Carl Sagan, in the end of his life, suggested psi deserves serious study

omegablue · 30th January 2007, 08:10 PM

Wow, now that is exciting.

Reading one of Dean Radin´s books, The Conscious Universe, I´ve stumbled upon the following report in the introduction of the book (pages 2 and 3):

In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism ,the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his lifelong mission of educating the public about science in this case debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith healers, the "face" of Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph among 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:

"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my oppinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone human can (barely) affect random numer generators in computers: (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

Will you friends help me investigating which Sagan´s book is that, and if this is true or not, and if it is, why is this fact being practically concealed from the public? Just to remember, Sagan died in December 20, 1996. If it is like Radin reports, this declaration was within one of his latest publications.

Cleon · 30th January 2007, 08:17 PM

Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan....Astonishing how many "deathbed recantations" are out there.

Check out this page on skepdic.com. Basically, this is the worst sort of taking a quote out of context:

Quote:

We try. Sometimes we fail, but this is not one of those times. Here is the part of the passage from Sagan that Radin quotes:

At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302).

Radin calls this "an astonishing admission" and goes on to crow about "other signs of shifting opinions" regarding the reality of psi phenomena "cropping up with increasing frequency in the scientific literature."

However, immediately after the quote in question, Sagan writes: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." He then goes on to relate how in the mid-1970s he found himself unable to sign a manifesto called "Objections to Astrology" not because he thought astrology has any validity, but "because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian." Sagan was not admitting anything about the likely reality of psi phenomena. He was merely being Sagan: No claim should be dismissed out-of-hand or rejected because it seems absurd or stupid, or because of the motivations, scientific qualifications, or moral character of its proponents. Claims should be accepted or rejected only if the evidence warrants it. Sagan was simply defending the view that a good skeptic must be open-minded. He is not saying that any of these three claims is true or probably true. He is stating the claims as those who believe them would state them and he is saying they deserve "serious study," that is, they should not be dismissed out-of-hand. He said the same thing about astrology.

Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.

Hamradioguy · 30th January 2007, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.

You beat me to it, Cleon. I've just finished re-reading this, and remember the particular passage. Of course by quote mining an entirely different viewpoint seems to have been made.

When I become dictator this book will be required reading for EVERY person....period.

omegablue · 30th January 2007, 08:42 PM

Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped.

But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments.

He distinguish his oppinion from fact:

oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid.
facts: there is at least a few experimental support.

conclusion: this deserves serious study.

Wow, this is being skeptic, truly.

Quote:

Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.

If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as.

Questioninggeller · 30th January 2007, 10:12 PM

Just want to echo the comment on The Demon-Haunted World. It is a must read.

LostAngeles · 30th January 2007, 10:48 PM

That book was one of the many factors in me getting my sh** together. It's a great read.

ChrisC · 30th January 2007, 10:50 PM

Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions.

Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away.

Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book.

The Atheist · 30th January 2007, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by omegablue

Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped.

But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments.

He distinguish his oppinion from fact:

oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid.
facts: there is at least a few experimental support.

conclusion: this deserves serious study.

Wow, this is being skeptic, truly.

If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as.

Yes, that's all marvellous, but it's not quite the same as this post:

Originally Posted by omegablue

There is already a huge ammount of supporting evidence for telepathy and ESP, that for some reasons which remains mostly unknown, they are all rejected, mocked or forced to be forgotten.

So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"?

Questioninggeller · 30th January 2007, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions.

Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away.

Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book.

Be sure to get Dawkin's new one too (if you haven't). It is well-written, and thought provoking.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 02:33 AM

It isn't often we see a new trick from the tricksters. This is an old trick that gets dusted off from time to time, in the vain hope that someone haven't seen it before.

For some reason, they think they can get away with it, even right here on this forum:

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Mark, a lot of them pick and choose from what Sagan wrote.

