tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post4339497787381365581..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: Why I'm not a skepticDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-51421841356997607482013-05-03T11:51:22.655-07:002013-05-03T11:51:22.655-07:00Apropos to my comment from a few years ago, this b...Apropos to my comment from a few years ago, this blog entry was brought to my attention:<br /><br />Why I am no longer a skeptic.<br /><br />http://plover.net/~bonds/nolongeraskeptic.htmlDean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-56460510770265183862008-10-05T00:25:00.000-07:002008-10-05T00:25:00.000-07:00Read through the other comments on this thread to ...Read through the other comments on this thread to see why. As I've previously pointed out, parapsychology is not searching for anomalies because the anomalies are already among us, and have been throughout history. <BR/><BR/>The question is how do we account for the exceptional stories that people report? Card carrying skeptics would like to dismiss them all as superstitious nonsense. I disagree not because I'm a fan of anomalous mysteries, but because of a substantial body of empirical data.<BR/><BR/>Unlike skeptics who can't seem to grok this, I do understand the skeptical mindset and all the counterarguments. And I simply do not find it to be a persuasive position.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-80649628490721392012008-10-04T21:15:00.000-07:002008-10-04T21:15:00.000-07:00Hello,Very good reply from Steven Novella! He real...Hello,<BR/><BR/>Very good reply from Steven Novella! He really shows why Dean Radin should be a skeptic...<BR/><BR/>Of course that parapsychology is a <I>"hunt for anomalies"</I>. I don't understand how Dean Radin can't see that.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,Jean-Michel Abrassarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07727238103453031813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-10865777264315326582008-10-02T04:22:00.000-07:002008-10-02T04:22:00.000-07:00Here's Mr. Novellas respons to your post:http://ww...Here's Mr. Novellas respons to your post:<BR/>http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=389#more-389Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12522089607587123846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-70671326722528781482008-08-14T11:27:00.000-07:002008-08-14T11:27:00.000-07:00Hello Dean, I just watched the video of 'Scien...Hello Dean,<BR/><BR/> I just watched the video of 'Science and the Taboo of PSI'. It's terrific. I highly recommend it for anyone with a serious interest in the entire phenomenon and the research that's being done.<BR/> I'm far from being a skeptic, but that certainly does not mean that I'm not interested in finding actual proof of what may actually be going on. In fact, it's just the reverse. I keep trying to think of new ways to set up double-blind tests to establish proof.<BR/> Keep up the great work.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08246396944768057750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-5024387209649558502008-02-14T10:44:00.000-08:002008-02-14T10:44:00.000-08:00WWu777 said... Hi Dean, Have you written any new b...WWu777 said... Hi Dean, <BR/>Have you written any new books since "The Conscious Universe"? <BR/><BR/>Yes, <I>Entangled Minds</I>. See my website: www.deanradin.com<BR/><BR/><I>Anyhow, did you all know that Susan Blackmore recanted her statements?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, Chris Carter's new book, <I>Parapsychology and the Skeptics</I>, reports this in some detail.<BR/><BR/>Why don't some academics embrace this topic? It's all about taboo. See my post about this in this blog, and the Google Tech Talk I gave on the topic in January 2008 (via YouTube).Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-76603045634739302992008-02-14T02:49:00.000-08:002008-02-14T02:49:00.000-08:00Hi Dean, Have you written any new books since "The...Hi Dean, <BR/>Have you written any new books since "The Conscious Universe"? I never understood why your department at the university has a problem with your writing.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, did you all know that Susan Blackmore recanted her statements?