Talk:Dean Radin/Archive 1

This article was nominated for deletion on July 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).

This is an archive of past discussions about Dean Radin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

I am the author of this page on the www.boundaryinstitute.org site, and the holder of the copyright. - Dean Radin

Note to the contributor of this article - you did read, I hope, the fine print on the bottom of the editing page that states "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License". It is a highly questionable matter whether, having submitted this information, you can retain any enforceable copyright interest in it. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

Only a complete loser writes a Wiki profile about themself! 62.254.64.14 5 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Actually, writing as page about yourself is a Wikipedia non-no.

Second point, from the website, what precisely does "AAAS-affiliated" mean? Jim62sch 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"AAAS-affiliated" means an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Parapsychological Association is one of 262 scientific societies that are officially associated with the AAAS, and supports its aims. See http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/affiliates/ for more.

Note: I don't recall posting my bio here. Is it possible for someone else to post another person's bio on the Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deanradin (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This has been a question, in fact, and an area of some concern. Is the material in the bio copyrighted? If so, it can be speedily deleted.

Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) - and welcome to Wikipedia! KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The situation looks rather unequivocal to me. Dean Radin says:

He holds the copyright.
He didn't put it here.

Conclusion: This is a copyright violation and has to be speedily deleted. --Hob Gadling 13:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No verification on the identity. The original text looks like it was copied from a 2004 document that claims "This artikel Dean_Radin is licensed under the GNU free Documentation License. "

--William Allen Simpson 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any 2004 date on that document; it looks like it may have been downloaded from wikipedia, rather than the other way around. The WP article was first created in 2004 anyway, so even if that document is from 2004, it could have been later in 2004. Phr 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't understand why this article is POV. Can anybody elucidate? Maybe it's the missing criticism section? --Hob Gadling 13:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I, being the person it refers to (and it wasn't posted by me in the first place). I'd prefer this page be deleted if someone objects to it. Dradin 04:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed both {{NPOV}} and {{delete}} (much too long per A8).

--William Allen Simpson 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple postings claiming to be Dean Radin

So far,

216.210.136.190 (talk · contribs) -- first post here, created Dean Radin, added external reference later, lots of other contributions.
Deanradin (talk · contribs) -- 1 post here.
Dradin (talk · contribs) -- 1 post here.

Could the real Dean Radin please stand up?

--William Allen Simpson 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

You do realize that ANYONE can come here and CLAIM to be Dean Radin, right? In fact, anybody can come up here and claim to be ANYONE, and it'll be hard to prove them wrong. If anyone cared a whit about this article, they'd investigate this instead of assuming that a big time celebrity like Dean Radin randomly shows up on Wikipedia on multiple different computers and alises in order to gibber about his article. Smith Jones 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to bent spoon section as while radin claimed to have witnessed the phenomena the webpage had nothing to do with who Dean Radin is or his works that i saw and would be more at home in the spoon bending section.

Big time celebrity? If you say so. But Phil Plait and several other people who have articles about them here, also have edited WP articles, so it's not really absurd. The discussion you are trying to revive has been dead for months, as you can see from the dates, and you don't seem to have anything new to add to it except aggressive fandom (I'd almost say deification - "Radin coming down from Mount Olympos to write in an ordinary mortal wiki? Nah!").

Why did you remove the category? I guess it was a mistake, so I'll restore it. --Hob Gadling 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dradin

Very creative editing. I like the way you removed the title of the ONE class, NAME CALLED with that nasty word SKEPTIC and brought up the LACK of peer reviews. If both reviewer and author were presidents of the PA do you get special treatment? It doesn't look like Radin's peer? was very critical at all! Sagan's quote, creatively taken out of context, right at the beginning of the book wasn't too slick. Impossible to miss if you read "The Demon-Haunted World." It stood out like a busted headlamp. Love that photo of super spoon. Liked the game of using "witnesses". No one brought a camera to a spoon bending party? I would like to see THAT bending on video. Did anyone record it? Think it will ever be on the NET or shown to Randi as it bends? (most likely on the work bench) User:Kazuba 14 Oct 2006

Prejudice and distortion

Hello Sdaconsulting, It is a cognitive distortion to view criticism as an attack. Things are not black and white there are grays. There is no reason to hide Radin's PSI and the Casino, research. What kind of science is that? User:Kazuba 17 Oct 2006.

Hello Again

How can such unusual research such as PSI in the Casino be irrevelant, especially when it is Radin's own research? I' m not ranting. I am only suppying information. I do not think it should be over looked. If you do not like the way this was written, I'm only a grunt. Make it prettier, don't delete it. Many years ago parapsychologists were trying to use mind PK to influence the direction in which cockroaches would travel. Do you think that too would be irrevelant? What if you, or an elderly loved one, are supplying the funding for these studies? Wouldn't you want to know how your money is being spent? Someone is paying the bill.User:Kazuba 17 Oct 2006

Stop adding irrelevancies

This article reads like a smear against Dean Radin. This is in direct violation of the policy on biographies of living individuals. The presentation of facts is made to put Radin in the worst light possible through sarcastic wording like:

"This amazing event was not recorded on camera.(Perhaps cameras are not allowed at spoon bending parties.) "

That's not NPOV at all. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for a James Randiesque sarcasm brigade against all phenomena that CSICOP acolytes disapprove of.