Sagan said that one of the only borderland studies worth examining are the random number generator ones, which I thought was interesting, something which a lot of people here dismiss.

Of course, such fraud is quickly revealed.

T'ai Chi · 31st January 2007, 04:09 AM

It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.

Lothian · 31st January 2007, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.

Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ?

Big Les · 31st January 2007, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ?

I'll take door number two please Bob.

Just reading DHW myself and was initially shocked to read the paragraph in question. Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them. Great book though; really explains scepticism as a something that can be balanced with "open-mindedness" and needn't be aggressive. Then again he really had a downer on elements of popular culture that he doesn't seem to have fully understood; famously the X-Files, but also Beavis and Butthead! Had he watched the latter I would hope he'd realise that it was a form of social commentary on the very phenomenon (lazy uncritical thought, poor education) he saw it as promoting. Perhaps it did, for those too young or otherwise unable to see past the toilet humour.

Beady · 31st January 2007, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them.

You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it.

BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.

Here, T'ai Chi tries to separate skepticism from science (oh, sorry: Science). He wants skeptics to be seen as people who are not doing science:

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Nope, skepticism is not science no matter how much one wishes.

True to form, he has argued the exact opposite before:

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

The best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism?

I'd say by encouraging people to study science.

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

The best thing in my opinion that one can do to promote critical thinking and skepticism is to study both sides of an issue, which includes also recognizing the assumptions in science.

T'ai Chi is a very confused young man.

Big Les · 31st January 2007, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Beady

You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it.

BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility.

Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?

Darat · 31st January 2007, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?

It was published about 10 years ago, things move on. It is very unlikely that Sagan would, for instance, still be saying that there was something in the random number generator effect idea since the major studies have concluded that there is no effect.

The OP quote is being used as a false appeal to authority.

Jekyll · 31st January 2007, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable".

I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?

At the time they hadn't been show to be conclusively false, and they were sufficiently fringe like phenomena that Sagan didn't feel they could be ruled out.
Since then things have moved on, PEAR's negative result and subsequent shut-down has ruled the effect of the mind on random number generation.

And by serious study, Sagan just meant legitimate study by actual scientists rather than the existing new age spin, and not that large amounts of resources should be pumped into the exploration of the field.

Big Les · 31st January 2007, 08:17 AM

Fair enough; thanks for the clarification. It's interesting that the subject title of this thread should be so similar to the old myth about Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Believers really will try anything to lend legitimacy to their nonsense.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"?

The evidence is there and everywhere for anyone to dismiss or accept based on what criteria one use to be convinced that something is going on. All the meta-analyses of the experiments that are being conducted for more than a century points out that there is a real effect other than chance and design flaws, file-drarwer effect and other known possible problems that could decrease the confidence on the results. In fact the claims that the tighter the controls , the dimmer the results seem to be plausible at some extent. But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more.

So the point is not whether there is huge evidence or not, but how different people with different points of view and beliefs react to and accept these results. One can whine and bitch about the methods in particularly any way, based on his/her creativity and skills in rhetoric, or simply based on what they want to accept or not. Note that this can even be exaggerated to the point where you cannot say one is doing science anymore, but making science to behave like one´s intentions, beliefs or hopes. The evidence convinced many people (like Sagan) that something was going on, and it was not due to chance, nor the other factors cited above, because increasing and increasing the controls the results (this extended to the period beyond /Sagan´s death though), the results maintained way higher than expected by chance. Since I could not find anything serious and truly scientific debunking these experiments other than general moaning and claiming by exaggerated skeptics I have to agree with Sagan, that this deserves further and serious studies, apart from our oppinions and hopes about the truth behind these effects.

Darat · 31st January 2007, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

The evidence is there and everywhere

...snip....

So to repeat The Atheist's unanswered question - where's this "huge amount of evidence"?

