Still life

Here's a still from the new What the Bleep movie, subtitled "Down the Rabbit Hole." I was interviewed for what seemed like forever (probably about 4 hours). I don't recall the details of what I said, which will make watching the movie more interesting for me.

So far, I've done about 30 interviews for television shows. This was my second movie-related appearance. The first was for a mini-feature on remote viewing, which can be found on the DVD of the movie Suspect Zero.

Comments

Dean Radin said…
I'm in the new version, "Down the Rabbit Hole," released in February 2006.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Christopher Kevill said…
Hi Dean,

I heard you on Coast the other night with Michael Schermer. You did a great job! I was sorry to hear that Schermer had such a close minded attitude. He really is quite rude when you get right down to it.

Anyway, please carry on your work.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Dean Radin said…
Thanks. It's difficult to hold a serious debate when the opponent doesn't actually know anything about the topic. Hand-waving generalities and snickering don't lend themselves to rational discussion.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Christopher Kevill said…
Not dealing with the data seems distinctly unscientific to me and yet these skeptics wear the mantle of Science as if they invented rational inquiry. But they don't follow its creed at all.

Where does Schermer and Randi get their funding from? Or is it part time thing for them to spread their own ideological view of reality to all and sundry. The thing is, they manage to get amazing exposure on all media. I read a study of CSICOP that told how it was originally created to test claims of the paranormal. that didn't last long so by the 1980s, it was mostly into public relations and denouncing (not bebunking) research that fell outside of its narrow paradigm.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Dean Radin said…
A good website on the nature and foibles of "organized skepticism" is Skeptical Investigations, located here: www.skepticalinvestigations.org
Friday, January 27, 2006
Christopher Kevill said…
Thanks Dean.

I'm reading your Conscious Universe now. you display genuine scientific curiosity -- wow, how unusual is that?! Kudos.

I would also be interested in obtaining your birth data for my research files. Feel free to contact me at info@modernvedicastrology.com
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Christopher Kevill said…
Just checked out the skepticalinvestigations site. Just what the doctored order. Thanks again. I'm trying to narrow down my dissertation topic on the sociology of proto-science and having this site is a big help.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
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

Water crystal replication study

Radin, D., Lund, N., Emoto, M., Kizu, T. (2008). Effects of distant intention on water crystal formation: A triple-blind replication. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 22(4), 481-493. An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as "proximal" controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls. Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatme...
Read more