Sdaconsulting 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI about spoonbending

Thousands of people who have attended spoonbending parties have reported exactly the same thing as Dean Radin. Including many famous people like Michael Crichton[1]. Just because Kazuba believes a phenomena is impossible, does not make it so[2]. Sdaconsulting 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoon Bending Redux

I do not think Sdaconsulting can read my mind. I never wrote spoon bending is impossible. Even I can bend some spoons that are held by my hands. So can many people. I do have some doubts that they bend by just slightly rubbing. One does have to wonder why spoons cannot bend while being untouched on a table. Why should this make a difference? Eusapia Palladino could raise a table as long as she sat beneath it in the right place. User:Kazuba 18 Oct 2006

Go read the spoon bending article. This is about ordinary people experiencing an extraordinary phenomena, not about magicians and fradulent mediums.

Thousands of people have been to these parties and many of them reported the same phenomena -- sometimes the metal gets warm and soft like taffy, and spoon bowls can be easily pushed over with light pressure. Even by young children.

Maybe they are all lying?

I tried to bend cheap restaurant cutlery with finger pressure and wasn't able to do anything to the bowls despite all my efforts. And I am not a small man, nor weak in the fingers.

Go read the article, and my followups in the comments. Sdaconsulting 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

```See Spoon bending and especially the photos and videos in external links. Fork-you.com is the coolest one. (Personally, just the thought of a critical scientist proving PK by the bending a spoon is scraping the bottom of the barrel). User:Kazuba 19 Oct 2006

The Experiment

```Thought experiment...Look at this way. Imagine you are the president of a university. Madonna writes a will giving you the decision of funding $5,000,000 of her money to only spoon bending research or medical research. Madonna croaks. Now which one do you chose? Are you prepared to make the choice? This is what it really comes down to, dollars and cents. It's your call. User:Kazuba 21 Oct 2006

Radin's PSI in the Casino

Hello Dradin How can such unusual research such as PSI in the Casino be irrevelant, especially when it is Radin's own research? I' m not ranting. I am only suppying information. I do not think it should be over looked. If you do not like the way this was written, I'm only a grunt. Make it prettier, don't delete it. Many years ago parapsychologists were trying to use mind PK to influence the direction in which cockroaches would travel. Do you think that too would be irrevelant? What if you, or an elderly loved one, are supplying the funding for these studies? Wouldn't you want to know how your money is being spent? Someone is paying the bill.User:Kazuba 21 Oct 2006

An edit

I will continue to remove sentences in this bio that reflect personal opinions about me that are not vetted for accuracy or relevancy through any form of recognized peer-review process. In particular I object to comments added to this page by the user "Kazuba" because from his "about me" page he/she/it clearly has an axe to grind. Dean 06:55, 24 October 2006

For example, I am removing this sentence: "There have been questions raised about Radin's use of creative quotes (Carl Sagan, etc.) and the quality of his scientific data that generally go unnoticed by the casual reader" because it is dangerously close to an ad hominem attack, and because it asserts vague criticisms from unknown sources. Such statements violate the neutral point of view that the Wikipedia aspires to. Allowing anyone to say anything they want on a bio page is a ridiculous way to create an encyclopedia. Dean 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed statements about me or my work (positive or negative) that refer to comments supposedly made by some unspecified person with unknown qualifications who purportedly posted something, somewhere, on a website. I will continue to monitor this page and remove statements made by anyone who fails to provide their real identity. I will also remove anything here that I consider to be argumentative. This page is not a discussion forum. Dean 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive Distortion

I have no axe to grind with anyone. I only find Radin interesting. Truly that is all. I am just genuinely curious about Dean Radin. I have nothing personal against anyone. Except I have no love of real monsters. I just love to dig into things that have caught my fancy. I just dig deeper than a lot of others. I think I have learned over the years I am pretty good at it. I have even surprised my mentor. Why is this so difficult to understand? User:Kazuba 24 Oct 2006

On his webpage, Kazuba writes: "Dean Radin is a four times past president of the Parapsychological Association. Check out his unusual writing style, experiments and behavior. Get the picture? Parapsychology was, and is, I suspect, an attempt to give a "scientific authority" (today quantum, during the time when X-rays and radio were popular it was waves) to psychic powers and after life."

This (and much more along the same lines, as written on Kazuba's webpage) is a perfect example of axe grinding. It reflects someone with strongly held negative opinions about lots of topics, we don't know who this person actually is because no real name is provided, we don't know what qualifications he/she has to support his/her pronouncements, etc. Such individuals are entirely unsuitable as contributors to articles on the Wiki, which are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The Wikipedia is not a blog. Dean 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia will destroy ya

User:Kazuba 29 Oct 2006

Message to 195.93.21.101 and the other persons I have upset

I do not agree that the inclusion of minute details is "outrageous outright bias, sarcasm or mockery". It is an attempt to tell the WHOLE story. Isn't this the function of a quality encyclopedia? Pointing out Radin's claim of bending a spoon at a spoon bending party, (this link presents more spoon bending party info, photos, videos, etc.) gives the reader more data. As for informing the reader of Radin's creative quotes of Sagan, etc was not "outrageous outright bias." This was a reporting of the "unwatered down" facts that can easily be examined by anyone, even yourself. User:Kazuba 1 Nov 2006

Well first of all you certainly haven't upset me in any way. I objected to the tone of some of the article, that's all. I have no problem with any of the information that you've included on the page, provided it is presented in a neutral and balanced manner. Previously the page did in fact have various examples of outright bias, sarcasm, mockery and subtle digs at Radin, although I am not suggesting that you may be responsible for all of that. Parts of it read like an entry on the JREF website or from Skeptical Enquirer and it should be obvious that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. Talk of a "spendid" review in which "even the chapter PSI in the Casino where Radin presents his own research on the relationship between lunar cycles and casino winnings, is void of questions" sounds extremely sarcastic. Also I cannot see why the fact that a book critical of Radin's research has "a floating spoon shown on the front dust cover of the hardback edition" is relevant and it sounds like Randiesque mockery. The original paragraph about skeptical criticism made it sound as though it is a statement of fact that Radin's data is faulty, that "casual readers" can't tell this and that Radin "creatively quotes" Carl Sagan when these should be presented as the opinions of certain commentators.