KingMerv00 · 31st January 2007, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

The evidence is there and everywhere for anyone to dismiss or accept based on what criteria one use to be convinced that something is going on. All the meta-analyses of the experiments that are being conducted for more than a century points out that there is a real effect other than chance and design flaws, file-drarwer effect and other known possible problems that could decrease the confidence on the results. In fact the claims that the tighter the controls , the dimmer the results seem to be plausible at some extent. But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more.

Could you please give a specific example?

Ersby · 31st January 2007, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more.

I no longer have The Conscious Universe to hand, but it is full of mistakes regarding the two fields of which I know a fair bit about: the ganzfeld, and his brief summary of the debate about continetal shift in the introduction are both riddled with errors.

You can discuss Radin's ganzfeld meta-analysis here...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70950

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Of course, such fraud is quickly revealed.

One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ersby

I no longer have The Conscious Universe to hand, but it is full of mistakes regarding the two fields of which I know a fair bit about: the ganzfeld, and his brief summary of the debate about continetal shift in the introduction are both riddled with errors.

You can discuss Radin's ganzfeld meta-analysis here...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70950

Fine, thanks for the link, I will read through it and will enter that discussion , if I can add something worthy of discussing to that. Thanks.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Could you please give a specific example?

I´ll be with the book in hands later on, for now i´m at work. I will give you his examples ASAP.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so.

The fraud I was talking about was the selective quoting of Sagan's words.

People think they can get away with it, in order to make it appear as if Sagan supported the existence of these phenomena. They can't.

If you want examples of fraud in parapsychology, I got plenty.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 08:51 AM

Friends, I would like to ask any of you to provide me any links about debunking Dean Radin and the Meta-Analysis method. What I found does not suffice as debunking evidence, but still it may well be plausible arguments and peer reviewed studies with statistical details, and plausible arguments about the bunk nature of such things.

KingMerv00 · 31st January 2007, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so.

Psi involves a force that is unlike any other force known in nature. Until psi-researchers submit their overwhelming evidence, we are left with a choice:

1) Accept psi as real and reject all previous study. The new previously undiscovered psi force must inserted into current science. A whole new field of study needs to be opened.

2) Consider the possibility that psi evidence may be the product of error, fraud, or poor scientific protocol.

#1 requires a restructuring of science as we know it. We know that #2 happens on a regular basis in life. Until we get repeatable data from the psi researchers, I find #2 more likely.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

The fraud I was talking about was the selective quoting of Sagan's words.

You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm

The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence. What followed and was cropped was Sagan´s oppinion about psi.

Quote:

People think they can get away with it, in order to make it appear as if Sagan supported the existence of these phenomena. They can't.

Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense.

Quote:

If you want examples of fraud in parapsychology, I got plenty.

In fact there is a lot! We agree about this. I would like to see the most extensive and serious of them being debunked. I´m still to see it.

Cleon · 31st January 2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm

Yes, fraud. The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case. The "cropping" was essentially a lie--i.e., fraud.

Quote:

The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence.

You're fishing for something that isn't there. Sagan felt that the "lab evidence" was "dubious" (his word), and that further serious study (i.e., controlled experiments) would show that the experiment was an anomaly. This happens all the time, which is why repeatability is so important to the scientific process. If a scientist writes up a paper indicating that an experiment established X, then other scientists analyze the study, look for flaws in the controls, and ultimately try to replicate the results. If they are unable to get the same results as the original study, then either the original study was flawed or a statistical anomaly.

Quote:

Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense.

That's exactly the way Radin is portraying it--which is why his "cropping" is an act of fraud.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm

It's fraud. There is no way neither Radin or T'ai Chi could have ignored Sagan's following words.

Originally Posted by omegablue

The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence. What followed and was cropped was Sagan´s oppinion about psi.

Now you are being dishonest. The part that was deliberately left out explains why Sagan does not - as it was desired to indicate - support the existence of these phenomena.

Originally Posted by omegablue

Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense.