<BR/><BR/>http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Developments.htm<BR/><BR/>For a complete debunking of pseudo-skepticism on every point, see my free online treatise at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>WinstonWWu777https://www.blogger.com/profile/04368933194799864846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-28551343932813288282008-02-05T03:41:00.000-08:002008-02-05T03:41:00.000-08:00Jime, I agree that some skeptics make the obvious ...Jime, I agree that some skeptics make the obvious logical error of denying the existence of anything that is not comfortably handled within an accepted theoretical structure in physics. It is astonishing to observe the absolutely pathological skepticism exhibited by some scientists, who are so totally invested in their belief system that some of these people have been known to say in effect that even if they experienced the phenomenon (like telepathy, remote viewing, etc.) they still wouldn't believe it. It must have been a hallucination, or they were somehow fooled by a clever trickster.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951644147929348090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-37734518469628963502008-02-04T17:26:00.000-08:002008-02-04T17:26:00.000-08:00I'd like to clarify my last comment. Ridicule may ...I'd like to clarify my last comment. Ridicule may be used against a claim or against a claimant. In the first case, it's a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. In the second case, it's an ad hominem fallacy. (Pseudoskeptics used both of them, discrediting the claim and the claimant at the same time)<BR/><BR/>David, I agree with you. But I think that "skeptics" commit another conceptual mistake: the fact we don't have a mechanism to explain phenomena X, don't imply that X doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>Some "skeptics" use the "lack of mechanism" argument to reject the empirical and reproducible phenomena. They reject the phenomena because they don't have a (materialistic) explanaition to it.<BR/><BR/>For instance, the disease "AIDS" was discovery in 1981, but its mechanism and cause (HIV) was unknown until 1983/84. (This is the official theory; recently Henry Bauer have published a book questioning that theory. See his new blog: http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ )<BR/><BR/>My point is that you can recognize the existence of a phenomena and prove it scientifically, even though the exact mechanism is unknown or it's controvertial.Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-75987667606613606372008-02-04T16:28:00.000-08:002008-02-04T16:28:00.000-08:00"The lack of a possible or even hypothetical mecha..."The lack of a possible or even hypothetical mechanism for ESP..."<BR/><BR/>This is the usual position of skeptics, based on 19th century mechanistic science. Orthodox psychology and biology are still based on this despite nearly a century of work in quantum mechanics and the related nonlocality and observer dependency. Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance is just one of many modern theories of psi that utilize current physics. The best ones are the field theories and most of all the quantum theories, in particular those of Schmidt, Mattuck and Jahn/Dunne. These are closely related to quantum theories of consciousness developed by Stapps, Josephson, Eccles, Penrose/Hameroff and others.<BR/><BR/>Most skeptics will of course refuse to look at this work and pretend it doesn't exist as they also refuse to look at the data, because it is contrary to their prejudices.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951644147929348090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-38672789717471011252008-02-04T14:51:00.000-08:002008-02-04T14:51:00.000-08:00Ridicule is a ad hominem strategy. It can be usefu...Ridicule is a ad hominem strategy. It can be useful or not, but it isn't "rational" nor "logical" nor "scientific". In fact, it's a logical fallacy:<BR/>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html<BR/><BR/>(The fallacies are used just because they're useful; but it don't make them less irrational or dishonest, specially if they're used intentionally)<BR/><BR/>Rational and scientific argumentation doesn't use ridicule as discursive strategy. Real science is done by empirical evidence and rational argument and criticism, not appealing to the emotions of the public or ridiculing the intellectual adversary. It's fallacious. It's a sort of anti-scientific sophistry.<BR/><BR/>Pseudoskeptics use ridicule as a ad hominem fallacy to discredit the "opponent" and make them appear as fools, incompetent or idiots.