The only thing I took out entirely was the stuff about quoting Sagan and the only reason I did that is because it did not strike me as especially notable that Radin once quoted Carl Sagan "creatively" and some skeptics didn't like it. If you want to put it back fine, but clearly it shouldn't be simply stated that Radin does creatively quote Sagan, but rather that some skeptics have argued that he does this and perhaps providing the quotes and the context would help. I have no idea what the exact quotes are and I don't have time right now to check the reviews, although I will do so when I get the chance. However I am aware that Radin had written that Sagan supposedly said that psychic phenomena are worthy of investigation, which I assume is a reference to Sagan saying that three areas of psychical research are still worthy of serious study (if I remember rightly Ian Stevenson's research was one of these). Obviously if Radin has suggested that Sagan was actually endorsing these phenomena rather then merely saying they were still worthy of study then fair enough. In any case, if you want to put it back fine, but please make clear that "creatively quoting" Sagan is something he is alleged to have done and perhaps a bit more explanation would be appropriate. 195.93.21.105 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou User 195.93.21.105

You have brought up some interesting points which intrique me. One especially is the question of what is a book review and what is its function? How does this compare with a "skeptical report"? I'm glad my stuff didn't upset you. If I come across sarcastically (I had to look the word up in a dictionary to discover what it meant) I apologize. That is not my intent. I am no master of words and I do the best I can. My goal is to supply truthful information, perhaps in too simple a form, that may have a value. With one's loving wife dying of cancer my wikipedia puzzles mean even less than they did before. They briefly hold my interest but they never do mean a hell of a lot. Living the moment does. User:Kazuba 1 Nov 2006

Well firstly I'm extremely sorry to hear about your wife, I'm not surprised if the matters discused on here seem pretty trivial under the circumstances, obviously you have my greatest sympathy.

With regard to the points you raised, I think it's very important that skeptical material be included on articles such as this so long as it's serious and constructive criticism that is relevant and informative. But obviously material that appears in Skeptical Inquirer for example is written by people who have a certain point of view on these matters to begin with and therefore it is unlikely to be entirely neutral and balanced in the sense that it is likely to emphasis the skeptical point of view and may downplay possible evidence that any real phenomena is taking place, just as a review published in Fate magazine may be over credulous and may downplay criticism, so I think it's important to mention in the article if crticism has come from individuals identifying themselves as skeptics of the paramormal or whatever else. This whole area is obviously controversial and it seems to me that articles on paranormal or anomalous claims need to be very careful not be either too credulous or too cynical in tone. Incidentally, I took a brief look at the Skeptical Report review and it does seem informative and pretty balanced and fair-minded so I agree it's a useful source. 195.93.21.105 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Changing Attitudes of Prominent Skeptics

In the introduction of "The Conscious Universe" Carl Sagan is quoted from Page 302 of his book "The Demon-haunted World". "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which in my opinion , deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random numbers in generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can recieve thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarntion." Radin states this quote is an illustration of the "gradually changing attitudes of prominent skeptics" toward parapsychology. What Radin doesn't point out is the rest of quote. "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true. The last three have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course I could be wrong." Skeptics conclude that Carl Sagan is still very skeptical about psi, and has been quoted out of context. User:Kazuba 2 Nov 2006

Well I think Radin should have included the rest of the quote but without reading the introduction itself it's hard to tell how much Sagan is misrepresented. If Radin is suggesting that Sagan's statements shows that he regarded some psychical phenomena as having some limited evidence in their favour and that further research is worthwhile, and that this is a notable change from the attitude of other skeptics 20 or 30 years ago who were saying the very idea of any such phenomena was absurd and any research was a waste of time, then I don't think he's being misrepresented as such although the rest of the quote should still have been included to clarify Sagan's views on the possibility of those three phenomena actually being real. If however he's suggesting that Sagan thought it likely that the three phenomena were a reality then obviously that is quite serious misreprentation. Hard to tell without reading the introduction itself. Also, I'm not sure how much it shows the changing views of skeptics because Sagan may have held precisely the same views decades ago. I have no problem with it being there though so long as it dosen't sound too judgemental. Actually maybe this article should be restructered to have a 'criticism' or 'controversy' section where all this stuff can go, many biographies on Wikipedia have this. The article could probably do with more detail about Radin's research in general as well. 195.93.21.105 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I quoted this piece from Sagan's book not to misrepresent his position, but to highlight a significant change in what a life-long skeptic regarded as being deserving "of serious study." I did not imply that Sagan suddenly changed his personal beliefs about these issues. I used this quote, in context of the introductory chapter, to distinguish Sagan from uninformed skeptics who are so prejudiced against the mere possibility that these phenomena exist that they do not accept that serious study is warranted. Dean 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dean, I think that's fair enough, although I do think without the rest of the quote readers could get the impression that Sagan was actually suggesting that he thought these three phenomena probably existed, even if that was not your intention. I do think it's a stretch to accuse you of deliberately trying to mislead readers about Sagan however. I don't really wish to comment further without actually reading the introduction. I don't think it's a big deal it being there in the article so long as it's made clear that it's the opinion of some skeptics that you might have "creatively quoted" Sagan and not a statement of fact. Many Wiki biographies feature criticism and that's nothing unusual so long as such criticism is not written in such as way as to the give the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing such views. --217.38.50.62 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason my IP address appears to have changed, but I am the same poster using the 195 address above. The 195 address is an AOL proxy shared by many users, so perhaps Wikipedia has finally figured out how to display my own individual address. --217.38.50.62 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Appeal and Urantia

"Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis has added Entangled Minds to his list of recommended books on his website" has been inserted in the Radin entry. Looking at the evidence above involving Carl Sagan's approval of psi. It seems to me Radin was attempting an appeal to a big name for scientific authority, in the introduction of his The Conscious Universe, to make psi look very respectable. Here using the name of Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis is another attempt to give psi and Entangled Minds respectability. When I look at Mullis' list the Urantia book stands out. Not everyone is familiar with the Urantia book. This is a very odd book to appear on a Nobel Laureate's list. (I remember when Martin Gardner was writing about Urantia, he told me he was compelled to do so because it was the strangest thing he had ever come across). Should the Urantia book be added to the Radin entry also, or is it out of place? Something like: "which also contains the Urantia book" and, or, should the Urantia book entry be connected to Mullis at its own entry, as Mullis is attached to Entangled Minds above. How does one handle something like this? Help! My goal is a NPOV and still add further information I think has value. How? User:Kazuba 3 Nov 2006

I've never heard of the book, possibly it's better known in the US? In any case, I'll try putting in without making it sound POV, and you can see what you think. 195.93.21.105 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Having just done a bit of recent research into this Mullis guy, he sounds like a bit of a character. Aside from denying the HIV-AIDS link and climate change, he claims to have encountered a glowing, talking raccoon one night outside his home in California which adressed him by name, after which he blacked out for six hours. He further claims that his daughter vanished for three hours and ended up reappearing in the same spot that he did after his raccoon encounter, and that some guy who attended a party at his house several years later (celebrating his Nobel award) also encountered the glowing raccoon in addition to a tiny glowing man who then grew into a full-size apparition of Mullis's neighbour. Now these are just about the strangest anomalous claims I have ever heard! 195.93.21.105 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Such episodes, whatever they may mean, are not relevant to Mullis' qualifications as a highly regarded scientist. The fact is that two Nobel Laureates have found my books to be sufficiently interesting to mention them. I use this fact to counter the assertion of those who, like Kazuba, appear to question whether psi research is a "respectable" science. Scientists who receive the Nobel Prize do not mistake pseudoscience for real science. Dean 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest these claims have anything to do with his credentials as a scientist or the validity of his opinion, I'm just amazed by them. I've never heard such extraordinary claims before. Either he's done far too much acid or the universe is a far more extraordinary place than we could ever imagine. In any case, I'm staying well away from that part of California! 217.38.50.62 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

```Each and every person is unique. Each Nobel Prize winner is different, different fields of study, different experiences, different evaluation of experiences, etc. Even Noble Prize winners are capable of making mistakes in science. Above all things even Noble Prize winners are still only people. User:Kazuba 14 Nov 2006

True, scientists can certainly make mistakes about scientific issues. But the likelihood that a Nobel Laureate will mistake pseudoscience for real science is essentially zero. In any case, the Parapsychological Association was elected an affiliate of the AAAS precisely because that organization supports the aims and methods of science, not pseudoscience. Dean 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

```The scientific man gets his reputation from the confirmation of his discoveries, not the discovery by the man. This includes Nobel Laureates and those who call themselves parapsychologists.User:Kazuba 27 Nov 2006

No original research: List verifiable source: Removed

Radin counters that the point of the quote was to show that Sagan was aware of some of the empirical evidence for psi and, unlike many so-called skeptics, was sufficiently interested in it to publicly state that it deserved serious study. ^{[citation needed]} Who is Dradin? Could be anyone. Vocabulary, spelling, emotional out- bursts, whining, lack of knowledge and repeated cognitive distortions make me very suspicious. As in all good inquiries I seek confirmation. Wouldn't you? User:Kazuba 30 Nov 2006

Mullis's Glowing Raccoons

I removed the stuff about Mullis's views on AIDS, climate change and his glowing raccoon anecdotes. It is difficult to see how to write that without it sounding like it's kind of implying "this is the guy who takes Radin seriously, obviously he's a crank". It's more information than is needed about Mullis on this page, I think it's sufficent to mention the other books that he's recomended without giving a list of his controversial opinions and weird experiences. In fact, if anything else is put there it might be worth mentioning that Mullis also recomends a book on astrology. I think all that makes clear that Mullis is not your average Nobel Prize winner and that he has an interest in controversial and paranormal claims. That he denies climate change and the HIV-AIDS link does not imply that his views on other subjects are automatically suspect any more than his scientific discoveries and his Nobel Prize mean he must automatically be right about PSI. The raccoon incident, bizarre and amusing as it is, clearly has nothing do with his scientific credentials. Anyone who wants to know more about Mullis can click on the link to his page and find out all about things, I don't think it's really fair to bring up on here any unusual opinions he holds or whatever strange experiences he claims to have had, it's hard to do so without it sounding like it's trying to make the reader draw certain conclusions about him and it's sufficent to mention what other books he endorses, which is more relevant to this page. 217.38.200.254 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Roll Call

I’d like to open up a dialog on this page in order to reach some consensus among contributors. Would like to know how active you are and what you interest is in this page.

Active- think this page has slipped into personal attacks on an academic figure. AD 13:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Active - I keep an eye on the Dean Radin article and try to add to debates but generally don't get too much time to make major edits. - Solar 16:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Over Controversy

First off, if you’re interested in this page you might want to add you sig to the Roll Call section above.

Onto the discussion. As a start, I'd direct you to this exchange NOPV Re Radin between Kazuba and myself.

