tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post1769680336900514838..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: Compassion for skepticsDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-34091590945074041162013-02-06T02:02:49.389-08:002013-02-06T02:02:49.389-08:00I am thoroughly convinced that if someone did disp...I am thoroughly convinced that if someone did display something that Randi could not explain away by cheating or any suspect means and even if he did pay the individual, his repsonse would likely be,<br /><br />"We must have missed something."<br /><br />Randi has become the doppleganger of the fundamentalist who believes every word of the bible; Randi's God has become science--or rather the scientific method which has a long history itself of chicanery and lethal failures.<br /><br />Aboo k on fraud in science would be no less voluminous than one on fraudulent claims of the "paranormal".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14353441364197607338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-29087888970824792872010-09-30T13:42:43.874-07:002010-09-30T13:42:43.874-07:00Hi, Dean. I have addressed the comment in my blog ...Hi, Dean. I have addressed the comment in my blog entry http://floatingbones.com/?p=92 addressing your concerns about the claims of Faraday Cage leakage. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.<br /><br />One of the claims you make in “Entangled Minds” is around the relationship between science and reductionism. From page 221 of your book:<br /><br /><i>Scientists have long assumed that the best way, indeed perhaps the only way, to understand something is to see how its pieces together. If we see an impressive clock and what to know what makes it tick, we take it apart. […]</i><br /><br /><br />This claim is incorrect. Edward Lorenz’s research on chaos theory is all about studying the system <i>as a whole</i>. His chaos papers date back to 1969 ( see http://eapsweb.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/publications.htm ). Chaos theory was well-established by the time of Glieck’s “Chaos: Making A New Science” in 1987. Sussman realized that the clockwork mechanisms of orreries were inappropriate for modeling the movement of the planets and the stars. His digital orrery allowed for viewing celestial movement <i>as a whole</i>. For anyone paying attention, the Sussman/Wisdom 1988 science paper “Numerical Evidence that the Motion of Pluto is Chaotic” was the last nail in the coffin of Sir Isaac Newton’s “clockwork universe” ( http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/pluto-chaos.pdf ).<br /><br />Royal Society member Sir James Lighthill wrote the wonderful paper, “The recently recognized failure of predictability in Newtonian dynamics” (1986) (which, sadly, is only available freely from a university library). Lighthill notes that very simple systems can display reductionist-defying chaotic behavior. Cornell professor Steven Strogatz notes in his teach12.com course “Chaos” and his 2004 book “Sync”: nonlinear forces are the the main prerequisite for chaotic behavior, and living systems definitely have nonlinear forces (see http://tam.cornell.edu/faculty-bio.cfm?NetID=shs7 ).<br /><br />Whole-system thinking existed long before Chaos Theory. Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems demonstrate the fundamental limitations of logical systems as the arbiters of truth (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel ). Gödel’s proof is a dazzling display of what is possible only through whole-system thinking. Engineer Buckminster Fuller’s 1972 book “Synergetics” discusses whole-system thinking extensively. Fuller’s synergetic behavior is the quintessence of whole-system thinking:<br /><br />“724.34: The tensegrity system is synergetic -- a behavior of the whole unpredicted by the behavior of the parts. Old stone-age columns and lintels are energetic and only interact locally with whole buildings. The whole tensegrity-icosahedron system, when loaded oppositely at two diametric points, contracts symmetrically, and because it contracts symmetrically, its parts get symmetrically closer to one another; therefore, gravity increases as of the second power, and the whole system gets uniformly stronger. This is the way atoms behave.”<br /><br />Note: tensegrity structures appear to be the foundation for biological structure from a cellular to a musculoskeletal level (see http://www.childrenshospital.org/research/ingber/PDF/1998/SciAmer-Ingber.pdf ). The forces in a tensegrity are definitely nonlinear.<br /><br />Anyone who has been paying attention to the last quarter-century of scientific research profoundly understands the fundamental limitations of reductionist scientific research. But rather than point to our scientific understanding of those limitations, you claim that scientists (and, indirectly, science as a whole) don’t understand them. The time has come to set the record straight on this straw-man argument.<br /><br />What we can say is that rigorous whole-system scientific research is quite difficult.