User talk:Kazuba/Archive 1

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

The following fixed template has some more useful links

Welcome!

Hello, Kazuba/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

User pages

Firstly...

1) Yeah, having Kazuba in the main namespace is probably a bad idea. Your best bet is to have it deleted - as you're the only author, and it was a mistake, this is simple enough. Just add {{deletebecause|your reason here}} to the top of the page; for "your reason here", say it was created accidentally, or something. (I'd do it for you now, but I'm not an admin). This'll get picked up and wiped reasonably fast.

2) To link to a user's page, use User:Shimgray not Shimgray; user talk pages would be User talk:Shimgray. If you use pipes, then you can make this look neater; [[pagename|description]] creates a link to the page called pagename, but the link appears as "description". So, for example: Shimgray's talk page is [[User talk:Shimgray|Shimgray's talk page]].

3) To link to your own user page, with a timestamp, the trick is to sign your comments; WP:SIG explains it pretty well. Use four tildes at the end of what you've written, like so - ~~~~, and it adds a link to your user page and the timestamp. It's general practice to sign your name on talk pages and the like, since it's helpful if several people are discussing things to be able to see who said what.

Hope that's of some help... Shimgray 12:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User Pages: Redux

If you click on the "history" tab on User:Kazuba, you'll get a list of previous edits to that page. If you know what one you want to change the page back to, then click on the timestamp linked for that one - if I interpret the one you want correctly, it's [1], but try the process to make sure. This loads up the copy stored in the server history. Then, click "edit this page" at the top. This opens a normal edit window, but with a note saying:

WARNING: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed.

If you then just click save, this will revert the current page to that older version. Any changes you've made since then are removed, but they'll remain in the history.

This process is called "reverting", and a (probably more useful) description is at WP:RV. It's a very useful tool both for dealing with vandalism and for fixing your own mistakes...

With regards to your second question, Wikipedia:User page discusses what user pages are for, what should be on them, &c &c.

Hope that helps... Shimgray 15:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Glad to see your comment on the history, but it may be reverted because you do not seem to substantiate it much (hope it survives). Meantime, this English: "In reviewing the history of parapsychology from the present back to its birth from 19th century spiritism it becomes apparent that there was a preconceived belief in the existence of psychic phenomena by members of science that led to poor testing conditions, and loosening of controls, so.." is substandard, because the gerund "reviewing" has no subject (reviewer). Seems odd to require that, because it is "only a gerund" but if you'll check Strunk and White I think you'll agree. "It" can't be doing the reviewing. I suppose you could say: "In reviewing the history of parapsychology from the present back to its birth from 19th century spiritism one finds that that there was a preconceived belief in the existence of psychic phenomena by members of science that led to poor testing conditions, and loosening of controls, so..." or some other way - I do not want to reword your material - just a hint that you might want to. Carrionluggage 16:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 14:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Nevil Maskelyne

Hi Kazuba, we've crossed paths a few times. You seem unusually knowledgable about conjurers, especially those who try to explain Spiritualist phenomena. I wonder if you would consider doing the article on John Nevil Maskelyne? He followed around the Davenport Brothers and tried to expose them. You can count on me to add a few lines to the article, more or less from the Spiritualist perspective. Thanks! Anthon.Eff 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kazuba, for the reference on The Mediums and the Conjurors. Actually, I've taken a look at it in the library, and it has a lot of good features. But mostly I'm trying to find more sympathetic approaches to Spiritualism--I'm trying to understand how intelligent people like William Crookes could have chosen to enter into that belief system. The best book I've run across so far is Arthur Conan Doyle's History of Spiritualism. And by the way, I read your very good user page and followed your recommendation: I got a couple of the "World Fantasy Award Winning novels" from the library. Thanks for the advice--I'm a good ways into Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell — c'est tres amusant... Anthon.Eff 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology edits

I thought it must be something simple - you did appear to be trying to add most of the time rather than subtract - I can do as you suggest or you could try looking at WP:CITET for details. Either way I keep a watch on the page. Thanks for getting back :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I think you misread my edit on the Michael Shermer page. I removed "this is inconsistent with an authoritive author recognized for writing books on how and why people things." That's a clear statement of opinion; the supposed "inconsistancy" is a result of Shermer dealing with psychology rather than psychiatry in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things." Folie a deux cases are questions of medicine, and Mr. Shermer is not a doctor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Shermer&diff=prev&oldid=71409182

Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb, is that an edit of a page that consists of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folie à deux

Hi Kazuba,

I'm sure some drugs can induced shared hallucinations, but folie à deux is a psychiatric term that describes a type of mental illness. Hence, it would be inaccurate to describe drug effects in the folie à deux article.

- Vaughan 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazuba,

Drug-induced states can 'mimic' folie à deux but the term itself is a diagnosis of a mental illness and is only applied to such. Of course 'natural chemicals' in the brain are involved in the creation of folie à deux, but natural chemical are associated with everything in the brain (including reading this sentence). This doesn't make it a mental illness, however. I'm not a psychiatrist, but am a neuropsychologist whose main interest is the cognitive neuropsychiatry of delusions.

- Vaughan 07:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radin bent a spoon

Dean Radin claims to have bent a spoon with his mind. Go to Dean Radin follow trail to his blog page. It is in his book. User:Kazuba 7 Sept 2006