Regarding the edits I made today:

- Moved the UNLV reference out of the Bio section and into the Controversy and Criticism, and added an intro. I realy don’t think this needs to be in here at all, but we can decide that later.

- Took out the reference to the Sagan quote. This extended reference is out of context here (maybe suitable for a 300 page biography). If there is any real controversy about how Radin quoted Carl Sagan it should be resolved outside his WP page.

- Added references to skeptics and pseudo science, and tried to apply some perspective to the ‘controversy’.

- Reworded reference to critics, clarify and referencing the groups that oppose parapsychology research.

- Added reference to Utts paper, an updated response to parapsychology research.

- Changed “are not widely accepted within the broader scientific community” to “are not understood”.

- Changed outdated reference to review of ‘Conscience Universe’ to more current reference to ‘Entangled Minds’.

- Took out Remote Viewing stuff – this isn’t an area of his research and it’s off-subject here.

AD 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Remote viewing

You are wrong. This was an area of his research. And this is an interview. This is the Dean Radin entry. What Radin says has value. I am replacing this information. User:Kazuba 22 Jan 2002

I just Googled, “ ‘dean radin’ stargate remote viewing” – and didn’t see anything... wait, I followed the link you provided to his blog and found it... but come on... do his un-extraordinary, off-the-cuff remarks on remote viewing really belong on his WP page? He is a scientist. Let’s focus on his published research and his books. Let’s make this page look like other academic author pages. There are plenty of villains hawking their ideas on WP, Radin isn’t one of them. I'm taking it out.AD 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

20 Million dollars

Is serious stuff User:Kazuba 22 Jan 2007

I don't get it???

What's not to get? $20 million over 20 years is nothing in government terms. In 2006 the US budget was $2.4 trillion. A million a year is 0.00004% of that. For someone paying say, $15,000 in federal taxes per year, the Stargate program would have amounted to less than 1 cent per year. I think spending a fraction of a penny a year on this type of research is a perfectly reasonable use of my federal taxes. If you'd rather apply your piece of a penny to something else, then write to your state senator. Dean 19:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Self deception is a reality

There is a thing called self-deception. Sometimes called experimenter effect. In the history of just about everything this has been around a long time. It can pop up anywhere. It can even pop up in parapsychology. It has poped up a lot in the history of psychical research and parapsychology. Is Radin overly enthused? Time will tell. Self-deception in science is not splitting hairs. The Stargate project, certainly a classic in self-deception, cost the US tax payer 20 million. That was a cold reality. User:Kazuba 23 Jan 2007

Of course, but we don’t know if that’s what’s happening here. My point is simply that Radin is following scientific procedures by conducting research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. He’s done this for years and gained acceptance as a very competent scientist. So, let’s respect him as a professional and let his WP page reflect his professional work.

As a final resolution of the whole RV thing, I suggest we add a link to the articles you reference in Reference, See Also, or External Links. I think this would put it in perspective for the casual WP reader. Is this acceptable? BTW I’m going to repost this in the Radin discussion so we don’t have to re-hash with others. AD 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Checked out references they are linked to footnote and proper articles. I am confused. Are you saying we duplicate those again in external links? I am happy with things as they stand. But if you have a better idea go ahead and use it. User:Kazuba 23 Jan 2007

I checked out your references and don’t have a problem with them, but I’d like to create a sense of balance about RV within his page. Again, this is not a major area of his research, or something that his written or talked about extensively. I left in the 4 references you give and tied them to one sentence. This gives the reader adequate opportunity to explore this controversy without weighing down the Radin page.

I'd still like to see the exact quote in which Radin said the various RV projects failed, in most of what I've seen he supports RV and Jessica Utts' evaluation. In Entangled Minds he also states that Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne summarised 25 years of RV and came to odds against chance of 33 million to 1. He states there were problems defining the "signal" but little else, and definitely does not say this means RV failed. He also specifically supports Joseph McMoneagle's RV abilities towards the end of Entangled Minds. - Solar 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument is still about balance. We’ve already created a WP page for Radin that has a larger ‘Controversy and Criticism’ section than his bio. Is this really warranted? And again, RV isn’t his main (or even his secondary) area of research (no books or papers that I’m aware of). We don’t mention his pre-sentiment’ research, or any of his other research efforts -- why would we emphasize RV? Radin is a serious scientific researcher and I think the encyclopedia should focus on his research. AD 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate going back and forth on this page. Seems like we’re all wasting time. Perhaps we should seek some help from the WP:Mediation Cabal while we’re all still friendly and civil. Solar, have you ever used this before?

I agree, Radin's main research should be added such as mind-matter interaction, presentiment, unconscious psi etc. I think if you have the time AD add the areas you feel most important if Kazuba feels there is a problem with this then I would say, yes, we need to use Mediation. I've never needed to do this before, but here it might be necessary to reach a fair neutral article. Clearly, as you point out, an article with a larger criticism section than a main bio section shows an obvious bias. - Solar 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don’t think adding more stuff will work here as it just creates more noise and confusion. If this page ends up with a 1,000 word section on 'controversy and criticism' it won’t matter as much what the section says as the fact that there is such a large ‘controversy’. AD 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Read it over

You are not seeing all the data. Hope I fixed it User:Kazuba 24 Jan 2006

Deceptive

There has been some deceptive stuff added here. Brown is an associate professor of political science--scientific community? Parapsychology is by no way controversial in Psychology or Psychiatry. Check a college text book. User:Kazuba 24 Jan 2006