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-17958957386928772092010-09-28T10:41:57.443-07:002010-09-28T10:41:57.443-07:00> For a science documentary, somebody should be...<i>> For a science documentary, somebody should be paying attention to the integrity of the product as a whole. Reputable scientists participating in a science documentary definitely have a stake in that integrity. The "somebody" is the film's producer. </i><br /><br />The film’s producer <i>should</i> be the gatekeeper. But who the bleep should take action if the film producers violate that trust? Should the reputable scientists who appear in that a documentary that junks the science do <i>nothing</i>?<br /><br />Documentary filmmakers spend minutes if not hours for every <i>second</i> of footage that appears in the final product. At a minimum, they should take the time to verify every claim made in their documentary. That’s why Dr. Cimbal’s “giant bird brain” claim is so telling: it took literally five minutes of fact-checking to note that bird flocks do not change their direction instantaneously — the changes ripple like a wave through the flock. In five minutes, I was also able to find a published science paper modeling how birds coordinate their movement in those flocks. Cimbal claimed that quantum body-fields were the only way to explain the coordination of the birds, and he is clearly wrong. The filmmakers failed in their fact-checking duties. Further, they have failed to create an errata page on the film’s website once I told them about the error. They had no commitment to get the science right originally, and they show no commitment to address their errors now. <i>BTW I noticed an incorrect comment in your blog critique about the film. [SNIP]</i><br /><br />Thank you. Now that I know about the factual error, I will deal with it promptly. I will track down the comment and add a note with your correction.<br /><br />In a similar fashion, I am asking you to respond to Peter Fraser’s claim that there is a “viable scientific theory” about how quantum-physics information fields are used to store information and influence our health. If his claim were true, it would have a huge impact on the research that you, Dr. Schlitz, and Dr. Mitchell are performing at IONS. A viable scientific theory in this field would have a huge impact for all psi researchers and enthusiasts over the whole planet.<br /> <i>Shall I take you to task for failing to correct that comment? Of course not - you are not responsible for what others say in your blog. Nor am I responsible for the entire content of one of many films I've appeared in.</i><br /><br />If I do nothing with your information within seven days, you should definitely take me to task.<br /><br />Thank you for checking on the integrity of my blog entry about “The Living Matrix”. I am asking you to check out what seems to be a far more fundamental error in TLM: the central claim from the film. As far as I can tell, no viable scientific theory linking our health to quantum-physics information fields exists. At the same time, enthusiasts of the film are convinced there is a viable scientific theory. Science is hard, but the existence of science should be quite straightforward. In far less time that it took you to read and respond to my blog page, you should be able to determine for yourself if Peter Fraser actually has a viable scientific theory.<br /><br />You are right: the producers of a science documentary should be committed to accurately reporting the science. I do not see that commitment from the producers of “The Living Matrix”. The state of the science has been left in a very confused state. It’s time for that mess to be cleaned up.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-14648107634057562412010-09-27T12:04:47.275-07:002010-09-27T12:04:47.275-07:00> For a science documentary, somebody should be...> For a science documentary, somebody should be paying attention to the integrity of the product as a whole. Reputable scientists participating in a science documentary definitely have a stake in that integrity.<br /><br />The "somebody" is the film's producer. <br /><br />BTW I noticed an incorrect comment in your blog critique about the film. A reader named "Marc" imagined "a leak in the faraday cage" because the sender inside the shielded room could see the recipient over closed circuit video. He says this is "a perfect example of pseudoscience bunkum that throws around technical ideas" because "a faraday cage prevents transmission of electromagnetic signals from inside to outside. This would include video over wire, I’m pretty sure."<br /><br />Well, his confidence is misplaced because there are standard ways of getting video and data in and out of EM shielded rooms without compromising the EM shielding. I described it in the journal article reporting that study. <br /><br />Shall I take you to task for failing to correct that comment? Of course not - you are not responsible for what others say in your blog. Nor am I responsible for the entire content of one of many films I've appeared in.