiation of comparable wavelength. I remember reading the poker player Doyle Brunson’s book a long time ago and he dedicated a section of it to ESP in poker. I don’t remember the exact details but he based his “I’m skeptical, but it’s possible” stance on it from that same idea. He said if all the information he has available to him in terms of knowledge of the cards, the odds, his opponents tells, etc. don’t provide him with any clear choice in a tough decision, he goes with a gut feeling he has like an impulse to decide one way or another. And he theorized his uncanny success rate in those tough calls could be from a brain signal leaking from the opponent somehow. Something like “with all these powerful electronic appliances we have nowadays (this was in the 1970s) we see interference between them all the time. The brain is an electronic machine so who is to say that while under tremendous pressure and in deep concentration, one brain can’t accidentally transmit ‘a pair of jacks’ to another brain just a few feet away?” But he also mentioned he could just be noticing things subconsciously that don’t enter his conscious thought process but still influence his decisions, or he could just be lucky. Old gamblers are a superstitious bunch but he, and you, have a hypotheis that I would always welcome any controlled scientific investigation into. Brain to brain communication has actually already been demonstrated in a few ways, some of which are sort of telepathy-like. At least in that they rely on measurements of brain activity to transmit a message from one subject to another subject. So one brain can say “hello” to another in a distant location using no words or gestures. But it requires a whole bunch of equipment between those two brains and only allows such communication in an indirect way. The subject doesn’t actually think the word “hello” and the recipient doesn’t actually receive the word “hello” though. In one such experiment a subject looks at one of several LED’s that are each pulsing at a slightly different rate to select what message he wants to send. The different rates the LEDs pulse is undetectable to the eye, but by measuring his brain activity they can tell which light he is looking at. Then a signal is transmitted to a distant subject. That subject also has electrodes wired all over his head, and sees a flash of light (in his mind not an actual light) and the properties of that light tell him what the first subject ‘said’ - for example maybe one flash means “yes” and two flashes mean “no”. So that isn’t ESP, but our extremely limited knowledge of the brain means researchers have to work with what they know currently, like which part of the brain fires when the subject sees a light. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=9)