Quote:
Originally Posted by GaSS PaNiCC  Whoever said Radin's worked proved anything? I don't think that was implied, but what i do think was implied is his work provided sufficient statistical results, which suggests we better look at this material more closely. And if your not going to read his work, please refrain from bashing it no one appreciates your critiques unless you can provide a valid explanation as to why you think we should completely dismiss it. Which you have not, so please don't until you do. Thanks. |
I would suggest that Radin says that Radin's work proves something, for one. However, plenty of qualified people have said that his statistical methods are flawed. When others analyzed Radin's data, the effect he talked about wasn't there after all.
I'm not the one that keeps bringing up Radin's book, and I'm not bashing it - all I'm saying is you can't use what he says in a book as evidence for anything. Would you use a book by Berlitz as "proof" that the Bermuda Triangle is real? Would you hold up a Von Daniken book as "proof" of prehistoric alien visitation? Would you hold up Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" as "proof" of evolution by natural selection? No - you'd go out, do the research, publish the results in Nature. *Then* you might write a book. The point is that you can write anything you like in a book - but that doesn't make it fact.