Parapsychology and alternative medicine forum

Part of parapsychology articles and blog site


Go Back   Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net > Parapsychology and psi abilties > Skeptiko Podcast

Skeptiko Podcast The Official discussions forum of skeptiko.com podcast


User Infomation

Latest Threads
- by jacob
- by Arouet
- by paqart

Advertisement

Partner Links

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Skeptiko.com poscast host
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 993
Default 74. Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Crit

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.

Last edited by alextsakiris; 05-28-2009 at 07:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 03:06 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 06:57 AM
Skeptiko.com poscast host
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSaget View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 01:46 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,114
Default

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

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 42
Send a message via AIM to LeoM Send a message via MSN to LeoM Send a message via Yahoo to LeoM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,114
Default

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

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 09:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,114
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,363
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2009, 07:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,114
Default

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
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

Ad Management by RedTyger