Yes, I am well aware of this. Radin does not expect this to be viewed as part of his wider work he offers it as a 'possibility', he tried to replicate the bend using force in an attempt to explain the event, which shows me that he is not certain the spoon was bent with his mind. He is simply describing an unusual 'personal' experience, which seems to have been a psi phenomenon. I personally do not know if such a thing is possible, but I would certainly not discount his entire position and body of work on this basis. He states on his blog that he was very sceptical of this area himself, and I don't think his claim has any relationship to the Uri Geller school. Radin would have been very aware of the implications of making this public, and would have known this would not help his position. - Solar 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

```Openly claiming he bent a spoon to the public in his book and on his blog page, and defending it, gives a strong indication Radin does not see this as peculiar. If I remember correctly, Radin recommends John Taylor's 1975 book,Superminds, or was it John Halsted's The Metal Benders, 1981, (Here, Superminds is a reference) both are classics in psychic hokum. (Yep, Uri and his spoons are there). This is also "very" peculiar. Radin's statement of just because we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project (2% over chance) at a cost of 20 million dollars, does not mean it doesn't work, is true, but also peculiar.

This evidence suggests Radin has reached the same irrational stage as a firebug filling out a job application admitting they like to start fires. This seems to happen quite frequently to those involved in parapsycholgy. One gets the impression because of unwelcomed scientific findings,(it was probably evolution and preliminary Biblical higher criticism in the 19th century) these scientists are trying to find something metaphysical: mysticism, miracle, immortality etc. within science to believe in so they can find comfort. This is not good science or good religion. I submit, like Sheldrake now defending telephone and e-mail telepathy Radin is, as they say on the street, out-to-lunch. It is unlikely he will be coming back without therapy. Like 16th century witch hunters and burners who never wanted to admit their mistakes; they had gone over the edge. So it goes, over and over and over, from one generation of psychic "scientists" to another. It is certainly nothing new to the historians of the conjuring community. User:Kazuba 8 Sept 2006

KazubaI'm going to make a guess here on a future statement about psi from Radin; if he hasn't said it already. Something like this: "Parapsycholgy is too important to be hampered by the old ways of experimental proof, and it is the abscence of proof that is perhaps the most damning". It is fine to propose speculative ideas (Quantum and psi), but if they cannot be tested they are not science. They don't even rise to the level of being wrong. User:Kazuba 8 SEpt 2006 Kazuba If Radin bent that spoon, as pictured, it was physically bent around a rod with a tool in his hands and he knows it. This seems to be Radin's only real contribution (physical) to psi. (It will keep the money coming in). 2% over chance just doesn't get it. Let's see Radin do it for Randi and others. I'm done. You can have the last word if it makes you happy. User:Kazuba 8 Sept 06

I am willing to have a fair and mature discussion here, but I will not engage with individuals who resort to unfounded accusations and character slurs. Please keep your prejudices about Radin to yourself. You have simply presented ad hominem arguments.

I did even consider not replying to you after belligerent statements like “You can have the last word if it makes you happy”, but I decided I would for the benefit of others who might read this discussion.

As I mentioned previously Radin is well aware of the problematic nature of making a claim about bending a spoon by psi. He states in his blog “I understand the doubts. I held the same skepticism, no matter how many times people showed me pieces of bent metal, or their insistence in how it became bent. Before you experience it, it's difficult to believe” [2]. This seems fair and reasonable comment. I am sure Radin would not expect this to be taken as proof or conclusive in any way; it is more personal and functions in his book on this level. He also goes on to comment on the Randi prize etc., "As for the prizes for such claims, master skeptic Ray Hyman agreed that no scientist would ever accept a single demonstration as evidence for psi. Such prizes might be good for skeptical PR, but they are not science and not what my colleagues and I do. I mention in the book that even should someone try to win the prize, it would realistically cost over a million dollars to produce sufficiently strong statistical evidence (of the type discussed in the book) under conditions that would satisfy any skeptic, and thus the prizes are literally not worth the effort."[3]

Many who support the existence of psi have some personal experience that ‘underlines’ the science. The problem with scientists or sceptic’s like Randi who say that an extra-sensory experience was ‘simply’ a hallucination is that this does not explain factual information that came through during the experience. Until the Randi’s of this world explain this to ‘normal’ people who have had accurate experiences people will continue to give psi the benefit of the doubt. I have heard all the arguments about poor human memory, wishful thinking and folie a deux, but this does not always hold up. It is all very well to get dismissive, but these experiences remain, and they have not been adequately explained, people like Radin and Brian Josephson are engaging with this in an open and fair way, which is very important for people like me.

It seems likely that you would not accept any positive evidence (except maybe from James Randi) and would argue that it was either a sloppy experiment or it was fraud. I have not seen the statement you claim Radin made saying "we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project", you would have to supply a reference for me to comment. You would also of course focus on the 2% statistic you often claim, but not for example the Remote Viewing examination by Edwin May that found odds against chance of 10 ²⁰ to 1, which is more than a billion billion to one. There is also the work by PEAR, which came to similar odds of 100,000 to 1, through to 100 billion to 1. We all have a POV informed by our experiences, and for me my experiences and the work of people like Radin lead me to the opinion that psi is a reality. I am not alone in this view, Nobel Prize winning physicist Brain Josephson, as I’m sure you are aware, states “the evidence for (psi’s) existence is overwhelming”.

Another problem is the tactics that sceptics use, which includes name-calling and slurs; this does not instil confidence that sceptics are fair, objective or even trustworthy. If I compare the likes of Randi, Penn & Teller or yourself to Brian Josephson or Dean Radin, neither is perfect but the later have a seriousness and integrity not present in the former.

I think that those with an interest in Psi on Wikipedia want a degree of fairness, not this McCarthyist approach that seems so prevalent. Sceptic’s need to understand that our position is valid, as is yours, and that although we may not agree, respect must be the basis of any discussion or process of learning. I hope you can understand my position, I understand how emotive this must be for someone who must feel a belief in this subject is both damaging and false. Best wishes. - Solar 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KazubaThis is not emotional for me. I am not Randi. Like I said Radin could bend his spoon for "others". I have a pretty good suspicion telepathy may exist, but not much beyond it. But I think it will take better parapsychologists than Radin and those seeking mysticism to find it. I can only share with you the knowledge I have gained from watching spirtism to parapsychology for the last 45 years and seeing minimal progress. I am only trying to be a critical historian in the matter, nothing more. Randi and I don't see things eye to eye. People who attend spoon bending parties, and recommend bad science books are not very reliable. If I angered you, I am sorry that was not my goal. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. It sounds like I did. Having a sense of hearing, seeing, tasting and such are mundane and not mystical. If telepathy exists I imagine it will be pretty much the same. I really don't care whether or not psi exists. I enjoy the history of the quest and the puzzle. I do not consider myself a skeptic. If you read my user page you know that. Sorry I added this (I gave you the last word) but I seem to be very misunderstood. If you have made mistakes in your life, as most of us have, you should know you cannot trust experience. There are many failed marriages. User:Kazuba 12 Sept 2006

KazubaThe 2% over chance can be found in the on-line paper, Utts and Josephson: The Paranormal: Evidence and Its Implications for Consciousness, 1996. This 2% over chance for Stargate is consistent with an earlier study in an article by Honorton and Ferrari which is noted. There has been duplication. I would imagine Dean Radin is aware of this since he was supposedly connected with Stargate. He likes to use the word "significant". I have not seen figures. Shared delusions and hallucinations may be a form of telepathy. Perhaps some day we will find out. It may be I expect too little, and you expect too much. User:Kazuba 12 Sept 2006.

``` I never claimed Radin said "We did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project." Just go back and look. It was "Just because [we did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project] does not mean it is not there." Your statement is taken out of context. There is a delicate difference. Watch out for those cognitive distortions. User:Kazuba 13 Sept 2006

Thanks for your comments, and don't worry you didn't offend or anger me. I'm glad to hear that you are at least open to the possibility of telepathy; is this due to the experience you mention on your user page? I have been drawn to my opinion by countless experiences and while I am well aware of the arguments related to the unreliability of memory this does not convince me. Many of my own experiences have been transcribed within minutes of the event, and with clear detail, not ambiguous emotional language. I understand that this will mean little to you as you will no doubt assume that there must be an error in my memory or too much wishful thinking etc., but this just doesn't stand up as a real explanation in my opinion. I understand your position on not being able to trust experience, but this is a little unrealistic, all of us trust our experiences, we may test and question them, as I do, but ultimately we have little else to go on except the work of people like Radin. I can't expect a fair evaluation from sceptics, I keep up to date with their arguments, but ultimately they have already come to a conclusion, a conclusion that does not adequately explain my own experience.

As far as your statement that you did not say Radin said "We did not find any evidence of remote viewing in the Stargate Project.", makes little difference as I made no comment on this, I just requested the source so I could see the context and what he was getting at. I don't think any "cognitive distortions" took place I think the point you were trying to illustrate was simply unclear, that's why I made no comment on it.

And finally the 2% does seem a little low, but there are yet other studies that have far better odds above chance (including odds of billions to 1 already mentioned). I believe that these abilities are like any other human abilities and tend to peak at times when emotion is high; this is the type of scenario most often described outside the lab. When I weigh everything up, my own experience, the many anecdotes of others, the research of many scientists, plus the opinions of people like Brian Josephson, I feel that at the very least my opinion is a valid one and should not warrant quite so many criticisms. Especially when most criticism repeats the same arguments that I have been asking myself for many years, as if I am ignorant or uninformed. This just gives me the impression that sceptics and those critical of psi are ignoring what is happening to so many people, writing it off as hallucination, which does not account for the accuracy of many of these experiences.