Hi Solar Read this again

Radin has conducted research on, among other things, how significant events which capture the attention of many people may effect Random number generators. Such events include the September 11 terrorist attacks, an O.J. Simpson broadcast, a Super Bowl, or the American Academy Awards presentations etc. (see also parapsychology). Theories that adequately explain these anomalies are not well understood. Perhaps most controversially, Radin's book The Conscious Universe features a chapter presenting Radin's own research and his speculation on a possible relationship between lunar cycles and casino winnings. This has not been hidden away. This seems to be where he is at presently or almost presently. User:Kazuba 25 Jan 2006

Two independent replications of the lunar phase modulation of psi effects have recently been reported in journals. See the blog at www.deanradin.com. Dean 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources to suggest for the article, please offer direct links instead of pointing people to your website. --Minderbinder 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a Gander

This connection is from the Radin entry. It is a link to his published articles. Take a good slow look at the complete list of the names of the journals he appears in. They are not main stream. Lots of new age stuff. After that take a good slow look at all article titles. There are some odd ones. This is why Dean Radin is not thought to be a recognized scientist in the main body of the scientific community. He has very little to do with it. ^{[deprecated source?]} User:Kazuba 25 Jan 2006

I’m not familiar with all theses publications, but I think they are probably much more credible than you are assuming based on their names. Take the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Sounds kinda new-age-ish and flaky – it’s not. I used to subscribe and it’s very well done, peer-reviewed and professional. Take a look at their counsel; http://www.scientificexploration.org/council.php. Moreover, the fact that parapsychology is marginalized and taboo within mainstream academia doesn’t mean the research results should be discounted. AD 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And more... there is no "main body" of the scientific community, nor is there a set of scientific journals that all scientists would agree are mainstream. There are instead thousands of peer-reviewed journals reflecting hundreds of scientific and scholarly specialities. Most of these journals are filled with controversies and debates that no one outside the discipline knows or cares about. Each journal is considered mainstream within their respective discipline, and each carries a different impact factor, meaning the degree to which articles in the journal are cited by other scientists, and how closely the science media tracks that journal.

Among journals outside of parapsychology that most scientists would probably regard as being conventional and as having high impact within their disciplines, Radin has published in Psychological Bulletin, British Journal of Psychology, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Explore, Foundations of Physics Letters, and Foundations of Physics. He also has a recent chapter in a book published by the American Institutes of Physics, the largest physics organization in the United States. AD 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AD I have added a biographical tag to this and the main page to make it clear that the criticisms need to be neutral and fair and not the major factor in the article. This is WP policy so with this clearly shown hopefully the article can become more balanced and clearer, it is badly in need of clean-up at present. - Solar 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good. I’d like to try and get some more folks involved in this page and bring it in line with other serious scientists who happen to work in controversial areas. AD 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries

Hi Solar: You bring up an interesting historical problem. The historian can only deal with the data that is available. The data is limited to the boundaries of the research. I did a lot of research for this entry. Not everyone cares to examine things at the same level. AD has just learned about journals and their selectivity. The so-called balance can only reflect the discovered data. All people are selective. It might be politically correct but do not always expect the data to be neutral. It all depends on the data collected. The responsibility of collecting data is the responsibility of those who care enough about this article to do research. I was the only one who brought up a number of things in this article. Some liked, some not liked. Not out of hostility, but only out of curiosity. There are other things I would like to add about Radin's research, but I'm done. Now I'll just amuse myself by watching what happens here.Use: Kazuba 29 Jan 2007

I have simply highlighted policy so that everyone who edits this article is reminded of how a biography on a living person on WP needs to be approached. I made no reference to you or your research, but I agree, it is a good idea for you to take a back seat for a while as any one editor having too much input is rarely a good thing on a controversial figure or issue. -

Solar 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Book reviewer Brown goes to Mars and More

Now, considering how much publicity Mars has got in the remote viewing field, mostly via Courtney Brown who claims to have psychically tuned into life on Mars—or rather, under Mars—this was just too intriguing to pass up. I began skimming through it on the spot. As quite a coincidence, it was the story of a fellow who had "psychically journeyed to Mars." http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/mars/

Still on the Morehouse subject, reader Jeffrey Reed, of Clark State Community College in Springfield, Ohio, writes: I noted with interest that you are trying to get Dr./Major David Morehouse, PhD to take the test for the million-dollar prize by demonstrating Scientific Remote Viewing.

I can suggest another possible applicant for the million-dollars. Dr. Courtney Brown of Emory University also believes in SRV. He has written a number of books on the subject and runs his own Farsight Institute to train others in this exciting and clearly scientific technique. I mention him, because I am a PhD graduate of Emory, and he caused me no end of embarrassment during graduate school. He published a book Cosmic Voyages where he claimed that he was in contact with aliens, participated in a Galactic Senate with Jesus and Buddha (who, by the way are aliens!) and claimed that Martians lived under Santa Fe Baldy in New Mexico. He was also one of the people who Remotely Viewed the spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet, which led to the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide. I complained vigorously to the university about his activities, which I felt brought ridicule on Emory, to no avail. Their only comment was, it's a free country and he can do anything he wants. As of today, he is still on the faculty at Emory.http://www.google.com/u/JREF?q=cache:cH_NTwEQu6kJ:www.randi.org/jr/082605charles.html+courtney+brown+-intitle:Forums+-intitle:Forum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8 User:Kazuba 04 Feb 2007

The above information is about someone who is not the subject of this biography page, and as such, it does not belong here.

