Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[robvalue]

I hope I'm wrong, as it's really sad to think of someone who might have a genuinely high level of scientific ability selling out when they realize they can write nonsense books for mooks.

I haven't checked out his credentials to see if they came from a real establishment or some woo paper-mill; I've been assuming the former.

[Simon Moon]

Again, we're not here to validate your beliefs.  We're also not here to do the basic legwork a productive member of society should do.  Remaining lazy and gullible is your prerogative, but don't blame us for not wanting to fill in the gaps you currently have simply due to laziness.

And, we're talking middle school levels of scientific awareness (what the scientific method is and is not, mostly) here.  Certainly nothing so dramatic as "devoting your life" to it.

But surely Dean Radin is already aware of this as well which means he knows how the method works.  If this is your argument for dismissing the paranormal research as being woo, then it is a dishonest argument.

Dean Radin...

Your reliance of Radin is exactly why we are all pointing at your lack of critical thinking skills.


[Mathematician] I.J. Good discovered flaws in Radin's method for evaluating the file-drawer effect.[2] According to Victor Stenger:

“”Radin is aware of the file-drawer effect, in which only positive results tend to get reported and negative ones are left in the filing cabinet. This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data. Even the most fervent parapsychologists recognize this problem. Meta-analysis incorporates a procedure for taking the file-drawer effect into account. Radin says it shows that more than 3,300 unpublished, unsuccessful reports would be needed for each published report in order to “nullify” the statistical significance of psi. In his review of Radin's book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it "a gross overestimate." He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly"

Radin has written the results from psi research are as consistent by the same standards as any other scientific discipline but according to Ray Hyman many parapsychologists such as Dick Bierman, Walter Lucadou, J.E. Kennedy, and Robert Jahn, openly admit the evidence for psi is "inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards". Radin has written that fraudulent mediums were genuine and ignores skeptical literature on the subject. He mentioned the Fox sisters in his publications but did not mention that they publicly confessed their spirit communications were fraudulent.

Radin's bad statistics -

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_big_...upernormal

[polymath257]

Again, we're not here to validate your beliefs.  We're also not here to do the basic legwork a productive member of society should do.  Remaining lazy and gullible is your prerogative, but don't blame us for not wanting to fill in the gaps you currently have simply due to laziness.

And, we're talking middle school levels of scientific awareness (what the scientific method is and is not, mostly) here.  Certainly nothing so dramatic as "devoting your life" to it.

But surely Dean Radin is already aware of this as well which means he knows how the method works.  If this is your argument for dismissing the paranormal research as being woo, then it is a dishonest argument.

You would *hope* him to be aware. But the evidence suggests otherwise.

[JackRussell]

And a fair assessment on any question is based on one man's opinion.

Paradigm shifts occur, but nonsense does more so..

[Transcended Dimensions]

I have considered another possibility as to why I cannot be convinced of what skeptics say. Yes, I am aware of that argument against Dean Simon Moon posted. But my mind still remains open. Perhaps this is because I really want there to be an afterlife of my dreams and my brain is not allowing me to be convinced when I should be convinced. Maybe it is a defense mechanism my brain has employed. As a result, my mind just continues to remain open no matter what anyone says to me. But perhaps there really is a way for me to be convinced eventually. Who knows.

[JackRussell]

So what you want informs your desires.

The opposite of rational skepticism.

I want to be rich, evidence shows I am not.

[FatAndFaithless]

I have considered another possibility as to why I cannot be convinced of what skeptics say.  Yes, I am aware of that argument against Dean Simon Moon posted.  But my mind still remains open.  Perhaps this is because I really want there to be an afterlife of my dreams and my brain is not allowing me to be convinced when I should be convinced.  Maybe it is a defense mechanism my brain has employed.  As a result, my mind just continues to remain open no matter what anyone says to me.  But perhaps there really is a way for me to be convinced eventually.  Who knows.

Bolded mine.  That's an extremely common reasoning flaw, but still a flaw nonetheless.  Wishful thinking is a very powerful blinder.

And "remaining open" is not the same thing as accepting any bad conclusion put forth.  Remaining open just means you aren't closed off to new evidence.  You should believe or accept something only after the evidence is produced, not before. Otherwise you'll just believe any crazy statement or argument put forth by anyone.

[JackRussell]

LR and VD can have a wonkiest at talking past everybody.

Rob's right, a troll is a troll.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have considered another possibility as to why I cannot be convinced of what skeptics say.  Yes, I am aware of that argument against Dean Simon Moon posted.  But my mind still remains open.  Perhaps this is because I really want there to be an afterlife of my dreams and my brain is not allowing me to be convinced when I should be convinced.  Maybe it is a defense mechanism my brain has employed.  As a result, my mind just continues to remain open no matter what anyone says to me.  But perhaps there really is a way for me to be convinced eventually.  Who knows.

That's not "remaining open".  You're describing the polar opposite of open-mindedness......lol.

You want stuff, you're bad at words, and you don't know things......therefore ghosts.

[Transcended Dimensions]

But surely Dean Radin is already aware of this as well which means he knows how the method works.  If this is your argument for dismissing the paranormal research as being woo, then it is a dishonest argument.

Dean Radin...

Your reliance of Radin is exactly why we are all pointing at your lack of critical thinking skills.


[Mathematician] I.J. Good discovered flaws in Radin's method for evaluating the file-drawer effect.[2] According to Victor Stenger:

“”Radin is aware of the file-drawer effect, in which only positive results tend to get reported and negative ones are left in the filing cabinet. This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data. Even the most fervent parapsychologists recognize this problem. Meta-analysis incorporates a procedure for taking the file-drawer effect into account. Radin says it shows that more than 3,300 unpublished, unsuccessful reports would be needed for each published report in order to “nullify” the statistical significance of psi. In his review of Radin's book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it "a gross overestimate." He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly"

Radin has written the results from psi research are as consistent by the same standards as any other scientific discipline but according to Ray Hyman many parapsychologists such as Dick Bierman, Walter Lucadou, J.E. Kennedy, and Robert Jahn, openly admit the evidence for psi is "inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards". Radin has written that fraudulent mediums were genuine and ignores skeptical literature on the subject. He mentioned the Fox sisters in his publications but did not mention that they publicly confessed their spirit communications were fraudulent.

Radin's bad statistics -

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_big_...upernormal

But what if Dean has performed the file-drawer analysis correctly?  That is a debate right there.  I am now open minded to what Dean or any paranormal proponent would have to argue in favor of Dean performing the analysis correctly.