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-41565882691822910082010-09-27T11:36:37.028-07:002010-09-27T11:36:37.028-07:00Dean: the movie discusses Complimentary and Altern...Dean: the movie discusses Complimentary and Alternative Medicine to the extent that it can be used to support the central claim of the movie: a quantum-physics bodyfield where information is stored and retrieved. An example: there are claims of a research between acupuncture points and quantum physics (but no science to back up that claim).<br /><br />When you’ve got a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Experts repeatedly claim that only possible explanation for phenomena is a quantum-physics body-field. One expert claims that some sort of external field is the only possible explanation for specialization of cells in the developing embryo. That claim is false; there are published scientific papers showing that mechanical tensions could drive embryonic specialization (reference to the published science in my review of the film). Cimbal's "giant bird brain" is an other example: he says that an external field is the only thing that could possibly explain the "instantaneous" direction-shifts in a flock. He provides no science to back up his claim, and there is published science that directly contradicts the claim. The published science suggests something far simpler: each bird is watching six or seven other birds in the flock.<br /><br />There is no conversation at all in “The Living Matrix” about positive effects of CAM that can be explained through mechanical forces. There’s no mention of structural tensions in the body: both the tensional pre-stress and the stress of our bodies being held chronically out of position — perhaps only a millimeter out of position. There's no discussion of how those chronic stresses can undermine the delivery of nutrients, removal of waste, and even the expression of genes in the individual cells. Many CAMs reduce and eliminate these chronic mis-alignments and lower the overall pre-stress of our musculoskeletal network. Lower structural tension can have a dramatic impact on our health and healing. I’m not saying that these things should have been discussed in TLM; my point is that the movie had a specific agenda in the CAMs that it discussed.<br /><br />A science documentary should clearly indicate when it’s presenting real science and when it’s presenting speculation. Who should be responsible for ensuring that happens? The moviemakers may not be responsible: their motivations are to promote their movie and its ideas. Dr. Radin clearly feels that scientists should say nothing about what their fellow scientists are saying in those science documentaries — even if they are perfectly qualified to comment. Skeptics can comment, but how can one know that they have done their due diligence? One comes to a grim conclusion: absolutely nobody is responsible for the quality control of a science documentary like “The Living Matrix”.<br /><br />What are the consequences of this out-of-control effort? You can see it in the reviews: Those that already were enthusiasts think they have “hard science” backing up the central claim of the movie. Skeptics in the CAM field notice the obvious junk science in the movie. Reputable scientists in the documentary are silent about the junk; skeptics are genuinely mystified by that silence. James Randi is decried for calling “The Living Matrix” an incredibly silly movie, but anyone who rigorously scrutinizes the movie — especially its central claim — would understand exactly what he was talking about.<br /><br />What’s the solution? I have no idea. Dr. Radin should be clear what the public expects from the scientists appearing in a science documentary. It’s not like being interviewed as an individual for TIME magazine or George Noory’s show. For a science documentary, somebody should be paying attention to the integrity of the product <i>as a whole</i>. Reputable scientists participating in a science documentary definitely have a stake in that integrity.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-5610897163919474162010-09-22T11:25:39.644-07:002010-09-22T11:25:39.644-07:00Sandy, you didn't address either question I as...Sandy, you didn't address either question I asked.<br /><br />In this discussion, I provided a verbatim quote of what Peter Fraser, Senior Science Officer of NES Health, said at the conclusion of "The Living Matrix". The movie was released directly to DVD approximately 15 months ago. I also provided a verbatim quote from the video of Dr. Dean Radin in his GoogleTechTalk. <br /><br />Does it sound to you as of Peter Fraser's claimed theory would be applicable to the empirical research Dean and other scientists at IONS are doing?<br /><br />Are you personally interested in seeing if Peter Fraser's claims of a viable scientific theory are valid? Wouldn't a viable scientific theory on this topic be revolutionary?<br /><br />If Dean says he wants to know when someone comes up with a theory, I'll take him at his word. When Fraser is talking about his theory in the documentary, he says it's about storage of information in a quantum-physics body field. Note the vocabulary that Dr. Radin used in his GoogleTechTalk. Fraser's claimed theory sounded like a good fit to me. I wouldn't even be surprised if Dr. Radin said, "Thank you!" to me for bringing it to his attention.