Selective history is fine with me

The following information: [In September 1997, Radin was dismissed from his (two year) research job at UNLV less than three weeks after the publication of The Conscious Universe. Radin was also initially granted approval to teach ONE class at UNLV, but shortly after publication of The Conscious Universe the class he had planned to teach which was something like: "The History and Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena" was canceled without explanation. Radin was surprised by his dismissal, insisting that university pressure to leave had been tied to the attention he had received from the media. ref: Las Vegas Sun, September 16, 1997 "UNLV researcher baffled over his recent dismissal by Debra Bass,] has been deleted from the Dean Radin entry a few times. First because it was a smear, not NPOV. Another time his information was considered to have no historical value, does not belong in biography, and then, I can only guess, because it gives too much information. Whatever. User:Kazuba 06 Apr 2006

Selective history? Let's see, Kazuba selects a single newspaper article from 1997 out of at least 40 other articles that can be found in newspapers via Lexus/Nexus. He selected just that one article, which supports his admittedly biased view, when additional information could have also been extracted from other articles published from 1995 through 2006 in the Las Vegas Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, The Times and Sunday Times (London), The Austin American-Statesman, The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday (London), Financial Times, The Guardian (London), San Antonio Express-News, USA Today, The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), The Arizona Republic (Phoenix), Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, BusinessWorld, The Canberra Times, The Charlotte Observer, The Daily/Sunday Telegraph (London), The Globe and Mail (Canada), The Hartford Courant, The Leader-Post (Regina), Marin Independent Journal (Marin, CA), The New York Times, The Providence Journal-Bulletin, The Scotsman & Scotland on Sunday, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Star Phoenix (Saskatoon), Times Higher Education Supplement, The Vancouver Sun, and the New York Times Magazine. Somehow all these other sources didn't seem relevant, to say nothing of a few dozen peer-reviewed journal articles. Dean 04:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Local news and real people might be better

When I watched psychic? Dorothy Allison looking for the child killer in Atlanta, GA I suscribed to the Atlanta Constitution. There were details here that did not appear in other papers. When I watched psychic? Peter Hurkos search for the Ann Arbor student killer I talked with the detectives who worked directly with Hurkos, not others. The local news and people who are involved are closer to the action. If something happens in Vegas, from past experience, it seems wise to look at Vegas news. I was not smart enough to select the Vegas paper, it came about by doing research. It was on the net connected with the Radin entry. I did not search for something bias. That is not my way. UNLV did not exclude parapsychology, which Mr? Dradin used to say. It excluded Radin. Why? I wanted to know about Radin so I read his interviews, what he had to say, and looked at his writings. I have a hunch from what I observed Mr? Dradin in his responses was unfamilar with this material. That's odd if Mr? Dradin really is Dean Radin. Some say that some of the peer-review journals connected with Radin are fringe. I am only familar with a small amount of these, and yes they are fringe. It is the good old boys school. You pat my back and I'll pat yours. I have absolutely nothing against Dean Radin. He was only a (colorful) puzzle. So it goes. If Mr? Dradin needs to have the last word to make him happy take your best shot. That is not a personal comment. That is reality. I'm through. The puzzle is over. 07 Apr 2007 User:Kazuba

Precise citation for Josephson quote?

In January, 1998, Nobel Laureate physicist Brian Josephson wrote in the (British newspaper), the Guardian: "If asked to nominate the most significant scientific event of 1997, I would cite the publication of this book."

Where and in what context? NewsBank (UK newspaper archive) doesn't find any such quote for any date. Tearlach 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An answer to Dean Radin's complaint

Critical historians have observed that ever since ancient times autobiographies have been written by their authors, who have a tendency to make themselves look good to others by "fudging" the "facts" here and there. Some would say it is human nature.User:Kazuba 17 Apr 2007

Radin's criticisms of wikipedia aren't appropriate material for wikipedia. While he shouldn't be the article about himself, a number of options have been pointed out to him. From what I've seen he hasn't done any of them - at this point he hasn't even really made it clear what he considers inaccurate. --Minderbinder 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the insistence on mentioning Radin's mention of wikipedia in his blog? It's not notable, and it just makes wikipedia look self-absorbed - the site generally recommends not mentioning wikipedia in articles unless it's truly relevant. --Minderbinder 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strawman argument under 'criticism'

I have removed the discussion of Radin's spoonbending experience from the criticism section. It was sourced to skeptiko.com, which has pages entitled "Blindness of Debunkers and Radical Skeptics", decidedly not neutral or reliable as a source. More importantly, the statement was a strawman argument. It argued that spoonbending had convinced even Mr. Radin that psi might exist, when in fact Mr. Radin is a proponent, not a skeptic, of psi. By mis-stating the controversy in the criticism, it did harm to the integrity of the article. The remaining statement, and Mr. Radin's response, appear sufficiently illustrative. --Ante lan ^talk 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dean's complaints against Wikipedia policies

I have to say I agree. Wikipedia is not the best place for accuracy and quality information when it comes to articles of controversy. I just saw his entry for April 7th: [3]. Cool.--Zereshk 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Research and criticism

I was afraid when Kazuba started putting in more research that it would come to the present circumstance. What is happening is that the article is turning into a place to discuss parapsychology. That can't happen in a bio. First, we don't get too technical- it's about his life, not parapsychology. We mention his research, and keep it at a mere mention. We mention controversy, and keep it at a mere mention. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point at which to end the controversy. We must not drag the article into that, and so I'll be editing in such a way that the article can attain a stable form. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba is right when he says here that we have to cover research. The thing we have to be careful of is proportionality with the criticism section. When you look at the article on Joseph Banks Rhine, for example, you see that there are 1,486 words, of which 230 are criticism. That = about 15% criticism. If you look at this version of Radin's article, you see 1,231 words, of which 281 are criticism, 281/1230 = about 22% criticism. I'm very bad at math, so correct me if I'm wrong. The problem here is that the criticism section in that version of the article was just getting started. Indeed, we could have put in a book-length criticism section. What are we going to do? I think we can add another paragraph to what is there now, but it needs to be very carefully chosen indeed. Personally, I just don't know where to stop if we go beyond merely mentioning controversy. It will be a huge draw to those who wish to drop in and add criticism, and will balloon all out of proportion.