Without the omitted part, how else would they perceive it? That's why the latter part was left out: To give the false impression that Sagan believed the phenomena were actually real.

Originally Posted by omegablue

In fact there is a lot! We agree about this. I would like to see the most extensive and serious of them being debunked. I´m still to see it.

Which cases are you talking about?

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Psi involves a force that is unlike any other force known in nature. Until psi-researchers submit their overwhelming evidence, we are left with a choice:

1) Accept psi as real and reject all previous study. The new previously undiscovered psi force must inserted into current science. A whole new field of study needs to be opened.

2) Consider the possibility that psi evidence may be the product of error, fraud, or poor scientific protocol.

#1 requires a restructuring of science as we know it. We know that #2 happens on a regular basis in life. Until we get repeatable data from the psi researchers, I find #2 more likely.

I cannot agree more! Finding it more likely is the key healthy skepticism, if you want to provide your oppinion in a tenable way. But spitting out about the whole psi thing being bunk is like stepping completely out of the line. Sagan would not have forgiven psi if it was completely bunk. I will read carefully that thread about Radin´s meta-analysis and see if i can find anything convincing in there. Up till now, what I´ve found about it, is more likely to be just oppinions and claims than scientific facts.

Mojo · 31st January 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case.

It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the quotation from Radin in the O/P The Demon-Haunted World is described as "a 1995 book" rather than being given its actual title, and no actual page reference is given, just "one paragraph among 450 pages". Makes it nice and easy to check the context of the quotation, doesn't it?

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Yes, fraud. The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case. The "cropping" was essentially a lie--i.e., fraud.

Nopester, not so fast. You possibly want it to be a fraud, based on what you believe, and want it to be. But calling it fraud seems not to be plausible with just this information we have. I agree that he could have been flawless if he put up the entire quotation or paragraph and specifying what was Sagan´s personal oppinion and scientific oppinion. Calling Radin a fraud because of this, would be laughable and you would be stepping completely out of the line. You can call it a mistake, but hardly a fraud.

Originally Posted by Cleon

You're fishing for something that isn't there. Sagan felt that the "lab evidence" was "dubious" (his word), and that further serious study (i.e., controlled experiments) would show that the experiment was an anomaly.

Ah come one pal, so what Sagan meant is that the further studying of the phenomena would prove them wrong??? If this is what you mean, this is awful. You are disguising your oppinion and beliefs as facts.

Originally Posted by Cleon

That's exactly the way Radin is portraying it--which is why his "cropping" is an act of fraud.

Like I said above, I disagree.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

Nopester, not so fast. You possibly want it to be a fraud, based on what you believe, and want it to be. But calling it fraud seems not to be plausible with just this information we have. I agree that he could have been flawless if he put up the entire quotation or paragraph and specifying what was Sagan´s personal oppinion and scientific oppinion. Calling Radin a fraud because of this, would be laughable and you would be stepping completely out of the line. You can call it a mistake, but hardly a fraud.

One time, a mistake. Perhaps. But when Radin is found to select yet another quote, this time from Ray Hyman, it becomes a pattern of deceit.

Add to that, Radin also selects his data to make it show the existence of a global consciousness.

Still think Radin is merely making mistakes?

Cleon · 31st January 2007, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

Nopester, not so fast. You possibly want it to be a fraud, based on what you believe, and want it to be.

Not at all. I base my accusation of fraud on what Sagan actually said, and the fact that Radin selectively quoted Sagan to give a misleading impression of what Sagan was saying.

Quote:

But calling it fraud seems not to be plausible with just this information we have. I agree that he could have been flawless if he put up the entire quotation or paragraph and specifying what was Sagan´s personal oppinion and scientific oppinion. Calling Radin a fraud because of this, would be laughable and you would be stepping completely out of the line. You can call it a mistake, but hardly a fraud.

The "information we have" is that Radin quoted Sagan out of context to indicate that Sagan thought that the experiments were suggestive of ESP. That is not the case, as the very next paragraph in the same book makes abundantly clear.