I think we should just agree to differ, I fully understand your position (and I'm glad you are not a dogmatic sceptic, just critically minded), Best wishes - Solar 12:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to James Randi

I have reverted your recent additions to the James Randi article. I question the relevance of adding the material you did: given the other material in the article, I think it is unnecessary. If you wish, you may suggest including the material through the talk page. In that case, you should also provide your sources. Michaelbusch 17:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Dean Radin

The Dean Radin rant about his casino research was irrelevant and tangential and poorly written, that's why it was removed. Not to "hide" anything.Sdaconsulting 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicians and parapsychology

Hi,

I haven't researched specific times when magicians were consulted. They have been at various times though, and many have been convinced of psychic results. One suspects that is rather incredible if magicians were so methodologically behind, say, the mediums of the 1800s. A Google search revealed Dr Peter Lamont, a Research Fellow at the Koestler Parapsychology Unit, University of Edinburgh. And Professor Richard Wiseman is also a magician (http://perseus.herts.ac.uk/uhinfo/university-of-hertfordshire-press/psychology/magic-in-theory.cfm). I believe I read his book on Parapsychology, and I don't recall that it debunked it. Ray Hyman has been a skeptic and active, I believe, in the 1990s, when he was forced to admit that some of the results were worthy of further study because there were no known normal means of explaining them and the results showed something that looked like "psi." Hyman is one of the very very few good skeptics, in that he is not hostile, does not resort to ad hominem arguments or to the tired old argument which is basically that because a lot of frauds have been exposed, all "psychic" results are fraud. Like I said somewhere in Wikipedia, parapsychology suffers from an enormous lack of credible skeptics. A perfect example is Randi, who has been so abrasive and so violated the scientific objective attitude that he is generally felt to be a possibly dishonest observer by those who have read a bit about his antics him. I delighted in his book Flim-Flam when I read it maybe 15 years ago, but therein he only debunks normal "psychic" frauds. What I'm saying is that there's no wonder that parapsychologists have complained or ignored skeptics, if this is the attitude they encounter.

Also, there's nothing wrong with calling someone a debunder, skeptic, or athiest. If it's true, it's not an insult, and might be a thing to be proud of. If you can debunk something, it should be debunked (in a scientific manner).

I may be completely wrong and paranoid, but I thought I detected a snide and superior undertone to your message, disguised as extreme open-mindedness. I don't really think this is true of you, but it is often the attitude I have encountered in the writings of skeptics. Conversely, in the writings of Parapsychologists, I have not encountered much that would cause me to intuitively suspect that they are out to prove their subject at the expense of the truth. From a psychological perspective, it seems like skeptics are striking back in fear and using all and any weapons in the fight, including scientifically dishonest arguments (while doing no research of their own), while parapsychologists are coming from a position that they truly believe is scientifically credible.

Again, this is only an impression.

I think the subject of magic and modern parapsychology needs further research, but I don't have time right now.

P.S. I don't know which of my many edits inspired you. Tell me and I'll review it.

Martinphi 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicians and parapsychology #2

Yes, it is very discouraging that parapsychology has not come further. Either their results are false, or it is a matter of not having a theory of physics which can account for it. We'd have come not much further with nuclear physics if we didn't have quantum mechanics. There are a lot of mega-parapsychological results which, when put together, make me just feel like it would be an awesomely strange thing if they weren't real. Like when Atheists have NDEs... How likely is it that we'd evolve to have an experience at death that 1) looks just like what an afterlife might look like and 2), was probably very unusual prior to medical intervention and 3) doesn't seem to have very much to do with religious doctrine? It seems evolutionarily expensive for the amount of use people have put it to.

Yes, the label "skeptic" isn't good, because basically it indicates an active disbelief rather than a scientific attitude.

Well, you're right, spiritualism hasn't exactly welcomed magicians!! Maybe not parapsychologists either, I'm not an historian.

I think you overestimate parapsychology: it's more like <1 to 15% over chance.

You're anything but terrible with words-- just kind of unusual to meet someone who would actually mean it the way you said it.

Isn't Radin himself an armature magician?

Whatever the case with replications, psi is probably subjective, and that doesn't work out well in a system which is supposed to be objective. Because of the supposed nature of the phenomenon, if you don't believe in it, it might not replicate nearly as easily. Sheep and goats, you know. One fruitful line of research would be to take research which is already done when experimenting with other issues, and analyze it for psi. That's been done some, like with galvanic skin responses being precognitive. This might be the only way to simulate a real objective experiment with psi, because the researcher wasn't looking for psi one way or another.

Cheers,

Martinphi 05:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest?

Parapsychology Revisted

Wow! Restoring and repairing Parapsychology is a HUGE task. But I'll take a shot at it for a while. It may take a lot of digging. User:Kazuba 23 Oct 2006

Yeah, it's a terribly huge job. I live in Monument Valley, and I can't get to a library (www.firetreeinn.com). So I had a really hard time sourcing even those parts I wrote.

Here's an idea: Both Charles Tart and Radin are probably doing classes about now. What if we emailed them, and asked for students to help as a class project? Or something else to get them involved, and maybe some skeptics? Well, you're our, um, critic, I guess (:

Here is a part from the parapsychology page I thought was particularly informative. But I can't get sources for everything in it, even though I know it's basically correct, so I can't put it back. Do you have any sources which could justify it? Is it worth it?

Parapsychologists examine a wide range of subjects which can be broadly categorized:

mind-to-mind phenomena, such as telepathy and folie à deux, and "vibes" such as the sense that one is being stared at.

Environment-to-mind influences such as hauntings, apparitions, precognition, retrocognition, psychometry xenoglossy, clairvoyance (also known as remote viewing), clairaudience, clairsentience, clairgustance and possession.

Mind-to-environment influences such as psychokinesis (often called telekinesis), psychic healing, faith healing, synchronicity and poltergeists.

Mind-to-mind and environment-to-mind phenomena are called extra sensory perception.

Also studied are such paranormal phenomena as morphic fields, mediumism, channeling, out-of-body experiences (also known as astral projections), near-death experiences, and reincarnation, (see this glossary of parapsychological terms).

Many see the term parapsychology as synonymous with paranormal. However, the paranormal also includes subjects considered to be outside the scope of parapsychology, including UFOs, cryptozoology, the Bermuda Triangle and many other non-psychical subjects.

The basic mechanisms and physical laws which govern parapsychological phenomena (if the paradigm of physical laws holds for these occurrences) are unknown to current science. However, the active agent by which mind influences matter and is able to receive ESP impressions has been named psi (Ψ, ψ).

The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism. It is regarded by critics as a pseudoscience, but proponents claim that parapsychology does not deal with the supernatural, because many of its research results are scientifically rigorous. A number of academic institutions now conduct research on the topic, employing laboratory methodologies and statistical techniques, such as meta-analysis. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for over 20 years.

Parapsychology is difficult to define precisely, due to the lack of theoretical understanding of the subject matter. This is such a prominent fact in the field that Dr. Dean Radin, a leading parapsychological researcher and President of the Parapsychological Association, defines parapsychology on his website merely as "the scientific and scholarly study of certain unusual events associated with human experience."

Martinphi 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wife said

Stay out of it! The new page will have to write itself. Perhaps this time adding the sources for the new material. Kazuba and wife like to have fun. User:Kazuba 25 Oct 2006

Oh well. She's got the right. I'm sorry about her cancer, my Dad died of it.

Have Fun!