<br /><br />One last question for you. It's a generic question, it is not a question specifically about Fraser's claimed theory:<br /><br />Do you think that claiming there is a "viable scientific theory" and failing to provide any details is rather silly? What are the actual words of the theory? What falsifiable statements have been constructed to test the theory? How were those falsifiable statements tested, and what were the results? Where is the paper where all of these things were published? All of these things would need to be done for a scientific theory to be viable, right?FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-65078425768729927092010-09-22T09:55:37.679-07:002010-09-22T09:55:37.679-07:00I'm not familiar with Peter Fraser's work,...I'm not familiar with Peter Fraser's work, but if I had questions about it I would address them to Peter Fraser and not Dean Radin.<br /><br />I don't expect anyone else to act as my instrument of critical thinking. I'm not going to criticise someone for not doing my job for me either.<br /><br />It sounds as if you are interested in critiquing Fraser's work but haven't had the satisfaction of direct contact with Fraser himself. Or perhaps you are looking for some kind of public confrontation and Fraser has opted out of that sort of thing. Dean is probably better known as a scientist, is accessible through his blog and maybe you think it will garner more attention to what you want to say than just sending emails to Fraser would.<br /><br />The fact that no one sees any point in engaging you has more to do with the inappropriate way you are conducting yourself than any lack of interest in scientific viability. Ask Fraser to explain himself if you are truly interesting in debating the value of what he has to say. If you want to debate with Dean, it should be about Dean's work.butterflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152024854187616472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-22627898119882029142010-09-22T09:16:54.519-07:002010-09-22T09:16:54.519-07:00Hi, Sandy. Dean has told us he is most definitely ...Hi, Sandy. Dean has told us he is most definitely interested in viable scientific theories about how psi could work. In his at 1:07:50 in his GoogleTechTalk, he said,<br /><br />“The hope is that when I give a talk at a technical environment is to spark the mind of somebody who is thinking about theory all the time and have them think, ‘Well, OK. Maybe there’s microtubules in the head which are quantum oscillators blah blah blah.’ They come up with some kind of reason that would advance the state of the science. So I completely agree. We need theories. If anybody comes up with a theory, <b>let me know</b>.”<br /><br />The Chief Science Officer of NES Health came up with a theory -- a viable scientific theory -- about how information can be stored and retrieved from quantum-physics bodyfields. That certainly sounds as if it's applicable to Dean's work. Since he asked that people let him know when anybody comes up with a theory, it makes perfect sense for me to tell him about the Chief Science Officer's viable scientific theory.<br /><br />Does it sound to you as of Peter Fraser's claimed theory would be applicable to the empirical research Dean and other scientists at IONS are doing?<br /><br />Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Dr. Radin did indeed ask for pertinent theories to be brought to his attention. It also doesn't get you or anyone else off of the hook. Skepticism is a muscle all of us can and should exercise. If there's some claim you are interested in, you should investigate to see if some claimed theory is actually a viable scientific theory.<br /><br />Are you personally interested in seeing if Peter Fraser's claims of a viable scientific theory are valid?FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-1691398635912249892010-09-21T14:43:20.788-07:002010-09-21T14:43:20.788-07:00Wow, Dean! I hadn't realised just how importan...Wow, Dean! I hadn't realised just how important you are. Apparently it is up to you to ensure that everyone else's theories are viable. I guess that let's the rest of us off the hook as far as critical thinking goes. I mean, after all, we've got you to do all the work for us now. ;)butterflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152024854187616472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-31102319814441802692010-09-21T14:31:17.817-07:002010-09-21T14:31:17.817-07:001. Did you really not know about Fraser's clai...1. Did you really not know about Fraser's claim of a "viable scientific theory" ...<br /><br />I do dozens of interviews a year and don't have the interest or time to follow up on the details of every single one.<br /><br />2. As a psi researcher, have you done the due diligence to see if Fraser's "viable scientific theory" is real? What did you find?