Ergo, he lied. Fraud. Whatever you want to call it. It's certainly not a "mistake"--he would have had to deliberately stop reading at that point to not get what Sagan was saying.

Quote:

Ah come one pal, so what Sagan meant is that the further studying of the phenomena would prove them wrong???

Well, that is what he said.

Quote:

If this is what you mean, this is awful. You are disguising your oppinion and beliefs as facts.

In what way is it "awful?" It was Sagan's scientific opinion that, in all likelihood, the experiments he was discussing were either flawed or statistical anomalies, but for the sake of the scientific process, further experimentation was required. That's not my "opinion," it's what Sagan said in the book.

aggle-rithm · 31st January 2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

The evidence convinced many people (like Sagan) that something was going on, and it was not due to chance, nor the other factors cited above, .................

This is more than a little misleading. It may have convinced people LIKE Sagan that something was going on, but it didn't convince Sagan himself. All he said was that something COULD POSSIBLY be going on, as opposed to ideas (like "free energy") that are so laughably implausible that science can safely ignore them without further investigation.

He specifically said that he didn't think the ideas were valid.

omegablue · 31st January 2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

It's fraud. There is no way neither Radin or T'ai Chi could have ignored Sagan's following words.

I call it a mistake. A fraud would have been something like: "Even Sagan said he beileved that psi phenomena might be true because of the following quotation in one of his books: <quotation here>..." That would be more like a fraud or lie.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Now you are being dishonest. The part that was deliberately left out explains why Sagan does not - as it was desired to indicate - support the existence of these phenomena.

If someone has been dishonest, was Radin, not me. I cannot agree with you on the point that Sagan was trying to dismiss the phenomena in this quotation. The clear thing about the statement is “the claims deserved serious study because of some lab evidence.” This is the fact. Now, his oppinion is “the evidence is dubious and I dont think further stuydying would prove them right”. See the difference? You are forcing something here that is not clearly evident. Concluding , I think Radin comitted a mistake. And you comitted another calling it fraud in order to make all his claims and research results within the book appear fraudulent.

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Without the omitted part, how else would they perceive it? That's why the latter part was left out: To give the false impression that Sagan believed the phenomena were actually real.

You cannot be so sure, otherwise you are stepping out of the line. He ommited what followed, but what followed did not disprove what was presented. Yet, Sagan suggested that the phenomena deserved further study. Why he said this on a book about skepticism? Because he knew that there was evidence, lab evidence, and despite his personal oppinions about psi, he was honest enough to cite this. Now saying that intended to dismiss psi with that is a little too much isn´t it?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Which cases are you talking about?

The cases presented in Radin´s books and works. The meta-analysis of huge ammounts of experiments that pointed to positive results.

CFLarsen · 31st January 2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by omegablue

I call it a mistake. A fraud would have been something like: "Even Sagan said he beileved that psi phenomena might be true because of the following quotation in one of his books: <quotation here>..." That would be more like a fraud or lie.

But that's exactly the picture Radin wanted to paint. He misquoted Sagan to make it look as if Sagan supported Radin's beliefs.

Any comments on the other two "mistakes" Radin made?

Originally Posted by omegablue

If someone has been dishonest, was Radin, not me. I cannot agree with you on the point that Sagan was trying to dismiss the phenomena in this quotation.

Then you are dishonest.

Originally Posted by omegablue

The clear thing about the statement is “the claims deserved serious study because of some lab evidence.” This is the fact. Now, his oppinion is “the evidence is dubious and I dont think further stuydying would prove them right”. See the difference? You are forcing something here that is not clearly evident.

On the contrary, you are the one forcing something that is not there. If Sagan thinks the evidence is dubious, how can you possibly argue that it is "the fact" that Sagan thinks the claims deserved serious study because evidence is sound?

Unless, of course, you think that "dubious" means "sound".