Martinphi 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ty

Thank you for the sources. Lostcaesar 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ford

Kazuba, interesting page on Arthur Ford- thanks for telling me about it Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

I redid the fraud paragraph in parapsychology and on the Fraud page, in ligh of your comment that fraud is the preferred explanation. Can you look it over and see if it's OK? Do you have a source we could use? Re Rhine, and the things I took out on the parapsychology page, 1), I thought one of those quotes was really good, and I think I'll use it in one of the criticisms- unless you want to write the criticism? And 2) you sure are a darn good sport about things around here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in Parapsychology

I can give many more sources than these. But these are a good starting point and specific to PSI. People become very anxious when they begin to think their picture of reality may be distorted. To find comfort it is common for one to change beliefs rather than to keep suffering discomfort and anxiety. People prefer to be happy and content. User:Kazuba 6 JAN 2006

I have no doubt of that and generally would agree.

However, the sentence says "Also a critical review of the past history of this science plainly reveals parapsychologists who prefer to remain popular within their own circle, academia, the press, the general public and financial supporters do not want to appear incorrect or 'rock the boat' by being 'whistle blowers.'"

Without a source, I can imagine some readers (myself included) wondering: What critical review revealed "plainly" that in "this science" (as opposed to other sciences) there were parapsychologists (which ones?) that avoided "rocking the boat" by being "whistle blowers" because they wanted "to remain popular". The sentence as it is written says that there were some parapsychologists who suppressed information to remain popular and that a critical review plainly revealed this. I can imagine that even skeptics might want to refer to that critical review to support their argument and that believers might want to critique the review.

My placing the fact tag is a totally neutral effort to flush out the sentence. If there is such a critical review, I'd like readers to have the opportunity to take a look at it. If there isn't a review out there, it might be considered original research, or an assumption that such a review exists. In any case, such a sentence would need a source because it makes statements that (as worded) come from an external review. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Regarding Radin

To critize Radin is not smearing him. This a cognitive distortion. Things in the world are not black and white. Radin is the one who devulged the information about bending a spoon at a spoon party on his own web page. It would seem he wants others to know about it. There is no doubt Radin quoted Carl Sagan in a very unusual manner and readers of Sagan caught it. This not is something to sweep under the rug. Especially when Radin claims this is evidence of skeptics (Sagan) "changing their minds " and bring ups the names of Noble Laurates to give a greater authority to parapsychology.User:Kazuba 17 Jan 2007

Yea, but we’re shooting for a NPOV here. Just because I guys admits to attending a PK party and having a strange experience doesn’t make his private life fodder for Wiki page.

This guy’s a serious scientist, well trained, great credentials, publishes papers in peer-reviewed journals… all the right stuff. This Wiki page should focus on who he is, what books and papers he’s published and leave it at that. The ‘controversy’ over PSI research is a sideshow… an interesting one, but still a sideshow.

I recently interviewed Radin for the http://www.skeptiko.com Podcast… I asked him some tough questions (and some easy ones). On the whole, I was impressed. I haven’t posted the interview with Radin yet, but if you want to listed to the pre-released version here’s the link http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3

I'd be very interested to get your opinion.

BTW I love your Wiki page. I think we might have an interesting exchange on these issues since I probably share your disposition, if not your viewpoint. AD 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to your podcast. I am not much for listening to arguments. I am just not a listening person. Statements go by too quickly and that does not always give your curiousity a chance to construct (the proper?) questions. Sometimes this takes me years. I like to go over things very slowly. As for telepathy I don't deny it's existence. It may be there. Edison said he failed his way to success. Science is a patient game of failure and success. That is just the way it is. When and if someone creates the correct experiment for telepathy that is above the I do, or I do not believe it, I would imagine it will be embraced by the majority of the scientific community. They did with Einstein. From what I have observed that just has not yet happened. Magicians Martin Gardner and James Randi think it may happen, but this is unlikely. Personally, from looking back at the past, I think it has to do with how and who is doing the looking. Some critter discovered fire. The Wright brothers built bicycles. William Beaumont discovered how the stomache worked. Moses Findley was a child prodigy in ancient history. The first to escape from a milk can was Harry Houdini. I look forward to hearing your interview with Radin. I hope you really did your homework this time and your qustions are very specific. [User:Kazuba] 18 Jan 2007

Funny… I’m almost exactly the opposite. I find I pick up stuff in Podcast and books-on-tape (at least the ones read by the authors) that I sometimes miss in text.

Regarding telepathy, I think a lot of otherwise skeptical people think similarly. Almost all of us know someone whose claimed to have had a telepathic experience. I’ve never had one, but one of my Aunt’s swears she has. Of course, anecdotal evidence is unreliable, but it does provide a natural history of human experience and leaves most of us with the sense that, ‘something’s there’. So, when we hear a story of identical twins that sense their sibling’s pain from a car accident, we tend to believe it.

So that brings us to Radin… here’s my perspective. First off, the guy is smart. PhD U of I (the guys who invented the Net). Industry experience at Bell Labs, probably the finest research company in the world at the time, SRI, and on and on. Also, consider that these major research organizations where paying him to do psi research – it was his job!

Second, the guy is a scientist. He does his research, publishes it in peer-reviewed journals (some very highly regarded ones), presents at scholarly conferences. In other words, he’s accepted by the gate-keepers of academic science with very high regard. Now, it may be true that some respected scientist disagree with him, but that kinda stuff happens all the time in science.

Point is -- he’s earned a certain degree of respect.

Point is – the only reason his Wiki page gets savaged is because his chosen area of research.

I was listening to an interview with Leonard Susskind, the guy who came up with String Theory, the other day. Seems like String Theorist have come under a lot of fire lately for not producing verifiable results in the 20 years the theory has been around. As I’m listing to this, I’m thinking, ‘this sounds like the psi debate’. Why the heck should Radin be heckled just because psi research is ‘controversial’ to some people?

Here’s my suggestion. I found this article on Radin’s research from Psychology Today http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000701-000034.html. I have quibbles with some of the information in it, but on the whole, it does a good job of explaining the state of the research in this area. I think Radin’s ‘Controversy and Criticism’ section should point to something like this and be done with it. A lot of that other stuff is disrespectful and unfair.

BTW I glad you checked out the Podcast. I hope you made it to the Radin interview that hasn’t been officially posted to the Podcast website. It’s at: http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3. In this interview Radin talks about the whole spoon bending thing, and addresses the ‘baseline’ criticism alluded to in the Psy Today article, and in some of Ray Hyman’s critiques. I think you’d enjoy it… well maybe if you were stuck in traffic with nothing else to do.AD 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got to listen

Finally got to listen to the Radin interview. My computer whiz son helped me out. I enjoyed it.

Kazuba – you gotta listen to the interview again because he said almost the exact opposite, see below…

Radin is smart, and smart enough to see his flaws. I think he just about agreed with every thing Hyman said. Here's what I got: Seldom are Radin's experiments replicated by himself. He says it has to do with funding, and he gets bored.

He said he’s replicated the presentiment experiment three times and that each time took more than a year and many thousands of dollars.

Very few other people try to replicate his experiments. The largest number he gave was half a dozen.

He said that at least 6 other experimenters have replicated his work and given how small the filed is and the amount of time and effort required to properly conduct and experiment that’s quite a few.

Most of the time Radin computes his statistics different ways, as he said, to get the best results. Is he after accuracy or after statistics that benefit his experiments? He is not very clear.

Wait a minute, he points out that in the intervening 1-2 years between experiments he developed improved means to measure the variation from the base. This sounds totally reasonable. Most importantly, he points out that he conducted a meta-analysis including all the experiments and applied one statistical measure to all, and that this also produced statistically significant results. Please read that last sentence over a couple times and let it sink in – all the data – all three experiments – same statistical measure – statistically significant results!

Radin claims he bent a spoon. It will not take him over a million dollars to bend a spoon in front of Randi, regardless of his hi tech research. Certainly the story of the bent spoon reduces his credibility and stands out. I went with this woman. Which woman? What are the names of others at this spoon bending party to verify this story? Obviously he doesn't care. He expects you to believe him. He has a photo of a bent spoon.