<BR/><BR/>I can't promote myself as the ultimate defender of reason, logic and science, and at the same time use ad hominem fallacies, appeal to emotion, ridicule, double standars and other rhetorical and sophistical tricks. It's contradictory (but it's obvious that pseudoskeptic's biased thinking can't see it. Honest self criticism is out the intellectual reach of pseudoskeptics)<BR/><BR/>As wrote Michael Prescott in his essay "Why I'm not skeptic": "They'll call names, cry fraud, and holler that civilization is in danger and the barbarians are at the gates. They'll do anything, really - except examine their own assumptions with a remotely critical eye"<BR/><BR/>http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/skeptic.htm<BR/><BR/>Crackpots, liars, frauds and real charlatans (in all fields) should be exposed using evidence and documentation. <BR/><BR/>Problem is that similar kind of people also exist in organized "skeptic" movement: <BR/>http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html <BR/>http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/california_superior_court_judge_.htm<BR/><BR/>Will "skeptics" dare to use ridicule against these people too?Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-20225779595347305492008-02-04T11:35:00.000-08:002008-02-04T11:35:00.000-08:00The skepTick said... Is anything worth ridiculing ...The skepTick said... Is anything worth ridiculing by rational people?<BR/><BR/>No. Ridicule is not simply an emotional reaction, which contradicts the idea that rational people would use it, but it also arises from a position of arrogance. Those who resort to ridicule to oust what they view as offending ideas, including supposedly crackpot ideas, really need to sit down quietly and seriously read the history of science. Today's so-called crackpot sometimes becomes tomorrow's Nobel Laureate. No one is smart enough to a priori distinguish the genuinely mistaken from the genius. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are arrogant enough to think they know the difference.<BR/><BR/>In my book, ridicule is never justified. <BR/><BR/>This does not mean we should be lenient when it comes to scam artists. Anyone who intentionally sets out out to deceive another should be prosecuted and punished.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-55922597940340802432008-02-04T09:25:00.000-08:002008-02-04T09:25:00.000-08:00Is anything worth ridiculing by rational people? C...Is anything worth ridiculing by rational people? Consider the set of all phenomena that we have knowledge of. Through rapid communications with other cultures via the internet forums, email, etc., this society of ideas is continually expanding, so there is an ever richening pot to sample. While we remain culturally distinct, some new supposed phenomenon that appears in our pot from the other side of the world must surely leave us, at best, questioning its veracity. Planck’s idea of quanta comes to mind. We can categorize all the ideas within our set as “impossible”, “sufficiently proven”, or “possible”.<BR/>Naturally, each of these ideas have their supporters and those who find their pet theory labeled “impossible” may strive to place it in the “possible” category or, even better, into the “sufficiently proven” category. This will be an obvious source of friction and ridicule is one of the tools used to keep the idea labeled as “impossible”. Unfortunately, this tool is often the first one chosen and wielded with a heavy hand. But is it useful? How about when faced with the Flat Earth theory or the TimeCube missives?<BR/>Organized skeptics stylize themselves as the housecleaners of the “sufficiently proven” and the “possible”, sweeping entire concepts back to the “impossible” realm. There is no organized “believer” group that sweeps the other way. I don’t know of any that work to simultaneously remove Psi, ESP, telekinesis, hauntings, bigfoot, UFOs, Atlantis, homeopathy, faith healing, communications with the dead, gravitational energy beam technology provided by aliens, hollow earth theory, flat earth, or (fill in your pet theory here) from the “impossible” ranking. Certainly, there are people who say that “all things are possible”. I have to believe that even Dr. Radin must believe that some ideas are profoundly ridiculous, just like there are skeptics who are not skeptical of everything. For them, there are some phenomena that “just can’t be explained”.<BR/>Ridicule may not be the most “gentlemanly” tool, but it can be effective. It won’t silence promoters of crackpot ideas, but it will help others to see that the ideas are crackpot. Even the believer must believe that some of the notions espoused are simply, if not absolutely, crazy. Whether you say so or not is another matter. Skeptics just happen to be predisposed to saying so.Sanswoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10051557485693352913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-90749834041117217452008-02-04T00:12:00.000-08:002008-02-04T00:12:00.000-08:00Dean, I seem to remember that you didn't think UFO...Dean, I seem to remember that you didn't think UFOs had anything to do with extraterrestrials. Have you changed your mind? <BR/><BR/>I live in Norway myself, and here we have the so called Hessdal-phenomena, these lights that seem to make frequent appearances