<br /><br />As I said, I'm busy doing research. I can't be an expert in everything, and my appearance in an interview does not imply I agree with everything that everyone else says. If that were the case, then no one would ever want to be interviewed in say, <i>Time</i> magazine, because at one time that magazine chose Hitler as its "Man of the Year." Or, no reputable scientist would ever appear on the Coast to Coast AM radio show, because half the time that show is about shadow people and demonic possession. But of course scientists do appear in such magazines, and the radio, and in films, and we don't get all hot and bothered by what other people say.<br /><br />3. Do you agree that falsely claiming the existence of scientific theory is a rather silly thing to do? <br /><br />Sure, but in this case I don't know enough about the claim to offer any opinion. <br /><br />4. Why is there a taboo for researchers to call out bad science? Why have none of the legitimate scientists participating in "The Living Matrix" addressed Peter Fraser's "viable scientific theory" nonsense?<br /><br />Epithets like "bad science" and "nonsense" may apply <i>after</i> one completes a thorough examination, but certainly not before. And "viable" is always in the eye of the beholder. In any case, because of your passion about this issue, perhaps you can do the due diligence.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-46034012841627911422010-09-21T13:25:22.420-07:002010-09-21T13:25:22.420-07:00I listened to your GoogleTechTalk presentation ( h...I listened to your GoogleTechTalk presentation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew ). For me, it was a far more exciting than "The Living Matrix". You covered a lot of ground in a short presentation. You were clear about what was fact and what was speculation. One gets a strong sense of your excellence as both a researcher and a lecturer. At 1:07:50 in the video, you say,<br /><br />“The hope is that when I give a talk at a technical environment is to spark the mind of somebody who is thinking about theory all the time and have them think, ‘Well, OK. Maybe there’s microtubules in the head which are quantum oscillators blah blah blah.’ They come up with some kind of reason that would advance the state of the science. So I completely agree. We need theories. If anybody comes up with a theory, <b>let me know</b>.” <br /><br />At 1:16:06 of "The Living Matrix", Peter Fraser, the Director of Research for NES, says,<br /><br /> “[…] but I think now we have a viable scientific theory for how the body stores and accesses information [in a quantum-physics body-field]. So we do have a medical revolution on our hands.”<br /><br />I'm here to let you know: someone who thinks about theories all the time has come up with a <i>viable scientific theory</i> about the storage of information in quantum-physics fields. An empirical researcher into psi must be thrilled: someone has answered your call for theories! Someone has a theory for a new way for information to travel outside the human body and maybe to pass through the walls of a Faraday cage. This could have a huge impact on your research. Please look at Fraser's viable scientific theory and see how it fits with your work.<br /><br />One might wonder: you, Dr. Mitchell, and Dr. Schlitz participated in this science documentary. Why didn't you already know about Peter Fraser's announcement? Have you never viewed the film in its entirety? Did your peers at IONS not tell you the wondrous news?<br /><br />There is a simpler explanation. You already knew about Fraser's announcement, and you know his claim is false. You know there is no viable scientific theory. Earlier in this discussion, you said, "I have not read about Peter Fraser's specific theory.” Your GoogleTechTalk presentation shows a great interest in any theories in this field. The words don't quite add up. <br /><br />Earlier in this discussion you said,<br /><br />"If the history of science has taught us anything, it's that confident pronouncements of what is 'silly' is not only arrogant because it presumes to know what is not yet known, it is often proven wrong."<br /><br />You missed the point entirely. I wasn’t discussing what might or might not be a viable scientific theory in the future. My point is that Peter Fraser claimed there is a "viable scientific theory" today, and his claim is utterly false. The producers of the movie include Fraser's claim without a fact-check. The legitimate and reputable scientists who participated in this film lack the courage to call out Peter Fraser and this movie on the nonsense. The emperor wears no clothes, and the "experts" are tacit. The state of science takes a step backwards. Questions:<br /><br />1. Did you really not know about Fraser's claim of a "viable scientific theory" in "The Living Matrix" until we started our discussion last week?<br /><br />2. As a psi researcher, have you done the due diligence to see if Fraser's "viable scientific theory" is real? What did you find?<br /><br />3. Do you agree that falsely claiming the existence of scientific theory is a rather silly thing to do? This is distinct from claiming that scientific theories will never exist in a particular field in the future.<br /><br />4. Why is there a taboo for researchers to call out bad science? Why have none of the legitimate scientists participating in "The Living Matrix" addressed Peter Fraser's "viable scientific theory" nonsense?