Dean Radin would fit right in on coast to coast radio’ I’m afraid.
OK, I went there and read a bunch of meta-studies and looked at their conclusions. Every one I read noted that some studies reported positive results, but that when all the confounding possibilities are accounted for they can no longer make any definite claims that ESP exists. The negatives included missing data sets, lack of control groups, lack of a plausible mechanism, non-replicability, and selective examples.
IOW, when actual scientists look at the studies they find exactly the same thing we’ve said here. That’s because we’re not pulling negativity out of our asses, we’re *reporting *on negative results and bad science.
A real, positive, double-blind investigated, replicable power would be an incredible scientific find. Real scientists of every discipline would jump on it to get answers and seek new and interesting questions. That has never happened - despite a large number of scientists who have been investigating the subject and publishing their research. I find that conclusive.
I *knew *you were going to say that, even before you did!
I’m not saying anyone should believe in ESP. I’m saying there is a body of scientific research in the subject that isn’t limited only to crackpots. You say Radin is a crackpot so you’re entitled to that belief. But he is at least a practicing scientist, with two PhD’s who has worked as chief scientist in mainstream, highly competitive “real” scientific work before embarking on his interest in the study of paranormal psychology. He is credible enough to be worth a read to anyone who is interested in the subject. That isn’t saying he holds proof of anything, just that he seems to be genuinely interested in exploring the subject using proper scientific method.
If the takeaway from reviewing the studies is that there is no evidence for ESP then my purpose for posting them it is not without value in either case.
Not only does he not have proof, he doesn’t even have evidence. He is credible to you because you either believe, or you want to believe, but his degrees in two other totally unrelated fields don’t mean squat if he can’t come up with the evidence.
The takeaway from reviewing the studies is that they told us nothing new.
He’s apparently an intelligent dude, but his PhDs are unrelated to the research (I left out the scare quotes) he has done. The only critiques of his work by mainstream scientists show him to be a crackpot, actually, albeit a crackpot with some publications under his belt.
I’ve had several experiences in my past that I would describe as precognition. My pet theory is the ability is based on the subconscious noticing seemly random events and deducing an outcome independently and presenting it “whole” to the conscious mind.
No, unicorns are in the Monster Manual. Cantrips are in the Players Handbook. Psionics are in the Complete Psionicists Handbook- and a bunch of Dark Sun stuff.*
- This is going by 2nd ed AD&D, the edition which most closely approached perfection.
Crazyhorse There is no reliable scientific evidence of psychic powers. I would love it LOVE IT if there were. I’m sure I’m not alone in that feeling. But there is no evidence of such a thing.
I’m not sure any field besides Psychology would be better for a PhD if interested in paranormal psychology.
My belief? Why would it matter in GQ? That is kind of my point. Someone came here asking for the straight dope on ESP and that discussion would not be complete without a look at Radin’s work and his meta-analysis of the work of others. If nothing else he has weeded out the complete crackpots from the mix and what remains is at least real science. It may well lead to the conclusion that no evidence exists and if so, I’d say that was a more valuable contribution to the thread than your or my opinion.
My own belief, sure I would love it if we could move objects with our minds, read other’s thoughts, etc. that would be really cool. I have never seen any evidence of it either.
The problem isn’t that you gave the link but that you quoted Radin’s words:
His own site contains convincing evidence that’s nonsense. Nothing in your post indicated that you disagreed. Or even that you had read any of the papers, as you said we should. You biased your evidence. You can’t pretend otherwise.
That’s the text at the top of the page that I linked to. It provided a quick background of his point of view as an indication of what is to be found on the site. Quoting the text of my link isn’t necessarily a personal endorsement of what it says.
This is GQ - opinions don’t matter. That includes arguments both for and against the subject. It’s very easy to say ‘that’s a bunch of bunk’ or "it’s true, I know it is!’ but that just doesn’t mean anything. So I provided a link to someone who has done considerable work on the subject, is a qualified scientist, and has applied the scientific method to experiments and research instead of just waving a magic wand and blinking his eyes. I maintain that his research on the subject is far more meaningful to this discussion than any of the personal opinions expressed so far, pro or con.
In fact, there are plenty of examples of legitimate scientists in one field latching upon and promoting crackpot ideas in others, from Linus Pauling to Fred Hoyle. Having a PhD does not indicate logical thought or grounded hypotheses.
