Buddhist Scholar and Meditation Researcher Says Skeptics Misinformed (Podcast)

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by mcromer

Yafi,

There are other kinds of evidence than scientific studies.

For example, we know that Nazi Germany killed six million jews without conducting scientific studies.

You seem to want for psi phenomena to be easily reproducible by all researchers before you accept them, and if they cannot be, then there is "no evidence" for them.

That's a position that would rule out the majority of the disciplines of history, forensics, archeology, etc.

First point - true. We have hard evidence of the holocaust - the remnants of the camps are still there, the Nazis recorded it on film and in official papers. Hard. Evidence.

Second point - consistently, reliably reproducible. Doesn't have to be easy. And yep, you got it in one - you just described scientific process in a nutshell. If an effect can't be reproduced by other researchers, you have to doubt the existence of said effect. Pons & Fleischmann found that one out when their cold fusion results couldn't be reproduced by other workers. Does it mean cold fusion can't work? No. It just means their experiment was broken and the results worthless.

Third point - are you suggesting that history, forensics, archaeology etc., are NOT based on evidence? You might want to rethink that one.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Yafi

I don't have a problem with anyone investigating Psi. But it has to be done properly - controlled conditions, double blind tests, replication of results, expert review. That's what's lacking in these studies. Do it right and find positive results, and people will listen. So far whenever the tests have been done properly, the effects go away.

For the third time, Radin's book doesn't prove anything, so stop pushing me to read it - it ain't gonna happen. Radin performing proper experiments in a lab and coming up with good, solid results that can be replicated by independent workers - that's what I want to see.

Before you mention that Radin's work was duplicated by three other labs - yes, I know. I also know that Radin worked at all three of those labs (doesn't this raise *any* red flags?) - that's why I said 'independent'.

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.

[Yafi]

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.

[mcromer]

"When others analyzed Radin's data, the effect he talked about wasn't there after all."

Cite?

[GaSS PaNiCC]

looooooooooooooooooool

[Yafi]

Originally Posted by mcromer

"When others analyzed Radin's data, the effect he talked about wasn't there after all."

Cite?

What for? Would you bother to read it? Would you think about it if you did? I don't think so. All the same:

SkepticReport * Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

Unfortunately the link to Scargle's document that I was looking for (it's about 3/4 the way down the page) is broken so there's just the one quote.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Originally Posted by Yafi

What for? Would you bother to read it? Would you think about it if you did? I don't think so. All the same:

SkepticReport * Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

Unfortunately the link to Scargle's document that I was looking for (it's about 3/4 the way down the page) is broken so there's just the one quote.

After reading this, i don't see how it is possible to take this guy seriously. After all he claims to be an expert in parapsychology and an actual scientist! So i think it is absurd if we don't. Yafi i think you need some clarification on how credible your sources are, and for next time please ensure they are the opinion of REAL scientists, as you like to put it.

The subject of the book is psi research, that is research concerning telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition. Radin claims that these phenomena are real and in the book he presents the evidence, which he thinks proves this.

The first thing to note about this book is that it aren’t a scientific report. It is readable by people without scientific training, though there are some technical words, so if expressions such as "confidence interval" make your head ache, then you might want to have a glass of aspirins within reach before opening this book.

The accessibility of the book has the consequence that the readers isn’t given details, and therefore actually can’t judge for themselves, whether the results that Radin claims have been obtained are for real or not. This means that it’s of paramount importance that the reader can trust that Radin reports everything truthfully and completely.

This led me to consider how trustworthy a reading of the book makes Radin seem. I’m just a layman in this connection: I probably know a bit more about statistics than the average working Joe, but I know way less than Radin. I’m not especially knowledgeable about psi research either, but a couple of the books on my bookshelf mentions the subject, and I’ve read a bit about it on the web.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Here's a quote from the conscious universe as well:

A more elaborate answer is, psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments. There are disagreements over to how to interpret the evidence, but the fact is that virtually all who scientists who have STUDIED the EVIDENCE, including the hard-nosed skeptics, now agree that there is something interesting going on that merits serious scientific attention.

Does this claim suggest he's 100 million percent certain PSI exists? NO! He says THERE IS SOMETHING INTERESTING GOING ON THAT MERITS SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC ATTENTION.

This debate ends here unless you can provide a credible source which invalidates Radin's or any other parapsychologist's findings but their consent is absolutely required for it to be a plausible one.

[GaSS PaNiCC]

Here's a quote from the great skeptic Carl Sagan, which now might finally influence you to consider PSI a possibility. This quote is also from the conscious universe.

At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

[mcromer]

Originally Posted by Yafi

What for? Would you bother to read it? Would you think about it if you did? I don't think so. All the same:

SkepticReport * Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

Unfortunately the link to Scargle's document that I was looking for (it's about 3/4 the way down the page) is broken so there's just the one quote.

Can you give the the text to search for in that web page you provided so I can find where it justifies your claim? Thanks.