<br /><br />Thank you.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-10981359179953777262010-09-19T00:21:40.965-07:002010-09-19T00:21:40.965-07:00I have not read about Peter Fraser's specific ...I have not read about Peter Fraser's specific theory. If he said there is one, then why not ask him?<br /><br />Much of the film was about complementary and alternative medicine, which you can read about at the NIH's website: nccam.nih.gov. CAM methods and theories cover a very broad range, with different degrees of empirical evidence and credibility. Some are based on sound science, others are more speculative. I am in favor of supporting rigorous research in all CAM methods, including ones that may seem "silly" today. The cumulative evidence will eventually show us which methods are useful and which are not.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-58854166170953874822010-09-18T22:26:42.398-07:002010-09-18T22:26:42.398-07:00The key concept from Dr. Cimbal's "giant ...The key concept from Dr. Cimbal's "giant bird brain" claim is "instantaneously". If you don't remember what he said in the film, you can see the full quote in my blog entry http://floatingbones.com/?p=171 . Cimbal uses that word repeatedly in his sound bite.<br /><br />The first thing that's strange about this claim is that one looking at flocks of starlings can clearly see that the flock does not change direction instantly. The direction shifts ripple through the flock like a wave -- often over several seconds. I provide a reference to a YouTube video showing this. Further, there is published science showing that individual birds coordinate their individual direction changes by paying attention to six or seven other birds in the flock. No morphogenic fields. No quantum physics. The paper's URL is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18586280?dopt=Abstract . A free Audubon article discussing that research is available at http://audubonmagazine.org/features0903/truenature.html . Those links are from my blog post.<br /><br />Dr. Cimbal's words are clear: he claims that information fields are the only possible explanation for the behavior of flocks. And he doesn't even accurately describe how flocks behave -- they do NOT change their direction instantaneously.<br /><br />Dr. Radin: if you think there is a published science paper showing that flocks of birds change their direction, "above all, instantaneously with no time delay," please provide a URL to that paper. I don't even know what that would mean, because even casual observation of a flock belies Dr. Cimbal's claims. If you can provide no reference, please acknowledge that.<br /><br />The central claim of "The Living Matrix" is that there is a "viable scientific theory" linking our health with these quantum-physics information fields. Peter Fraser uses that exact phrase; I have his entire closing comment on my full review of the film: http://floatingbones.com/?p=92 . <br /><br />Either there is a "viable scientific theory" or there is not. Fraser clearly thinks there is one, but he never tells us what the theory is. He never enumerates the falsifiable claims associated with that theory. He never lists how he tests those falsifiable claims or the results of those tests. And he never lists the published paper where all of those things were reported. For any viable scientific theory, all of those things are required. As far as I can tell, none of them exist. Harry Massey has acknowledged that they don't exist. Given those facts, I have no idea what chasing down the 432 links that "quantum holography" on scholar.google.com would accomplish.<br /><br />If you think there is a paper providing a "viable scientific theory" linking our health and healing to quantum-physics information fields, please provide a URL to that paper. If you can provide no reference, please acknowledge that.<br /><br />Your parting comments about silliness are a straw man. I haven't said that there will never ever be science linking those two things. Perhaps that will happen some day; perhaps not. What I am saying is that claiming that there is a "viable scientific theory" <i>today</i> is supremely silly. Yet that is exactly what Peter Fraser did.<br /><br />I cannot imagine why the reputable scientists who participated in this film do not comment on that silliness. Your silence implies assent.<br /><br />The emperor wears no clothes; the central claim of this movie is not valid. But people are holding on so tightly to their preferred view of the world that they can no longer respond rationally. They do not see that their approach is no different from extreme religious fundamentalists.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-66293928715693402352010-09-18T20:33:47.072-07:002010-09-18T20:33:47.072-07:00To repeat, we are not responsible for a film produ...To repeat, we are not responsible for a film producer's final product. Some ideas I agree are more substantiated than other ideas.