over and around the Hessdal valley. <BR/><BR/>I was (and still am) utterly fascinated by this. It isn't until just recently (about 1 year ago) that the subject got accepted into the mainstream. But only because some physicists and engineers took the subjects seriously and actually monitored the area with radar and an automated surveillance camera that in the end has produced some pretty solid evidence. <BR/>Previously all people claiming to have observed this (apart from the scientists, basically the whole valley) were seen as nut cases.Torhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832780160218654422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-19929765750656105432008-02-03T14:00:00.000-08:002008-02-03T14:00:00.000-08:00Speaking of Shermer, the arguments he uses (effect...Speaking of Shermer, the arguments he uses (effectively in my view) against people who deny that the Holocaust occurred can also be used to argue in favor of psi experiences and sightings of UFOs. That is, to use Shermer's phrase, when considering the "preponderance of the evidence" for UFOs and spontaneous psi experiences, both involving a gigantic number of case studies, reported over very long periods of time by credible observers, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that something interesting is going on. <BR/><BR/>By contrast, those who deny insist that unless a UFO lands on the White House lawn (which almost happened in 1952!), or that someone levitate on national TV (as though anyone would accept that as real), then none of the evidence should be taken seriously.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-88923783395051596342008-02-03T08:29:00.000-08:002008-02-03T08:29:00.000-08:00Another very interesting aspect of pseudoskeptic's...Another very interesting aspect of pseudoskeptic's psychology and crooked thinking is his extreme credulity of official theories and stories. They're uncritical believers of official and accepted theories.<BR/><BR/>For instance, take a look at Michael Shermer's uncritical defense of the official story on 9/11:<BR/>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000<BR/><BR/>A detailed and documented reply to Shermer's article may be read at: <BR/>http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm<BR/><BR/>Also, you can hear the Shermer vs. Fetzer debate about 9/11:<BR/><BR/>Part 1:<BR/>http://twilightpines.com/media/Shermer_Fetzer_Rd_1_09_11_07.mp3<BR/><BR/>Part 2:<BR/>http://twilightpines.com/media/Shermer_Fetzer_Rd_2_09_11_07.mp3<BR/><BR/>I'm not a fan of "conspiracies", but I think that in the topic of 9/11, the official story is very flawed and incorrect.Any true skeptic will doubt it and ask for the best evidence for it. But Shermer won't do it, he's very busy defending it against the "9/11 deniers"Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-8526743730411891862008-02-02T14:03:00.000-08:002008-02-02T14:03:00.000-08:00I think the efforts of dogmatic skeptics can backf...I think the efforts of dogmatic skeptics can backfire. My interest in this subject was sparked in part by a TV program in which a skeptic (whose name I have forgotten) asserted that there was no scientific evidence for Ψ phenomena - just like that, no qualifications, not even a recognition that scientific papers containing positive results even existed! This sparked my interest, because I was pretty sure I had read of at least some successful experiments - which meant I was being fed propaganda rather than straight information!<BR/><BR/>This gelled in my mind with another scientific story that did not ring true. The reductionist-materialist explanation of consciousness is peculiarly barren, summed up perhaps by the title of Tor Norretrander's book: "The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size". The idea that consciousness is not that big a deal is not new, and had inspired an enormous irrational belief in the 1980's that artificial intelligence (AI) was achievable and just about to take control (for good or ill). This spawned a huge and expensive AI research effort that just seemed to end in a whimper of (unacknowledged) defeat. At the time, I was very interested in AI, and was even involved in a peripheral way because I worked on a compiler for an AI language. It had always amazed me that existing AI programs seemed more like a cheat - designed to give the impression of intelligent understanding when none was really present. Of course, it may always be that one extra push will produce real AI, but a more interesting possibility is that the whole conventional underlying theory of consciousness is wrong.