74. Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criti

[alextsakiris]

I posted this yesterday along with the transcript:
74. Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criticisms
Guest: Roger Nelson, formally of Princeton’s Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab, joins Alex Tsakiris to discuss how skeptics view the Global Consciousness Project. The episode includes email excerpts from Dr. Dean Radin.

[BobSaget]

Have you considered getting a "better" skeptic for this topic? I'd like to think that the arguments against the PEAR studies aren't this bad.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by BobSaget

Have you considered getting a "better" skeptic for this topic? I'd like to think that the arguments against the PEAR studies aren't this bad.

What's wrong with Brian Dunning?... he's extremely popular among skeptics.

Who else would you suggest? If you find anyone "better", and they are willing to be interviewed, let me know.

[BobSaget]

Well I don't have any suggestions, it's just that usually skeptics hold themselves a little bit better than that. I suppose there is the possibility that there aren't any good arguments against this research; I certainly can't think of any.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The PEAR folks themselves wrote a paper saying that they hadn't gotten any results over the long run. Who needs a skeptic?

~~ Paul

[LeoM]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

The PEAR folks themselves wrote a paper saying that they hadn't gotten any results over the long run. Who needs a skeptic?

~~ Paul

Why did you hear that from? I never seen any paper saying that.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Maybe I'm thinking of their remote viewing research. I'll see if I can dig up the paper.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'll need to do some serious scrounging. Here's the paper where they tried to replicate the RNG experiments but failed:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/...rs/portREG.pdf

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Very informative interviews ...I learned new information listening .. .but ....

Alex, this is a trivial point but why call it 'skeptics vs believer debate' ...also similar wording on your current Skeptiko webpage design too.

To be a skeptic requires doubt, I didn't hear much doubt in the opinions of Brian Dunning who speaks extremely confidently and from what he said seems to be teaching people to dismiss claims using purely a-priori belief/reasoning ...Brian is therefore a disbeliever more than a skeptic.

If one is to label Radin and Sheldrake 'believers' (as on your webpage where Novella is a 'skeptic') ... it is only fair to call Dunning, Novella, etc. 'disbelievers'. No side should own the term skepticism, it is process not a position. How about believers vs disbelievers instead?

Firm disbelievers claiming the word 'skeptic' as their own has forced researchers who have become believers through a process of skepticism to be labelled 'believers' by those who claim to be 'skeptics' but don't even have enough doubt/skepticism to question their own beliefs and check up on the original claims properly.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here is the paper where they question their own results on remote viewing (sorry, not RNG). See particularly section IX.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf

~~ Paul