Psi research at the University of Colorado



"Professor at University of Colorado’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering guides students through experiments demonstrating unexplainable psychic phenomena."

This is an excellent podcast (one of many) on the www.skeptiko.com site.

Comments

David Bailey said…
Prof Moddel sounds very much in your mould - you could enjoy a fuitful cooperation with that guy - but maybe you are there already!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
MickyD said…
Wouldn't it be great to see psi research seeded in the US, the same way it was in the UK by Morris in the 80's. There are now a dozen or so institutions that were started up by students at the Koestler unit headed by Morris or there students. Maybe Prof Moddel can do start a similar academic enterprise.

I was a little surprised at his sympathy towards the HIV denialism movement. The evidence that HIV leads to AIDS is undeniable, so that was worrying, however he still came across as sincere, modest and very smart. I particularly liked his use of associative RV to forecast the movement of the stock market, giving correct predictions 7/7 times.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Dean Radin said…
> The evidence that HIV leads to AIDS is undeniable, so that was worrying ...

All data and interpretations are open to question, and there are some serious people asking serious questions about this particular correlation. I personally don't know enough about this topic to have an informed opinion. But I know people who do. E.g., here's one site:

http://failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com/
Saturday, April 10, 2010
MickyD said…
"All data and interpretations are open to question" - agreed, but in my view, to question the legitimacy of the HIV/AIDS correlation has about as much scientific merit as claiming that Santa really does manage a massive postal service once a year!
I for one would not like to even think about where I would be without my trusty daily Darunavir and Truvada. I suppose the denialists (those that are still alive) would claim it would make no difference to my health!
Anyway, this is a psi blog, so I will leave the subject alone.
Peace,
M.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
David Bailey said…
MickyD said, "The evidence that HIV leads to AIDS is undeniable".

I had already seen several references to the idea that the truth may be more complicated.

Likewise, there is beginning to be a realisation that climate change from CO2 may have been seriously over-hyped and distorted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Another example would be cold fusion, where there was an incredible rush to discredit Fleischmann and Pons' work, notably by the hot fusion research centre at Culham - which didn't want to be overtaken by an electrochemical reaction! Now, all these years later, there is starting to be a reappraisal - see, ro example links at:
http://www.scientificexploration.org .

I think the problem is that there is huge pressure on science in certain areas to come to a fast conclusion about very complicated subjects. Once they do that, they commit to one point of view and marginalise other opinions, even when researchers have niggling doubts themselves.

It isn't just in psi that minds seem to shut too quickly.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Enfant Terrible said…
Which are the experiments of Prof. Moddel which demonstrated unexplained phenomena?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Pikemann Urge said…
Dr. Garret Moddel: The question really is what are we looking for? If we’re trying to make an existence proof — do these phenomena exist? - it’s nice to show it among the general population. So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve just pulled random people out and the effect size that we’re getting is much smaller than if we had used people who were trained in this. But it does show that these phenomena exist.

The fact that there are persons who show very strong psi should be enough to convince the scientific community, right? Or are these results seen as mere 'experimental artifacts'?

I know this is practially off-topic, but here goes: Duesberg and Mullis are right and HIV does not cause AIDS. That's just for the record.

I have no disrespect for any AIDS patient, no matter how they choose to deal with it. Your medical choices are your own business and no doctor, scientist or whoever has the right to tell you what you should or shouldn't do about it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Dean Radin said…
Dr. Moddel's psi lab website:

http://psiphen.colorado.edu/
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
MickyD said…
Bringing the subject back to psi (rather than HIV denialism, have to watch the blood pressure!)I heard from M Schlitz (via Twitter) that Lance Storm has recently submitted a Ganzfeld meta-analysis to Psycholgical Bulletin (well done there). I didn't find it on their website and suspect it will be up in May. Do you know what the percentage above chance was? I remember a comment you made on a Psychology Today article (it was a dreary conventional piece on telepathy) for (I think) a book chapter. There, the overall hit rate was 32% on 4100 (or so) trials. Is Storm's hit rate in congruence with this? I'm very impressed that he has got into Psych Bulletin, although they do have a history of publishing psi stuff.
Is there any way I can get hold of your chapter (other than buying this book?)
Thanks again, and nice to be back on the psi track!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Dean Radin said…
The Psych Bull article covers studies published from 1997 to 2008. The hit rate during that period was about 33%.

I'm afraid that once a book is published the author doesn't own the material anymore. So I'm not allowed to give pieces of it away. Entangled Minds is a paperback and you can find used copies for a few dollars in online bookstores.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
MickyD said…
fair enough.

What's the title of the book?

Thanks again.

M.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Dean Radin said…
If you're referring to my last book, it's Entangled Minds: Extrasensory experiences in a quantum reality.

BTW, I occasionally reject contributions to my blog either because the comment is excessively off topic, or because the tone is unnecessarily harsh, or it is aimed at an individual in an unkind way.

I strive for civility, which can be a challenge when it comes to dealing with controversial topics. I'm guilty of venting sometimes, but I usually regret it after the adrenaline wears off.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
MickyD said…
I already have both your books, I was referring to the neuroscience book.

Apologies if I came across as venting earlier on. This wasn't intended. It's just that the subject matter is a little too close to home.

Thanks again.
M.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Dean Radin said…
The neuroscience book with my chapter on telepathy research is entitled Conscious and Nonconscious Connections: Neuroscience in Mind. It's part of the John Benjamins book series: “Advances in Consciousness Research.”

See http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=AiCR

The book is in process now. I'm not sure when it will be out. I haven't seen a copy yet.

(My comment about venting was not about MickyD's comments.)
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
antiskeptic said…
Yep, I'm pretty sure that the comment about venting was in response to my comments, which were never posted. I'm not ever posting here again because of it, but with my last post I want to say to Dean that you, sir, deserve to be seen as a nutcase scientist. You are simply not pissed off enough about the lack of open-mindedness in our society. That is the real problem that needs to be taken care of, and too many esoteric researchers, like you, Dean, have no problem with going back into the laboratory and doing more research in their areas (and sometimes acting closed-minded toward other esoteric researchers!) even though the system that they are working under is so flawed with closed-mindedness that there is little hope of ever convincing the mainstream. We need fundamental reform as to how our society views unorthodox claims. We need an anti-skeptic-mindset movement. Ironically, we may have to force a certain amount of open-mindedness on the public and the various expert communities that we oversimplistically call the "scientific community." (and no, even though it may be ironic and conterintuitive, it is NOT contradictory to force people to open their minds against their will) The fact that such a movement has not been formed yet shows that people who care about unorthodox subjects are, for the most part, not angry enough - and that they are, at least partially, deserving of being treated the way that they are by the skeptics. We'll see if this one gets posted...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Dean Radin said…
This sounds like a Monty Python skit, or one of those tight-lipped insults you occasionally hear in the British Parliament: "You, sir, deserve to be seen as a nutcase scientist. You are simply not pissed off enough about the lack of open-mindedness in our society."

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but insisting that you can force others to accept your beliefs is the origin of wars and genocide. I have no interest in that approach.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Dean Radin said…
MickyD's comment about HIV denialism has spawned another rash of impassioned comments that I won't be posting here. That issue is too far off topic, and anyway I am a rank amateur when it comes to understanding the complexities of that debate.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Unknown said…
"Nutcase human being"? "Problem"? "Force them"? "Anti-skeptic mindset movement"?

Good grief.
Monday, April 19, 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