I understand why you’re uncomfortable with the spoon bending. It’s so far outside my personal experience that it’s hard to get a handle on. At the same time, I respect his public-vs-private argument. Here’s a guy who had this experience. He’s not calling it research, or isisting that anyone believe him. He just saying, “don’t make me deny my experience to keep my job”. I can respect that.

Things like negative PSI and his work at SRI with Remote viewing also hurt his credibility. The Stargate project cost the US Goverment 20 million dollars. Why didn't it work? He says it was applied the wrong way. Couldn't the correct way be shown in ten years? Until Radin's experiments, not jumping from one to another, are replicated hundreds of times and get the same results-with the same method of statistics used by all parties will he be taken seriously.

That’s may be you opinion, and that’s fine. My whole point is – that should not be the position of his WP page. His WP page should be an encyclopedic reference to his work. If you don’t like his research topics, or his methods take it up with the folks that publish his papers. Skeptics works best when they are uncovering fraud and deception not splitting scientific hairs.AD 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Loved the way he hedged around J.Z. Knight and said nothing about whether or not she may be using deception or be out in space. If his gut feeling tells him she's on the level, well....User:Kazuba 22 Jan 2007

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different

You and I have a very different ideas about what constitutes as investigative research, evidence and critical history. So it goes. We are very different. Now let's see what happens to this stuff and how long it will stand the test of time. Let's look in on it from time to time and amuse ourselves. User:Kazuba 26 Jan 2006

Yea, I’m surprised at the differences, but then I’m just getting introduced to the ‘skeptical community’. I completed an interview with Michael Shermer last week for Skeptiko. Very interesting and likeable guy. AD 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV an illusion?

I do NOT define myself as a skeptic, but rather a genuinely curious, amateur historian, puzzler and observer of social psychology. Genuine curiousity, investigative research, interpretation of the evidence, and disclosure is the process of the critical historian. That this material will result in neutrality is not known until summation. Though it may be be politically correct is there really such an animal as neutral history? There are no errors, injustice, irrationality, villians, horror, reason, heroes, goodness, truth, lies, good or evil, not to mention unconscious selectivity and preference, in the real world? The goal of a critical historian is objectivity. User:Kazuba 1 Feb 2007

Wasn’t trying to label you. Just remember your remark about James Randi and assumed you were inclined to lean in this direction. Are you an atheist? AD 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

I don't think so. I just think the picture of the Divine in Biblical literature ( I am on more familiar ground with Biblical literature and the ancient world. Grew up that way.) is very out dated and a product of its time. I think all pictures of the Divine are products of different cultures and times and change. And will continue to do so as long as humanity survives. I certainly do not believe in the supernatural. See my screwy user page. User:Kazuba and its internal links.

Amen... well, at least right up there until the end. I'm not willing to completely dismiss the supernatural. Not sure it exists, but not as sure as you that it doesn’t. AD 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Randi and I, though we have never met, go back a long way. 30 years? We certainly do not see eye to eye. Just like the master magicians before him, I do not think he will ever come across someone with a supernatural or psychic power. (Of course I and he could be wrong, but I doubt it. We have the past on our side.) Randi is not the easiest guy to get a long with. He has many enemies. He used to wear a bullet proof vest. Randi is a master magician and deeply respected by the old guard of the magic world. And trust me, these old magicians are VERY wise. Damn, at 65, now I'm an old magician. Martin Gardner, now 92, is Merlin incarnate. He was my teacher. Martin, Rudolf Bultmann,the study of history, my wife, my grand parents, clergy, friends and many of the stories I have read taught me a lot about the importance of faith in the Divine. User:Kazuba 1 Feb 2007

Randi’s contributions are significant and many of them need to be lauded. He’s also has become a victim of his own success. He’s locked into a position that leaves limits genuine inquiry and can wind up sounding as dogmatic as the folks he debunks. AD 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward

I have always thought that Edward was hot reading. But I only saw 2 shows, and we are too far in the wilderness to get TV, so I can't go watch now. I noticed that he always -in the shows I watched- uses cases which have appeared in the paper. And, he chooses his audience. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud and skeptics

Hi, I'm wondering why you haven't been editing the The skeptical view of parapsychology and Fraud in parapsychology articles? They seem ideally suited to your expertise and inclinations. You know the field, you are not going to insert innacurate data, and you would have a pretty free hand on these articles. They would have to present "just the facts," that is, no WP:WTA etc., but you could put all the stuff that gets edited down when you put it in other articles. Though, I must say, it might get edited for length, since you are so interested in the psychology of people! (: Yeah, it would get edited, but still, a lot of it would stick. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a skeptic

You say that:

"I think human error through over-enthusiasm, experimenter effect, the belief in unsubstiated stories, a misinterpretation of mundane experiences, preconception, fringe experiments, a desire for human transcendence, and duality, are the biggest culprits for the poor success of parapsychology."

Does this mean "poor success" that the results would better be able show psi if these human flaws didn't exist? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get it together

Yes, I see your point. Especially that if there is anything to psi, it is as if the other sciences need to grow around it, till the space occupied by psi shows up as a hole in thier explanations. Another 50 or 100 years. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, you may be right about parapsychology needing to get its shit together, I just don't know that much about it. I suppose I've mainly heard about the better parts, but I'm a layman. They look like extraordinary evidence to me, and if even Hyman can't explain them away and is reduced to saying that, well, without a theory we can't say it's psi... In other words, reduced to epistemology, rather than actually questioning whether the experiments are due to chance or were done right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Randi interview with the right questions

I think you are wrong about Randi when it comes to the paranormal. I think he still has the capability to admit he is wrong. He has done this in the past. A magician investigator close to Randi recently stated Randi is willing to change his mind and that he remains flexible and that he would like to find evidence of PSI. He would make big money on this discovery. Randi is not against the inquiries of parapsychology. He is against hokum in parapsychology. Be fair and interview him too. Ask him; how he can recognize hokum? Ask him; how can you be so sure this reputable scientist's reports are nonsense when they appear in many journals? How can the uninformed layman do the same? Ask him the big one. Couldn't there possibly be evidence NOW that PSI exists with certainty on a definite small level above chance and you are in denial, dogmatic and being unfair? It seems that is what you want to know. Isn't it? Ask him.User:Kazuba 2 Feb 2007

I hope I get the chance to interview him. I did have an interview with Michael Shermer last week (not yet up on the Skpetiko site). He’s very likeable and smart.

I have noticed a softening in Rani/Shermer’s position regarding psi, but if you listen to the whole of what they say (I’ve listened to a lot of their interviews) they can still sound quite dogmatic. AD 13:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

These figures simply reflect the odds against the possibility that the results could be due to chance. So it is not really a case of 'accurate odds against chance' as this would be expected to change. It would seem normal to me to expect fluctuations in the level of effect over many studies when dealing with human psychology and different types of trial and even different approaches to the statistical evidence. It is also important that any meta-analysis has been funnel plotted. The fact the effect is large enough to eliminate chance as a likely explanation is the important factor in my view. - Solar 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Religion Bit

It was interesting you asked if I was an atheist. I don't think religion has anything to do with telepathy. (I suspect this is the ONLY form of PSI that exists, nothing else, sorry. ) If telepathy exists I suspect it is connected to the emotions, uncontrollable and just as ordinary as dreaming, being startled or getting a headach. It is no big deal. Certainly nothing controversial that will change the science books as Radin seems to think. User:Kazuba 07 Feb 2007

I have interviews with two of the editors of Psi Wars coming up on Skeptiko. I'm going to ask. AD 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on my talk page

Now that I've calmed down a bit, I'll ask you kindly to moderate your tone in your edits to me - especially on my own talk page. I find your comments to be totally insulting and demeaning - which is a complete breach of WP:CIV and crosses over into WP:NPA. I strongly suggest you follow the policy outlined in WP:NPA and comment on the content and not the contributor.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make it clearer, in your post, [4], I consider these to be uncivil or personal attack comments:

“Shame on you.” (You are far from being alone.)You have forgotten that the goal of a historian is to be objective. You need to do much more research before you write."
”Don't you ever compare materials? See if there may be different versions? Try to discover what version makes the most sense from the data?”
”Do more reading and studying before writing.“
”You are in too much of a rush. “

Then there’s the uncivil remark in the edit summary: [5]

“Totally incorrect and misleading. Very poorly researched.”