Other bios of scientists mentioned by Kazuba, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, don't even seem to have criticism to any extent.

I think Kazuba's main point on my talk page was that we have to include Radin's research. That I agree with. The problem we have to overcome here is that when we include research, we invite the criticism section to balloon with specific criticisms, which would make the article -even with the very limited research section we already have- far more criticism than biography. And where the criticisms are not specific, they are mere ad hominem attacks. Does anyone have any suggestions? ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bent spoon

According to Radin's page, the spoon pictured is the spoon he bent. But I can see how one might accidentally read that as being a different spoon. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Book review deleted

In this edit and with an edit comment stating: Rm cheerleading for the book. Good book, but that isn't the way an encyclopedia does things Martinphi deleted the following review of the book:

Author and investigative journalist [[Jon Rappoport]] who lectures extensively on empowerment through release of the individual's [[creativity|creative consciousness]] has recommended it as the best book which explores this [[state of consciousness]] from a scientific angle, labeling it as "a masterful exposition of the best scientific literature on the [[paranormal]] – an overview of 50-60-70 years [...] of that literature, picking the best studies, the most controlled, well done studies in various kinds of these so-called paranormal areas, and coming to the conclusion that on the basis of statistics and outcomes alone, there is absolutely no question that these abilities exist, and have been demonstrated time and time again.<ref>[[Jon Rappoport|Rappoport, Jon]] ''Infomonster'' (CD 2001, tape3A, 39 min.)</ref>

I question this decision, however I will leave it up to more editors to evaluate the merit for inclusion of this text. __meco 12:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I J Good paper

Super556 and 82.132.214.149, This little edit war is a bit inappropriate. Please discuss on the talk page. Remember the "D" in WP:BRD. I can find zero evidence that this journal article was in any way retracted or that any correction was issued. If it was, what part was corrected, and does it affect the part of article that still cites this article? 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Remnant of misplaced content

If anyone knows where this sentence segment belongs or what's missing could they fix this.

matched the location of "the radio telescope at Kitt Peak". This is despite there being several radio telescopes at Kitt Peak, such as the Very Long Baseline Array, but that telescope does not match the description as given. DeBakcsy contends that the ARO 12m Radio Telescope perhaps fits the best, but it was also different in several aspects to the described object. DeBakcsy further commented that, considering this is the best example out of 653 possible other tests made at Princeton, it is quite poor. Noting the spread of meta-analyses of the same studies (where the individual studies are weighted differently), have wildly varying odds returned (from trillions to one, to indistinguishable from chance), DeBakcsy argues that this undermines the reliance on meta-analysis in the work since they lack standardization.[28]. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Found. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That fragment seemed so out of context, I had to look at the source. I tried to repair the oddly placed grammar in that section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good. Better than what I added. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Reception of publications

We don't ref our content by suggesting the reader look for cites below. What we should do, which I know takes a lot of time, is reference the statement/content. I tried to bypass that time consuming process by summarizing and using the statement as an opening statement so that the reader then reads the reviews and has easy access to references.

The section is not about the books but about the reception to the books. If the section were dealing with the books we'd have summaries of the books too rather than just reviews.

We have two subsections on reviews of two books, then we list books as another subsection. This isn't consistent. I re titled the section to refer to the reviewed books then added the book list in another section of its own.

Once again, I have zero interest in fighting over this, but I would suggest that the way we deal with the reviews and then the books in terms of actions/subsections be pertinent to what we are actually writing about. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Sciences

This,"...whose legitimacy is questioned by Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch." should be sourced. I didn't see the judgement of INS on the Quack Watch page but certainly could have missed it. As well, I don't see that the opinion of one person is a legitimate source for Wikipedia content. If we were to comply with Wikipedia standards for reliable sources we would find multiple sources (with oversight) that consider the Institute of Noetic Sciences a questionable institution. I don't have any desire to fight any battles here; someone may want to find good RS sources for the statement. I won't remove it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, IONS is generally ignored. The only sources that discuss it in any depth are by people associated with it or like-minded cranks. Even the famous skeptical books only mention it in passing. Guy (help!) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

[4]. Seems reliable to me. Very useful list. jps (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the content I'm questioning the source. The source is not reliable per our own standards. If this institution, INS, is not legitimate I'm sure there are sources that say so, if not then it's legitimacy or not is the opinion of one person, Barrett, and the editors here. That doesn't comply with Wikipedia. If there is consensus to use this source, so be it, I don't really care, but at the very least, source it to Barrett. It's a very strong statement about an institution so we probably should source it somehow. Once we source it we no longer have to say, it's on such and such a list we just have to say it's questionable. The source, as per our referencing guidelines, backs up the statement. At the very least reference the statement we have now in place to QuackWatch and Barrett. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, it is cited by Government agencies around the world, and is probably the best known source for quack medical claims. Guy (help!) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This particular list is the work of one person and that doesn't jive with our policies- no oversight. Other parts of Quackwatch do sometimes have oversight. I'd reference the statement rather than not. Wikipedia has its own standards; citing Quackwatch in general doesn't discriminate between Barrett's opinions and those parts which have more oversight. But as I said I won't fight over this. There seems to be agreement to mention the list with out actually referencing the source. I personally thinks it weakens the article. I sourced the list. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it as good as Quantumuniversity.com? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)