The Brain


I was interviewed for a program about the brain on The History Channel. It was shown last Monday and will be shown again Sunday, November 16 at 5:00 PM (Eastern Time Zone), Tuesday, November 25, 8:00 AM and Tuesday, November 25, 2:00 PM.

Comments

Book Surgeon said…
I saw that program; I'm delighted to hear that it's new, and not some years-old retread. I was actually impressed that they presented the psi evidence neutrally and didn't bring on Shermer or some other media skeptic to deliver the usual "there's never been a psi experiment that showed positive results" drivel. Very good.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Unknown said…
The list of mainstream people/shows etc. treating such phenomena seriously is fantastic. The UN symposium, BBC Horizon, Beauregard and O'Leary's book, the major AWARE study being treated seriously etc.

Book surgeon: Since you mention it, I've always wondered what would happen to the skeptics when it turns out that these phenomena are real? Will the misrepresentations, slurs, attempted destruction of careers etc. be forgotten? I think there should be a concerted effort to use parapsychology etc. as a case study for science students to learn. Phenomena with good evidence should never be rejected so vigorously ever again just because they don't fit with current dogma.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Dean Radin said…
> what would happen to the skeptics when it turns out that these phenomena are real?

The history of science says that nothing will happen. The criticisms and the critics simply disappear, only to reappear when some new anomaly appears.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Book Surgeon said…
I think it's the same answer one can apply to political parties. Will the Republican Party treat Barack Obama's big presidential win as a major rebuke and completely change its ways?

Of course not. Once one is dedicated to a world view, one defends it, typically unto absurdity. When psi is an accepted fact, the pseudoskeptics will still be ranting about tarot cards, crystals and astrology.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Unknown said…
Thanks for tha replies, Dean and Booky. Perhaps I should modify the question slightly. When psi is accepted, will as many people care for what they have to say? Assuming people are made aware of the tactics used by the Gardners etc. like the slurs, will people care as much?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Blue Mystic said…
Yes that was very interesting. It was neat seeing a presentiment trial in action.

I would have liked seeing an fMRI experiment mentioned, though.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a
Read more

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psychology  and is available here .  The key
Read more

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area
Read more