Two editors have communicated to you their belief that your comments were an attack. Generally I totally ignore any further input from editors that attack anyone, and only focus on the attack itself until it is resolved. Since Martin jumped in to support you, I didn't fully follow that general rule of mine in this particular circumstance. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post on Martin's talk page:

Please don't "cherry pick" from your comments and then ask for a break. Instead, please try to understand that even in your example above, the second part of your quote ("Very poorly researched.") is a WP:CIV#Examples petty violation (second bullet point) - not to mention your comments in the post you left on my talk page. I'm willing to move forward and drop the issue if you recognize what I'm complaining about and merely apologize. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps, you have a typo in your signature on that post. Do you use four tildes (~~~~) to sign?

Dreadlocke ☥ 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to stop making comments like this: "There is too much paranoia. You guys are too close to this stuff. It owns you. You are seeing it as personal. To criticize brings out emotional out bursts", that's just ading fuel to the fire, while you continue to comment (criticize, really!) on the contributor and not the content. Calling us paranoid, saying it "owns us", accusing us of "emotional outbursts", it's just not the way to go, according to WP:CIV or WP:NPA - it's insulting! Dreadlocke ☥ 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Please don't post any further comments on my talk page, unless it's an apology for your uncivil remarks. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...hmmm...now this is getting weird. Very weird. Very, very, very weird. Bizarre in fact. It almost looks, just a tiny, tiny, little-entsy-weenie bit that you are apologizing with strange, but true humor. Hmm. Ok. I'll accept that....'specially with Martin vouching for you. If I'm correct, thank you. If I'm not...well...hmph and [6] :) . Dreadlocke ☥ 03:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediumship

Kazuba, dude, don't be mean. People on here are doing the best they can. Just because you're an historian and know how it's supposed to be done, doesn't mean you have to blast other less experienced people. Why don't you try and help out with the material instead of pouring contempt on the best-trys of others? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., OK, maybe it's not my place to respond here, but I saw your attack, and felt it needed responding to.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadlocke

No, I don't think that was over-reaction. Read your comment, here:

Doing research is more than reading and copying single articles. Shame on you. (You are far from being alone.)You have forgotten that the goal of a historian is to be objective. You need to do much more research before you write. The 1908 stuff on Eusapia Palladino was dead wrong. She blew the investigators away. Don't you ever compare materials? See if there may be different versions? Try to discover what version makes the most sense from the data? There was no special code set up between Houdini and his wife. Bess had no idea what Houdini's message from beyond would be. Arthur Ford fooled her while she was down. Good too! Do more reading and studying before writing. I have a litle about the messages at Arthur Ford. There is much more. You are in too much of a rush. You are missing out on some real good stuff that is worth learning before it is forgotten and disappears. New books take precedence over old books. This can be a big error. Certainly this is true when it comes to PSI. User:Kazuba 13 Feb 2007

The parts: Shame on you and Don't you ever compare materials? especially when combined with the rest, are personal attacks, at least within the context of civility on Wikipedia. I know there is a lot of difference between people in terms of how hard a hit they consider rough treatment, but I think most or nearly all people, in this context, would consider this an attack.

Again, why not just help out? Don't you realize how much effort someone put into that?

And, I'm sure you are right about what you are saying, technically. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work

Yes, I've been amazed how different people are in how rough they speak to others. I'm a lot rougher than some. I know you as a nice guy, and very knowledgable. Say something nice to Dreadlocke, he'd like to make up.

Mediumship II

So can you fix the Houdini reference? Skeptical editors were insistent on keeping that in, and it's verifiable even if not true, I believe. But we can refute it with other reliable sources, any come to mind?

And yes, the information on "Society for Psychical Research" and Pallidino was lifted directly from the source - one reason is because I liked the archaic english style of the quote, and number two because I'm, well....basically lazy. There, I said it. I wanted to reference the SPR for fraud investigations, so it would be nice to have something there about it. What do you think? Dreadlocke ☥ 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SPR info, I'll read it when I get the chance! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radin

I took that out about the casino mostly because it said that it -if I remember- something like it was "probably the most controversial," research, and also because I thought it is not notable at all. It isn't even an important part of his books, and far from the only research he's done. I just though it was, for the reader, a useless distraction. Aside from that, I hardly changed anything. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Radin page is a biography, not the place to discuss parapsychology. That's why it is, yes, very very highly selective. Now if the whole thing were expanded to discuss his research career and published papers, more about his books, etc. etc., then the casino thing might be notable. Biographies are different from regular articles, but this isn't my area.

But, there is the chance you meant that humorously, so yeah, they call that the file drawer problem (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know!

Thank you, I'm glad you said something! I now have an even fuller understanding and need to work on Cognitive restructuring. Excellent! Dreadlocke ☥ 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Kazuba, your user page doesn't look like an addition of ESP- I think maybe you didn't give me a link to the sandbox page you are working on. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESP

If it is really just your user page, I'll look closer at it. Sorry you're not friends with the computer )= A computer is just like a car- constricting, but it gets you there fast. Later, Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can create a sandbox for you, if you like! It's really just a user subpage, and it would help in separating out the drafts from your user info. It's really simple. Check out the instructions here: Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-analysis

Hi Kazuba,

I wish I knew enough to write an explanation of meta-analysis. I have no idea about it. I just trust to the people involved not to lie to me, because I think they have too many people looking over their shoulders to do so. At least, I hope. If you know enough to write it, I'd be glad to help edit it (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Radin

I haven't contributed to the Dean Radin article for a couple of months now but I thought I would just let you know that the guy you have been conversing with on the article talk page is indeed most definately Dean Radin himself. He has just posted on his blog about editing his own biography and is criticising Wikipedia. To be fair, Dean is by no means the first person to try to edit his own biography and to have criticised Wikipedia's percieved faults. You can read his blog entry here [7].--217.38.66.40 05:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just seen your response on my talk page, I think you may possibly have me confused with another contributer, I don't have much interest in magic (although I may have been put off magic when young by this guy). I was contributing to the Radin article a few months back, but my IP changed (something to do with AOL), although my later posts on the talk page are with this IP. With regard to Radin, I do think some of the language used on the article a few months back seemed slanted, but the article seems a great deal more neutral now. If he believes there are inaccuracies or misrepresentations in his bio then he has the right to take issue, but if he is complaining about the inclusion of criticism, then that is not justified provided the criticism is serious and well sourced. In fact, the article looks pretty fair to me at present, although it could still do with some more info on Radin's research. This is an awkward situation however, I believe there is some kind of unwritten rule on here that people may not edit their own biographies, so Radin shouldn't really be doing anything to his bio other than posting on the talk page, although as I pointed out, others have complained about their bios on here and have edited them. I actually take the view that he could be a useful contributor on other paranormal/parapsychology articles, after all he should have considerable knowledge of the field, but it seems as though he dosen't rate the Wiki project too highly! In any case, I'll keep an eye on the Radin page and see what occurs. In the meantime, I hope to get hold of some of his books and read a little more about him. 217.38.66.40 00:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having had another look at the article, there seems to be a distinct lack of criticism now. It's gone too far in the other direction. Even the statement along the lines of "Radin has been criticised by skeptics who regard parapsychology as a pseudoscience" is dubious, it's not a criticism of Radin's work specifically (anyone who feels that parasychology is pseudoscientific on principle would obviously not take Radin seriously) and it could be read as suggesting that all skeptics regard parapsychology as fundamentally a pseudoscience, and that is not the case. The article could do with more criticism of Radin's research specifically. 217.38.66.40 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the supernatural beat this?