<br /><br />As to the idea of a quantum field that might be relevant to health and healing, look up "quantum holography" on Google Scholar. On tests of morphic fields (which is relevant to the behavior of flocks), look up "tests of sheldrake morphic fields" on Google Scholar. On the idea of consciousness as a field, look up "field consciousness" on Google Scholar. I.e., while portions of the film discusses speculative ideas, it is not the case that there is no scientific support. <br /><br />If the history of science has taught us anything, it's that confident pronouncements of what is "silly" is not only arrogant because it presumes to know what is not yet known, it is often proven wrong.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-55168047478551259282010-09-18T20:00:34.372-07:002010-09-18T20:00:34.372-07:00Dr. Radin: I certainly agree that neither you, nor...Dr. Radin: I certainly agree that neither you, nor Dr. Schlitz, nor Dr. Mitchell of IONS are responsible for the content of "The Living Matrix" (except, of course, for your own content in the film). <br /><br />What I am asking is for you to comment on the final product of the film. Surely you and Schlitz and Mitchell must have each viewed the film multiple times. The science documentary clearly claims that there is a "viable scientific theory" linking our health to some sort of quantum-physics information field. Unfortunately, no such science exists. TLM executive producer Harry Massey has admitted that there are no published papers backing up this claim.<br /><br />Claims like Dr. Cimbal's "giant bird brain" are completely nonsensical. I cannot imagine how reputable researchers would be comfortable having their words mixed with claims like that. I cannot imagine how uncomfortable you must be to realize that the producers failed to fact-check the claims in this movie. You must be further dismayed to see that they have failed to publish an errata page once viewers have noted both its large and small errors.<br /><br />Movies like these have an impact on the entire field (so to speak), and it is not positive. This is not your first documentary of this ilk; you must have had some idea what these people were doing. You must have known what the central claim of the film was going to be -- and that there exists no science to back it up.<br /><br />I'll end my comment the same way I started my earlier one. James Randi reportedly said this is an incredibly silly movie. Whatever else one may say about Randi, he is dead right on that point.<br /><br />I cannot imagine why the reputable scientists who participated in this film do not comment on that silliness. Your silence implies assent.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-27262631281143254342010-09-18T18:48:41.489-07:002010-09-18T18:48:41.489-07:00IONS researchers have participated in dozens of fi...IONS researchers have participated in dozens of film documentaries, television and radio shows. Our participation does not imply that we agree with everything the producers put into the final cut. In fact, we rarely ever see any of the final product until it is published, and media release forms virtually never give an interviewee the right to edit. <br /><br />In other words, we are responsible for what we say, but we (obviously) bear no responsibility for what anyone else says.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-85508751347208871052010-09-18T16:57:10.589-07:002010-09-18T16:57:10.589-07:00Randi is dead right on one point: the movie "...Randi is dead right on one point: the movie "The Living Matrix" is rather silly and it does a complete disservice to any sort of scientific research in the field. As http://thelivingmatrixmovie.com/en/participants notes, Dr. Marilyn Schiltz (IONS President), Dr. Edgar Mitchell (IONS Founder) and Dr. Dean Radin (IONS Senior Scientist) appear in the movie. <br />The most egregious small fault I found in the film was the claim by Dr. Dietmar Cimbal that flocks of birds shift "instantaneously" and that this can only be explained by some sort of "giant bird brain" -- an external information field -- coordinating the activities. I found YouTube videos showing the direction shifts; they are definitely not instantaneous. Further, it took me about five minutes to find published science papers showing the changes are not instantaneous and how the individual birds coordinate the movements. Full details in my blog entry at http://floatingbones.com/?p=171 .<br /><br />Here are my objections to Dr. Cimbal’s claim:<br /><br />1. Dr. Cimbal's was speculating in a field that he had no expertise. He has neither done any scientific research nor does he cite any science to back up his claims. AFAICT, no science at all exists to back up his claim.<br /><br />2. The movie's producers took what he said on face value. Evidently, they failed to do any fact-check before including Dr. Cimbal's claims in their science documentary.<br /><br />3. Even after being notified of the obvious factual error in the film, the producers have made no effort to include an errata page on the movie's official website.<br /><br />The large error is the claim that there is a "viable scientific theory" about quantum-physics information fields. However, none of the steps to creating a viable theory have ever been taken. The "viable" theory has never ever been stated -- although the movie repeats time and time over claims that it exists. I cover this extensively in my review of the film at http://floatingbones.com/?p=92 .