Dean Radin's blog
Hahaha! What an amusing commercial, especially that bit in the end.
After the guy drank that beer at the end, it would have been a nice touch if he projected the inevitable *buurp* to someone else! lol
I am currently reading Entangled Minds, after reading Alien Agenda by Jim Marrs. My insterests are eclectic, being a chemistry major.There is a question looming in my mind after I started reading "Entangled" and it is this: With all the shielding you are creating for tests subjects against electromagnetic influence, by isolating them in chamnbers... aren't you working in non natural conditions and creating biased experiments working against your original goal? Actual PSI pehenomena happen in the open in all kinds of environments with and without a myriad of influences from the physical environment.
Only a limited number of psi experiments are conducted in shielded rooms. A key purpose of such shielding is to exclude mundane explanations for the results. I.e., if in a telepathy experiment the two people involved conspired to communicate surreptitiously via cellphone texting, obviously that's not a very good experimental design. So their ability to cheat in such a way is prevented by EM shielding (it's prudent to assume that people will cheat if they have the opportunity). Another reason is to test theoretical ideas about the "carrier" of the information between two or more people. If psi effects can be observed even with the use of EM shielding, then it constrains how we should think about what is going on.
Just out of interest Dean, have you ever caught a subject trying to cheat in one of these tests? I wonder what is the chance that the first Higgs Boson claim will be a fake!
Generally nothing worthy of a comment comes up at the JREF forum - but I still can't restrain myself from occasionally checking it out, just like it's almost impossible to avoid looking while passing by an accident scene..Sometimes the deniers there comes up with new tricks. I'm not good enough mathematician or computer programmer to evaluate this new simulation claiming that presentiment studies can be explained just by mathematical artefacts: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123007I wonder how thoroughly "Robin" read p. 269-271 in your 2004 study before he created this simulation?
David Bailey asked: Just out of interest Dean, have you ever caught a subject trying to cheat in one of these tests? In experiments under my control, no. In demonstrating claims of strong ESP or PK abilities outside of a controlled environment? Yes. Out of the half-dozen claims of reliable macroPK that I've investigated, all were fraudulent. Sometimes claimants for strong perceptual psi effects are sincere, but they're unaware of conventional explanations for what they do (like implicit learning of subtle cues).
Post a Comment