The more I learn, the more I observe, the natural is so bizarre there may not be room for the supernatural. Keith Richards, the 63-year-old Rolling Stone guitarist who has looked like he's on death's door for a decade, admitted in a bizarre interview in the British music magazine NME, 03 Apr 2007, that he snorted his father's ashes mixed with cocaine. "He was cremated, and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little blow. My dad wouldn't have cared...It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive." Aww, It was only a joke.User:Kazuba 04 Apr 2007 Check out my Radin stuff on my user page.

Sorry for being so slow to respond. I've been busy with family and Skeptiko.com. BTW published interviews with two guys you'd agree with, Dr. James Alcock and Richard Wiseman (4/17). AD 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcock Interview

I just listened to your interview. You never spoke to Alcock about Folie a deux,incapacitating agent, BZ, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate,Ayahuasca and the possiblity of telepathy. Perhaps this a stupid question but why not? You guys just rambled on and on. It was the same old same old. Didn't it ever occur to you I might know what I'm talking about? Whatever.... User:Kazuba 20 Apr 2007

The topics you mentioned are interesting, but I don’t know much about them. I’m more interested in trying to move toward the replication of Sheldrake’s experiments with dogs that know when their owners are coming home (as discussed in the Wiseman interview http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=18), and Schwartz’s experiments with mediums. If you’ve looked into either of these I’d sure like to hear your take.

You can find some background on this experiment here: http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/animals/comment.html Wiseman makes his case here: http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/shel.html

Schwartz’s latest is here: http://veritas.arizona.edu/papers/Beischel%20EXPLORE%202007%20vol%203.pdf AD 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Trails

...and best wishes. AD 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Wand Conspiracy?

I did not say that the wand picture was a conspiracy, I said that the only pages I could find stuff about the wand pic on thought that the CHURCH was a conspiracy. I did do research, and turned up no credible results. As for the citations - thank you for providing those. I thought they were referring to the Shepherd of Hermas tidbit.

So please, read what I actually posted before implying that I'm being a crackpot.KrytenKoro 21:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, then. I thought you were saying that I thought there was some conspiracy, I was wrong. Thanks!KrytenKoro 05:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedy

A remedy has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Kazuba_2 which affects you. Please make any response or comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious message

Please do not place spurious messages in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsycholgy and psychology

Hi Kazuba,

Thanks for the information. I'm just wondering, do you have a copy of the NYT article on your computer which you could send me in an e-mail? I'd love to read it. I mean the Magician's Effort to Foil Scientists Raises Questions by William J. Broad, New York Times, 15 Feb, 1983. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the article. I've seen it but I haven't read it yet, because I already know the basic thing I need to know: the parapsychologists were easy to fool. But I'll put it further up on my reading list.

I have a question for you: does anyone know how D. D. Home did the stuff he did? Can modern conjurors do it under the same conditions? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kazuba. Yes, history is a hard subject, where you have to live with the unknown. I'll bear that in mind whenever I form my opinions (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radin's research

Hi Kazuba, I responded here because I thought it was important for other people as well. See what you think. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuba, everything you say is true, but Radin's biography just isn't the place for that kind of discussion. I tried to do a Controversy article for parapsychology -where all of this would have fit in one way or another- and that didn't work either. That article is now deleted. I agree that there is room for another short paragraph of criticism in the current article, but I don't know how to choose it. We just can't do details in a short bio. If you want to expand the research section so that the criticism stays only about 1/4 to 1/3 the size, I think we could do that.

You have to follow the link to the page which was 22% (former version).

I like what you've been doing with the research. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon

According to the page (I mean, Radin's web page here, the spoor that is pictured is the spoon he bent. That's why I reverted your change. No? ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(-=

Archive?

Your talk page is getting pretty long. Would you like me to archive it for you? ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remote viewing

If you want to talk about military remote viewers going into the private sector, just cite specific examples of individuals who started in the military and went into private business--the mere fact that a company makes a broad claim that their techniques are adapted from the military isn't really sufficient, and there's no need to give quotes from advertising pitches. Hypnosifl 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Gate Archives

I just discovered your message on my user page about the Star Gate Archives, but haven't yet learned how to respond from there, so am answering here. There are several ways to get the declassified Star Gate remote viewing program archives. One is from the CIA itself. Last I heard, they were charging $140 for the set of CDs. Another is through my website. I used to sell them for $105.50, which included a guide booklet to help make sense of them. But one of my students came up with a much better "interactive" version (she made an index of the full document titles, and made them clickable so as to take you straight to the actual document). So I stopped selling them and just have a link through my webpage to hers. I'm not sure how much she charges, but think it's probably more than the price I had on them (she put many hours time into making them searchable, so the increased cost is probably justified). You can also find many (though far from all) of the SG archive documents for free posted on remoteviewed.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsmith (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radin

Remember, there is no spoon. ;) Dreadstar † 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have quite the bit of time on your hands

your page is huge

so much intrests you were alot alike except i only put short bursts of info on my page cmon and see sometime ;) Sladeakakevin (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

srry that she is sick

but my girlfriend dumped me for my best friend who isnt any more the slut she gets on my nervs but anyway im more af a gameing type i dont play runescape anymore i play lord of the rings bfme2 and bfmet rise of the witch king online now and stick arena mostly the lotr games tho im michalejcaboose on rise of the witch king lopez the heavy on bfme2 and thunderclan..leader on stick so if u ever see me just say its u Sladeakakevin 17:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im only a freshman

you were rite not married yet but i really dont care if i do or not ive yet to find the one but im getting there there is nothing to do once ive done all my bcis class assignments except play on wikipedia :/ i even made my im blue video for my ex gf look at some of them sometime they are real neatSladeakakevin 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)§[reply]

Your Remote Viewing Questions

Once again, I can't figure out how to respond to questions you posted on my personal talk page...or maybe this is the way it's supposed to work? I'm in the middle of a crunch to grade end-of-term tests and simultaneously get the first chapter of my dissertation in, so have little time for Wikipedia (or much else). Here's the easiest way to do it: The answers to most (maybe all) the questions you asked -- plus many more -- are in my book, Reading the Enemy's Mind. This is not a bid for you to buy it -- I don't care if you buy it, borrow it, or check it out of the library. I think you'll find its approach somewhat different than Joe McMoneagle's books. As far as the plethora of interesing quotes one can find in Joe's books, Joe is a great remote viewer. But he's not a scholar and doesn't claim to be. In any case, not my job to either police or explain what he says. You may find interesting the review I wrote of his "Stargate Chronicles" (here: http://www.rviewer.com/main/breviews.html ) Regards, Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Eval of RV - a suggestion?

