Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom  So you're picking one anecdotal evidence from Ray Hyman. But what's really funny is that in your last podcast, you agree know that you don't find Dean Radin research so compelling anymore. 
You said that's not the point. That the point is about Ray Hyman. Well I say: sorry, the important point is not Ray Hyman. It's Dean Radin. Is Dean Radin research scientifically compelling or not? Know you're saying it's not so compelling because "it's not your stuff" (or something like that, I quote you from memories). OK. We have an agreement here: it's not comprelling. Next case please... |
What Alex said was: "I for one am not particularly all that excited about presentiment work, it's just not my thing."
What do you mean "you agree now that you don't find Dean Radin's research so compelling anymore"? The fact that Alex doesn't think presentiment research is as interesting as, say, medium studies, doesn't mean he thinks it's flawed or anything, now does it?
What are you trying to say?
By the way, what's your reasons for not taking Dean Radin's research seriously?