Added: Jan 18, 2008
From: googletechtalks
Duration: 94:57
Google Tech TalksJanuary, 16 2008ABSTRACTDo telepathy, clairvoyance and other "psi" abilities exist? The majority of the general population believes that they do, and yet fewer than one percent of mainstream academic institutions have any faculty known for their interest in these frequently reported experiences. Why is a topic of enduring and widespread interest met with such resounding silence in academia? The answer is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, or even to a lack of scientific interest, but rather involves a taboo. I will discuss the nature of this taboo, some of the empirical evidence and critical responses, and speculate on the implications.Speaker: Dean RadinDean Radin is a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology. He is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and four-time former President of the Parapsychological Association. He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has worked at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Labs, mainly on human factors of advanced telecommunications products and services, and held appointments at Princeton University, Edinburgh University, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, SRI International, Interval Research Corporation, and Boundary Institute. At these facilities he was engaged in basic research on exceptional human capacities, principally psi phenomena.
Channel: People
Tags: education engedu google googletechtalks talk talks techtalk techtalks
Rating: 4.39 (269 ratings) Views: 35940' favoriteCount='84 Comments: 430
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - James Randi has a history of lying, he is not a scientist, has no training, and he overlooks replicated positive data that have been published in peer reviewed journals - as you have done here. Dean deserves a factual critique, not a series of false claims about his presentation here. I encourage people to watch the whole video for themselves. It's fine to disagree with Radin, but it's not okay to claim that the data aren't there.
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - A history of lying? Are you serious? He video's every test, and fully documents them. The subject agrees to the terms so that there is no discrepancy. There is NO history of lying. You do not need to be a scientist to disprove a bogus claim, just a solid methodology. According to you, anyone with a few letters behind their name and some papers that are inconclusive at best, means something exists. Sorry, even the "best" evidence doesn't conclude it exists, only statistical anomalies.
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - RE EEG data: Have you seen these data? In some studies, person A is exposed to flashes of light, while person B is not, and yet person B has the same EEG changes at the same time - implying a transfer of information - despite being separated in different faraday chambers. This has been replicated by independent scientists and the results have been published in peer reviewed journals. This is much differnt from telling people to "think of France" in order to make "their stats jump"...
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - Thank you! Someone who isn't crazy. I love how he just alludes to there being something, and that because 90% of people believe it exists but scientists don't, therefor they are closed minded. Nothing more then claims of "its interesting". Beautifully useless. ;)
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - "I love how he just alludes to there being something, and that because 90% of people believe it exists but scientists don't, therefor they are closed minded."That's not what Radin says. He points out that consistently replicated data have been ignored. at any rate, this isn't a discussion. This is you ignoring data and making false characterizations and straw men.
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - Link me the _EXACT_ ones you are talking about. As a scientist myself, let me take a look at it. The "transfer" of useless data, is still useless, remember. Don't forget, implying still isn't proving.
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - I got sick of his psuedo science 5 minutes in. All of those things are claimed in that timeframe. There is no straw men.
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - "I got sick of his psuedo science 5 minutes in"so after 5 minutes you decided to stop listening? Thanks for letting me know that I should not waste any more time on you.
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - If you started watching a video, hoping for something good, of the 9/11 attacks, of a video stating a scientist has found irrefutable proof of an inside job, then he proceeds to go "Doesn't that look STRANGE!?", without any actual solid information, would you continue to watch? Besides, you are merely trolling on this video. 69 matches to your name alone. Thats 20% of the comments on this video, of 400, are you. Get me those articles. Let me bitch slap you into next year.
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - "you are merely trolling on this video. 69 matches to your name alone."I was engaging peoples' comments, but eventually lost hope for real dialogue."Get me those articles"Here's one out of several: J. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, et al. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential, journal of Physics Essays, Volume 7, Number 4, 1994 (can getmore if you'd like)"Let me bitch slap you into next year."you're assuming apriori that data are flawed. prejudice
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - sorry for my earlier comments"If you started watching a video, hoping for something good, of the 9/11 attacks, of a video stating a scientist has found irrefutable proof of an inside job, then he proceeds to go 'Doesn't that look STRANGE!?', without any actual solid information, would you continue to watch?" Radin's argument is much more nuanced than "this looks strange". Please listen to the whole video carefully. If you don't want to, then I must end the exchange with you now. sorry.
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - It only takes a few minutes to hit sites like even wikipedia which quite quickly show many of the reasons why these "statistically significant data" pieces are not significant. And I am not talking about outright lying, I am talking about begging the question and poor methodologies.
MetaphysicsAddict Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - "it only takes a few minutes to hit sites like even wikipedia which quite quickly show many of the reasons why these 'statistically significant data' pieces are not significant."Please share those "many... reasons" with us. Let's have a real discussion here. There is no doubt that *some* studies have been flawed, but many appear to be quite sound. For example, sheldrake's ongoing telephone telepathy studies (in which chance expectation is 25%, but actual results are usually over 40%...).
kaminarigaston Says:
Jan 1, 2009 - anecdotal evidence=not evidence
plasticfantastic777 Says:
Jan 1, 2009 - If you indiscriminately dismiss this information out of hand then doesn't that mean you should disavow scientific method and its purported findings entirely?
plasticfantastic777 Says:
Jan 3, 2009 - 07:40 "we can't rely on anicdotes because they're not controlled..."
IdleGod Says:
Jan 3, 2009 - Exactly! :) And when there is flaws in scientific papers, they cannot be relied on either. It is why I love science.
MariaSharapovaIsLove Says:
Jan 3, 2009 - Wait, is his name Dean or is he a dean?
MariaSharapovaIsLove Says:
Jan 3, 2009 - I was just watching the video and the Windows Update warning popped up more than 10 times throughout the whole thing. LOL! This guy must be pissed about it. "No! I do not want to restart my computer!". *clicks Restart later* *pop up appears again after a few minutes*
myselfinmichigan Says:
Jan 4, 2009 - "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."-Mark Twain Require an independent confirmation of the facts.Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. Every link in the chain of argument must work. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified.-Excerpt from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
GodfatherNK Says:
Jan 4, 2009 - lol
TheThomaswastaken Says:
Jan 6, 2009 - Damn good post.
TheThomaswastaken Says:
Jan 6, 2009 - Name.
ORIONCUBE Says:
Jan 6, 2009 - The architect:)Eagle Eye, The Valkyries, and The Stairway to Enlightenment
IdleGod Says:
Dec 31, 2008 - Throw someone in a metal tube and tell them to think of france, many of their stats (EEG and the like) will jump. When they can see something that they could not possibly know, then I will say its positive data. Move something with your mind, then I will be impressed. And James Randi is not a different topic. He does a very good job of testing these claims.