Pretty much any field besides psychology, given that it barely qualifies as any kind of science and whose practitioners have latched onto one flaketastic “theory of mind” after another with zero objective evidence or means of falsification. If I were to look for an expert to evaluate proposed psionic powers I would look to a biophysicist or neuroscientist to explain which parts of the brain are responsible for the perported powers, why they are only observed in a tiny fraction of the population, and the physical mechanism by which thoughts are conveyed or surveilled, objects are lifted or heated, spoons are bent, et cetera. Any real physical action is the result of some application of force or transfer of energy and should therefore be measureable by instrumentation, especially if it is powerful enough to lift an object in a gravitational field or bend a spoon, and it should be possible to build instrumentation to detect changes in the thermodynamic state or electromagnetic field which are responsible for these actions.
Throwing out the, “We must consider all hypotheses equally” is implicitly arguing the validity of all hypotheses. But we know that all hypotheses aren’t equal; we (rightly) tend to prefer those which operate according to physics and biology as we know them unless there is evidence to the contrary. We do this so we don’t waste time and energy in tail-chasing exercises like watching spoon-bending demonstrations or looking for sasquatches despite a complete lack of physical evidence.
Stranger
Right. So have you read the negative papers on that site or only those by Radin?
So if someone posts a GQ asking a car repair question, and I link to a mechanic’s web page who has done a bunch of those particular repairs, I need to have read everything he has done? Or would it suffice just to say “I don’t know and I’m no expert, and I’ve never studied the subject, but this guy is pretty heavily involved in it. You might give his site a read?”
I actually have very little interest in this subject one way or the other. I posted because what I saw was a bunch of non-factual answers to a GQ question. In this forum it’s every bit as irrelevant to speculate that something isn’t true without knowledge of the subject as it is to speculate that it is true without knowledge of the subject. Simply being a skeptic doesn’t make one a great GQ poster, and we would all be sitting here in the dark if everyone who doubted a theory would pan out after further study had the final word on the subject.
With regard to Radin, what I see in reviewing a lot of his work is that he seems to be the first to say that most “paranormal research” is bunk. And that most people who claim to have paranormal abilities are either on drugs or mentally ill. Despite this, he claims, there are still some interesting results that warrant more research. I’m pretty sure that is how actual science is supposed to work.
On the subject of precognition that someone mentioned upthread for example. he has published a study complete with instructions for how to reproduce it, and an offer to loan any equipment necessary to anyone with a legitimate interest in trying to replicate the results. Whether anyone agrees with his findings or not, all I was offering the OP is someone who has applied real science to the investigation of the subject of ESP, and opened it up to peer review, which I’m pretty sure nobody posting in the thread has done.
What are these “interesting results that warrant more research”?
When you link to another site or otherwise provide a reference, you are implicitly suggesting that the site or reference is interesting, pertinent to the topic at hand, and ostensibly credible. Providing a link and then saying, “I’m not taking a position supporting or denying…” is disingenuous at best, and suggesting that other posters should read it even though you haven’t bothered even skim through it and form an opinion is a pointless exercise.
Stranger
So, you know how I said that the very existence of the studies would be taken as evidence by some? I wasn’t expecting to get an object example so soon.
I guess the fact that his second degree was in electrical engineering with honors in physics doesn’t add any credibility. Or the fact that he worked successfully as a scientist for companies like AT&T and Bell. Obviously the poor guy just doesn’t have a clue about real, messageboard science.
I think that is pretty much what he is doing. As I said above he says one of the biggest obstacles to his work is that most people claiming to have such abilities are either frauds or lunatics. Despite this he has picked out a few nuggets of interesting statistical relevance and wants to study them further.
Honestly, between what I’ve read of his point of view and what I’ve read of yours here, he isn’t the one I would first suspect of slowing down the advancement of science.
I just named one in my previous post. Precognition is one area he says he has seen greater than random chance results and has published the protocol and offered to loan the equipment to anyone who wants to try to replicate the results.
My opinion is that most of the posts in this thread are “It is complete bullshit” answers without a speck of useful information or background about why they believe that to be the case. My opinion is also that someone like Radin has done a lot more work on the subject than I would ever be willing to do, and the things he thinks warrant further study might also be interesting to the OP.
I made no such claim. I pointed the OP to someone who actually works on the subject as their main scientific interest since he would obviously have a lot of relevant information. From that I can see that information both debunks the poor studies that have been done on the subject and offers interesting reading about what credible and peer reviewed research exists, and what might be worth further study.
That is not an example of “interesting results that warrant more research,” it is an appeal to authority without in any way demonstrating that there are either credible mechanisms or convincing evidence of some kind of extrasensory, precognitive, or psychokinetic phenomena. Please point to an example of something, anything, that would illusrate a reason to consider a hypothesized phenomena which has no basis in current physics or neuroscience.
Stranger