<br /><br />How have the believers in "The Living Matrix" dealt with these claims? I have yet to see one person competently defend Dr. Cimbal's claims. I find exactly the behavior Dean notes: "They hold on so tightly to their preferred view of the world that they can no longer respond rationally. They do not see that their approach is no different from extreme religious fundamentalists."<br /><br />These people's belief is so extreme that they still think there's a "viable scientific theory" even though none of them can ever tell me the content of that theory -- let alone any of the other requisite steps to a "viable scientific theory".<br /><br />Can Dr. Radin address those concerns? I don't know. I haven’t seen any of these IONS participants address the minor and major errors of this film.FloatingBoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035510632408663170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-29925107837926932062010-08-17T21:18:20.369-07:002010-08-17T21:18:20.369-07:00I wonder...
Randi has essentially made the predi...I wonder...<br /><br /> Randi has essentially made the prediction that no psychic phenomena exists.<br /><br /> To date, every single study indicating possible psychic phenomena has been determined to be non-existent, exactly in line with Randi's prediction, despite his having no foreknowledge of most of the studies.<br /><br /> Therefore, James Randi is psychic.<br /><br /> Having sufficiently demonstrated this through exhaustive studies of all claims to the contrary, am I entitled to the $1 million? I am willing to split it with Randi.hedgmeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05235926009846944405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-18741439653115004042010-08-16T23:35:01.168-07:002010-08-16T23:35:01.168-07:00Dean,
As a skeptic myself, I can say that I don&...Dean, <br /><br />As a skeptic myself, I can say that I don't stand behind Randi, his ways, or his Million Dollar Challenge. While I don't believe that it would be possible for a person to win a properly-handled challenge, I also don't feel that the JREF's challenge is properly handled. <br /><br />As a brief example, paraphrased greatly, I remember a little girl who said she could diagnose illness with x-ray vision. JREF chose a few people for her to examine, she guessed better than chance, and then JREF decided that outward signs made the selection of illnesses too obvious, and then decided that no more investigation was needed. This attitude of "Our bad, case closed," seems defensive, and insecure. I've seen it more than once, and have addressed it in my blog. http://bit.ly/aYA4of<br /><br />The moral of this comment: Don't take the JREF too seriously. They're entertainers.Kevin R. Bridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09973391388284713016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-67131377913619459122010-08-13T14:40:17.182-07:002010-08-13T14:40:17.182-07:00> I'm guessing ...
Yes, you are correct.> I'm guessing ...<br /><br />Yes, you are correct.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-6096506517035013712010-08-13T13:26:30.078-07:002010-08-13T13:26:30.078-07:00Ok. I asked because I saw at GCP website that some...Ok. I asked because I saw at GCP website that some correction is done to take into account the mindsong's elevated variance. I'm guessing that is done because there are different types of REGs each contributing their own variance to the total in the GCP?Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-27473122058286360042010-08-13T13:17:56.368-07:002010-08-13T13:17:56.368-07:00> MickyD asks: Have you attempted to replicate ...> MickyD asks: Have you attempted to replicate their method, or do you know of any other attempts elsewhere? Also, how is the HESA institute developing? <br /><br />No, no, and very slowly.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-32624476056588472722010-08-13T13:11:29.722-07:002010-08-13T13:11:29.722-07:00Dean, you missed my question!Dean, you missed my question!MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-64310616796849395272010-08-13T12:25:08.071-07:002010-08-13T12:25:08.071-07:00> Dean, what do you do in order to ensure that ...> Dean, what do you do in order to ensure that the Mindsongs elevated baseline variance does not influence the results in your studies? <br /><br />We use empirical controls based on how the device actually works, rather than relying on theoretical parameters. This is usually the case for the other RNGs too, but only the Mindsongs (which are no longer made) showed elevated variance.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-67930482737943589002010-08-13T00:17:24.634-07:002010-08-13T00:17:24.634-07:00Dean, what do you do in order to ensure that the M...Dean, what do you do in order to ensure that the Mindsongs elevated baseline variance does not influence the results in your studies?Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.com