<BR/><BR/>If consciousness itself was so hard to explain in terms of conventional science, I realised that it was not reasonable to rule out phenomena such as Ψ on the basis that they were scientifically impossible. <BR/><BR/>To me, the nature of consciousness and the nature of Ψ are almost the same problem, and I think it might help if people were more aware of the bizarre attempts by orthodox theorists to fit consciousness into existing theory - such as the above-mentioned "user illusion" idea, or the notion of epiphenomenalism, in which mental phenomena are supposed to have no influence on the physical world. These theories bring home the sheer implausibility of the standard scientific picture of consciousness.David Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06172248428321078417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-21586164085215080602008-01-30T11:58:00.000-08:002008-01-30T11:58:00.000-08:00Came across this article as I was looking through ...Came across this article as I was looking through back issues of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.<BR/><BR/>The Pathology of Organized Skepticism, by L. David Letter (2002). He does a follow-up article a few years later as well.<BR/><BR/>http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.1_leiter.pdfRoulettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18323034268818992023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-40122593888085851842008-01-24T05:28:00.000-08:002008-01-24T05:28:00.000-08:00Thanks Book Surgeon. The suppresedscience.net webs...Thanks Book Surgeon. The suppresedscience.net website is one of the best I've ever read. <BR/><BR/>Dr.Radin, regarding the arrogance of some "skeptics", I have the following opinion: many "skeptics" (I think more of them) oppose the paranormal by ideological/philosophical reasons: most of them are hard-core metapsychical naturalists/ontological materialists. This philosophy of life, if applied consistently, entails atheism, anti-religiosity and scientism (all these are common traits of most "skeptics"). They see themselves as the only "rational" and superior beings according to their own criteria or theoretiical framework.<BR/><BR/>It's explained very well in the article of Neil Grossman:<BR/>http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue61/r61_Grossman.html<BR/><BR/>This is also the reason why they use scoffing (in fact, Marcello Truzzi called them "scoffers"), ad hominem rhetoric, double standars, uncontrolled criticism, sophistical tricks and other characteristics explained in the wikipedia article on pseudoskeptics.<BR/> <BR/>Fundametalists and dogmatic believers of any ideology (if it is religious or secular) will fight or disbelieve any evidence contrary to their worldview (they'll use a clever double standard to evaluate contrary evidence to their views) . It's a psychological fact (not related to the logical value of their arguments, which should be independently evaluated regardless of the psycholopgical/ideological motivation.)<BR/><BR/>So, arrogance, scoffing and the air of rational superiority of most skeptics is a psychological consequence of their philosophy. (Of course, there are other reasons to be arrogant; but in cases of "skeptics", the ideological factor is prominent and evident)<BR/><BR/>Richard Carrier, from the secular web (infidels.org) wrote a book in defense of metaphysical naturalism and atheism titled "Sense and Goodness without God". You can read an excellent critical review of this book by Christian philosopher (and ex-atheist) David Wood:<BR/>http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=86<BR/><BR/>You can see how Carrier see himself as a great thinker/philosopher, as a super rational being and he considers ("modestly") that his book "is only for sane, reasonable people". (You can see the unreasonable, inconsistent, puerile and fallacious of Carrier's arguments, exposed by David Wood)Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-77151678976948072772008-01-23T19:42:00.000-08:002008-01-23T19:42:00.000-08:00I just ran across a nice quote that explains at le...I just ran across a nice quote that explains at least one reason for skepticism of the arrogant kind:<BR/><BR/><I>The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated.</I><BR/><BR/>- Oscar WildeDean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-37403785441749640182008-01-23T18:55:00.000-08:002008-01-23T18:55:00.000-08:00Lauriel asked how to search PubMed to find article...Lauriel asked how to search PubMed to find articles on psi-related topics. Searching on "ESP," "psi" or "psychic" will not return much because these terms are taboo in academia, so other words are used.<BR/><BR/>Here are some search terms to begin with on PubMed:<BR/><BR/>"dean radin" will retrieve 12 of my authored or coauthored articles. Also search for "distant intentionality", "richards standish functional magnetic resonance", "walach wackermann," and "edwin may."Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-84001135094404194712008-01-23T14:19:00.000-08:002008-01-23T14:19:00.000-08:00Jime, that Suppressed Science page on skepticism i...Jime, that Suppressed Science page on skepticism is incredible. I'd never seen it before. A hat tip on behalf of the commentocracy for bringing it to my/our attention.Book Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619492768967118149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-48358183666668457562008-01-22T09:14:00.000-08:002008-01-22T09:14:00.000-08:00A critical examination of Susan Blackmore's "resea...A critical examination of Susan Blackmore's "research" in parapsychology may be read at:<BR/>http://www.parapsych.org/psiexplorer/blackmore_critique.htm<BR/><BR/>To a critique of Susan Blackmore's book Dying to Live, see:<BR/>http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html<BR/><BR/>On "skeptics":<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism<BR/>http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/criticizingskepticism.htm<BR/>http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm<BR/>http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm <BR/>http://www.nderf.org/NDE%20Rhetoric.htm<BR/>http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html<BR/>http://www.orgonelab.org/skeptics.htm<BR/>http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm<BR/>http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/index.html<BR/>http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm<BR/>http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo<BR/>http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html<BR/>http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html<BR/>http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/barrettvsrosenthal.htmJimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-41893388912239225362008-01-18T08:31:00.000-08:002008-01-18T08:31:00.000-08:00Dean:You said to Gwen that there were many studies...Dean:<BR/>You said to Gwen that there were many studies in PubMed and I am very interested in reading them, but when I went to Pubmed, I didn't have much luck. I tried psychic and ESP but the studies that came up were not about ESP (as ESP is short of electro static something-or-other). I tried ESP and psychic, but only 6 papers came up. Three were studies of psychics, but they were journals I am unfamiliar with (Br J Psychol., Explore, and Perception), one was by Shermer and you can guess what that was about, one was looking for a link between belief in the paranormal and Narcissism, and the last was a paper for 1976.<BR/>Am I using the wrong search words? Can you help point me in the right direction?<BR/>Thanks!Laurielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03185496777122738572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-47979471258445063542008-01-14T14:45:00.000-08:002008-01-14T14:45:00.000-08:00Eric said: "Your statement has revealed the proble...Eric said: "Your statement has revealed the problem with parapsychology...." <BR/><BR/>That was lightseeker's comment, not mine. I agree that neutral language is useful in academic circles to avoid unnecessary irritations. This is why I personally avoid touchy-feeling interpretations of what the psi data <I>mean</I>. <BR/><BR/>I'm often asked what I think it all means, and the best I can come up with in neutral terms is that I think at some level of reality everything is deep interconnected. But this is nothing new, even within physics. E.g., gravity connects everything in the universe. We conveniently overlook such connections in science because otherwise everything becomes a hyper-complex system which is impossible to study.<BR/><BR/><I> This field will never progress until it extricates itself from such sentimental mumbo jumbo and develops the impersonal, conceptually coherent terminology that characterizes a field such as physics. </I><BR/><BR/>I doubt that this is going to happen any time soon, if ever. When academic psychology attempted this through behaviorism, it concluded that there's no one home -- we're all mindless zombies. I think it's clear that whatever else we may be, we are also sentimental creatures. Indeed, those without discernable sentiment are regarded as dangerous sociopaths. So attempting to eradicate this essential nature of being human in the hopes of being perceived as more "scientific" is IMO doomed to failure. Developing more refined explanations and generating better data is where we need to go. And I suspect that future explanations for psi may nicely accommodate (not avoid) touchy-feely concepts like empathy, intuition and meaning.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.com