EdgeScience



The latest issue of the Society for Scientific Exploration's (SSE) newsletter, EdgeScience, is now available for free downloading. I have been a member of the SSE for many years because it is one of those rare scientific organizations where anomalies are recognized as being key sources of major scientific breakthroughs, rather than errors that must be quietly swept under the rug. Conservative scientists shy away from things that go "bump in the lab;" SSE members chase after them.

Comments

Dean Radin said…
Here's a good commentary on skeptical reactions to Rupert Sheldrake's work:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/articles/Dace_Anti-SheldrakePhenomenon.html
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Gareth said…
cool. this is always worth a read.

eight martinis also has some interesting articles:
http://www.eightmartinis.com/

as does the lucid dream exchange: http://www.dreaminglucid.com/
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Eric Lyman said…
Thanks Dean. I wish I had seen this publication before I subscribed to Scientific American last year. SA is good for things about astronomy, but when they get anywhere close to consciousness it's just the same old materialism and dogmatic skepticism.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Lawrence said…
yeah I think EgdeScience is great and the SSE and JSE of course, and it fills such an important gap and need, given the reign of the mediocre prop-up-the-status-quo rags in both popular science ie SA, National Geographic, New Scientist etc to the prof journals like Nature, Science and other specialist journals. It's why nothing changes, they don't want change.

In some ways EdgeScience and the JSE are successors to the old Zetetic Scholar, Marcello Truzzi's rag, but also very different with a different focus and format. Yet there are also similarities - high quality articles, opinion pieces and reviews from the leading researchers and commentators on the edge of science, fearlessly treading on forbidden scientific territory, walking the middle way/the razor's edge of real science, that is avoiding the perils of scientific materialism on the one hand and anything-goes-quakery on the other. If Truzzi were still alive, I am sure he would give his enthusiastic approval to EdgeScience.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Tor said…
Since we are on the topic of the SSE here, I recently read an interesting article co-authored by you Dean:

Exploratory Study: The Random Number Generator
and Group Meditation

From what I remember of the PEAR REG research, they've had something like 1 bit in 10 000 showing non-randomness, while in this study the results show about 1-10 bits in a 1000. That is an effect about 10-100 larger in this study.

Is there usually a difference in effect size between these field-reg studies and the other intention based (forcing the mean to shift) studies?

It is interesting that meditation potentially seems to enhance the effect to such a degree.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Dean Radin said…
It's difficult to directly compare fieldREG studies with lab studies because the amount of data collected is usually much larger in the former, the statistical methods used in the two designs can vary quite a bit, and the study goals are often different (e.g., testing conscious intention vs. implicit attention). I have a hunch that better results are obtained in fieldREG studies, but I haven't attempted to do any formal comparisons yet.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 Psycho...
Read more

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