With respect, there seems little point (IMHO) in tinkering with duplicate adjustments to the phraseology in the AIR Evaluation section of remote viewing, when the whole section is full of repetition and circular references. This part could clearly do with a decent rewrite. I don't have a good handle on the whole AIR eval topic, but maybe you do? jxm (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Remote Viewing

Template:Remote Viewing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Temperal^{talk and matrix?} 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durant quote

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:atheism regarding the Durant quote you have added to the article. The quote introduces a topic not really covered in that paragraph nor that section. Sticking it on at the end of the article is not a balanced presentation. Please discuss at Talk:Atheism. --JimWae (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Your Query

I'm having a bit of trouble with what seems to be a taunting tone in your cross-examination of me. Just FYI I would have been happy to answer even if you manifested less of a seeming pit-bull attitude. Your questions in italics...

Was the Legion of Merit awarded to Joe for Vietnam?

As military regs stipulate for most retirement awards, the LoM was awarded for the last ten years of service -- which for Joe included 5 years of work in SIGINT, and 5 years in the RV program. This was after Vietnam and did not include his time there. I presume he earned other awards for that.

In your book you show one sketch that is supposed to be connected to the USS Stark and write there are more. How many more?

The Stark session was around 30pp long, including writing and sketching.

What do they look like?

Ships, parts of ships, map-like diagrams, etc.

Why aren't they all in your book? Don't give me the excuse there was no space... I've heard that one before.

Can't help it if you don't believe it. You can argue with my editor. My mss was originally well over 800 pages. There wasn't enough room for all that, either.

I am having some trouble discovering what exactly was the target information given to McMoneagle for the Typhoon prediction.

That's because none of that material was available until the CIA released it to the public ca. 2004, and it took awhile after that to find it in 90,000 pages of documents, especially given the crummy index they provided.

So far I have not found it SPELLED OUT. Do you know what was the EXACT content and what wasn't? and HOW? memory?

The tasking would be tough to spell out since it was numbers -- geographical coordinates of the specific structure in question. I know that from verbal report from the principles involved (McMoneagle and Atwater, confirmed by others in the unit, and further confirmed by the actual documents).

How come there are no transcripts or records of various written impressions as the viewing is going on?

Why do you assume that are "no transcripts or records"? There are thousands of them.

Didn't anyone make a personal copy? No one kept notes, or a personal journal?

No one was particularly interested in going to jail. Military personnel in highly classified settings don't make notes or copies of documents for personal use. But that is irrelevant in any case, since authentic copies of the originals are now available.

Have you personally ever tested Ingo Swann with objects in untouched closed boxes? And if not why?

Two reasons: Ingo would have been offended (try telling your doctor you want to watch him do an emergency appendectomy before letting him operate on you). More importantly, I both Ķsaw some of his own coordinate remote viewing work, and also saw the successes I and my colleagues had using the methods he taught us. I never felt a need to see if he could describe some bauble hidden in a cardboard box.

What's with all this Ingo Swann E.T and UFO stuff?

You'll have to ask him. I try to stay away from the more, um, "unusual" UFO material.

Are former viewers loosing there minds?

Some of them.

Or just trying to make a credulous buck?

Some of them.

Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Response

Sorry for the delay getting back. I've been out of pocket with a bunch of projects (more are pending). Let me say up front that I am fairly pleased with your edit of the Star Gate entry. While there are a number of places that could bear some correcting, and others where (of course) we would differ on intepretation, overall it is much more even-handed ("neutral") than I would have expected. Perhaps I have misjudged you, LOL!

In response to your latest questions: Regarding editing out of the Stark transcript. First, the transcript wasn't available by the time the MSS had to be submitted (well, it was -- I had a copy; but I couldn't be sure it was among the stuff that had been declassified). But by the time the book was being finished and it was time for the pictures, I had the archives and had found the typescript of the Stark session among the other docs. But I had a limited number of images that I was permitted to include (it was -- I think -- a 16-page photo insert, and there was a trade-off between size and number of images, so I had to make some tough judgment calls as to what to fit in). But even if there had been space, the editor's policy was that RTEM was not meant to be a detailed documentation of the remote viewing evidence. The worry was the book would then be too dry for the mass market and would hit the market with a barely-noticed thud.

Concerning Joe's statistics -- any attempt at gauging accuracy will be no more than a guestimate. I think Joe is underestimating his degree of success, but perhaps he just wants to be conservative. But that can only be my opinion, rather than established fact, since for too many of the operational sessions we got no feedback from the customer. The best one could do would be to go through all the sessions for which target ground-truth is known, and compare results with the actual state-of-affairs on the ground at the time of the viewing. You could then draw an accuracy rating from just the known targets, and then extrapolate for the ones with unknown results. However, even that level of work would take months, if not years, and I doubt anyone has had the gumption, resources, or free time to do it. (There's also the issue of deciding what counts as a "direct hit," and so on. The terminology is pretty much at the mercy of the individual who is doing the estimating.)

As far as whether Joe's accuracy claims would be considered typical for other experienced viewers (obviously stats would vary dramatically for novices and viewers who had not cultivated their skills as rigorously) -- I can't say how that would compare, for the reasons stated above. However, though when Joe is wrong on a session he can be really really wrong, when he is right it can be pretty breathtaking. My (relatively informed) guess is that very few viewers could consistently compete with him (though occasionally, or even fairly often there are a few who might turn out sessions as good as his.)

As far as Ingo -- I have seen Ingo completely miss a target; but I have seen some really good hits of his, as well. But the majority of his work has not been made public yet -- it's in the SRI archives, which were not among the declassified Star Gate material. My guess is that, if it didn't get destroyed in various office moves, or in deep storage at SRI or SAIC, then Ed May has it locked up in several yard of filing cabinets somewhere. From that point on your guess is as good as mine -- though I'd die (well, almost) to get a chance to go through all that material someday.

Me? Well, I've had some good successes and some noteworthy failures. My seat-of-the-pants estimate for an experienced-viewer success rate (which I'd include myself within) would go something like this: 50% to 70% of the time, the viewer provides evidence of describing at least some aspect of the target. Roughly half of that the viewer provides very clear data about the target. But as I said, that's just seat-of-the-pants. Best, Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Sessions

I don't know if you'd be interested, but I've recently had my webmistress post all my 1984 remote viewing training sessions (that I have in my possession) to my website. They're at http://www.rviewer.com/SG_TrainingSessions.html Paul H. Smith (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

User Pages: Redux

Parapsychology

Request for edit summary

John Nevil Maskelyne

Archaeology edits

Hey

Minor edits

Folie à deux

Radin bent a spoon

Edits to James Randi

Edits to Dean Radin

Magicians and parapsychology

Magicians and parapsychology #2

Of interest?

Parapsychology Revisted

The wife said

Ty

Arthur Ford

Fraud

Errors in Parapsychology

NPOV Regarding Radin

Finally got to listen

Random Smiley Award

Different

NPOV an illusion?

No

John Edward

Fraud and skeptics

Not a skeptic

Get *it* together

A Randi interview with the right questions

Numbers

The Religion Bit

Your note on my talk page

Mediumship

Dreadlocke

Work

Mediumship II

Radin

Now I know!

Link

ESP

Meta-analysis

Dean Radin

Can the supernatural beat this?

Alcock Interview

Happy Trails

Jesus Wand Conspiracy?

Arbitration remedy

Spurious message

Parapsycholgy and psychology

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Radin's research

Spoon

Archive?

Remote viewing

Star Gate Archives

Radin

YOu have quite the bit of time on your hands

srry that she is sick

im only a freshman

Your Remote Viewing Questions

AIR Eval of RV - a suggestion?

TfD nomination of Template:Remote Viewing

Durant quote

Response to Your Query

Further Response

Posted Sessions

Get it together