Originally Posted by omegablue

Concluding , I think Radin comitted a mistake. And you comitted another calling it fraud in order to make all his claims and research results within the book appear fraudulent.

When Radin misquotes skeptics to make it seem as if they support him, not once, not twice, but at least three times, it doesn't become a "mistake" anymore.

Originally Posted by omegablue

You cannot be so sure, otherwise you are stepping out of the line. He ommited what followed, but what followed did not disprove what was presented.

That's exactly what it did.

Originally Posted by omegablue

Yet, Sagan suggested that the phenomena deserved further study.

Not because he found the evidence convincing.

Originally Posted by omegablue

Why he said this on a book about skepticism? Because he knew that there was evidence, lab evidence, and despite his personal oppinions about psi, he was honest enough to cite this. Now saying that intended to dismiss psi with that is a little too much isn´t it?

He clearly said the evidence was crap.

Originally Posted by omegablue

The cases presented in Radin´s books and works. The meta-analysis of huge ammounts of experiments that pointed to positive results.

Go ahead, open a thread, present your case and let's take a look at it.

30th January 2007, 08:10 PM	#1
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Carl Sagan, in the end of his life, suggested psi deserves serious study Wow, now that is exciting. Reading one of Dean Radin´s books, The Conscious Universe, I´ve stumbled upon the following report in the introduction of the book (pages 2 and 3): In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism ,the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his lifelong mission of educating the public about science in this case debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith healers, the "face" of Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph among 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission: "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my oppinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone human can (barely) affect random numer generators in computers: (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation." Will you friends help me investigating which Sagan´s book is that, and if this is true or not, and if it is, why is this fact being practically concealed from the public? Just to remember, Sagan died in December 20, 1996. If it is like Radin reports, this declaration was within one of his latest publications.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Last edited by omegablue; 30th January 2007 at 08:13 PM. Reason: spelling errors

30th January 2007, 08:17 PM	#2
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,362	Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan....Astonishing how many "deathbed recantations" are out there. Check out this page on skepdic.com. Basically, this is the worst sort of taking a quote out of context: Quote: We try. Sometimes we fail, but this is not one of those times. Here is the part of the passage from Sagan that Radin quotes: At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation (Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, Random House, 1995, p. 302). Radin calls this "an astonishing admission" and goes on to crow about "other signs of shifting opinions" regarding the reality of psi phenomena "cropping up with increasing frequency in the scientific literature." However, immediately after the quote in question, Sagan writes: "I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong." He then goes on to relate how in the mid-1970s he found himself unable to sign a manifesto called "Objections to Astrology" not because he thought astrology has any validity, but "because I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian." Sagan was not admitting anything about the likely reality of psi phenomena. He was merely being Sagan: No claim should be dismissed out-of-hand or rejected because it seems absurd or stupid, or because of the motivations, scientific qualifications, or moral character of its proponents. Claims should be accepted or rejected only if the evidence warrants it. Sagan was simply defending the view that a good skeptic must be open-minded. He is not saying that any of these three claims is true or probably true. He is stating the claims as those who believe them would state them and he is saying they deserve "serious study," that is, they should not be dismissed out-of-hand. He said the same thing about astrology. Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog Last edited by Cleon; 30th January 2007 at 08:20 PM.

30th January 2007, 08:42 PM	#4
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped. But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments. He distinguish his oppinion from fact: oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid. facts: there is at least a few experimental support. conclusion: this deserves serious study. Wow, this is being skeptic, truly. Quote: Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general. If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

30th January 2007, 10:12 PM	#5
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,552	Just want to echo the comment on The Demon-Haunted World. It is a must read.
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins

30th January 2007, 10:48 PM	#6
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,025	That book was one of the many factors in me getting my sh** together. It's a great read.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

30th January 2007, 08:24 PM	#3
Hamradioguy Pyrrhonist Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Northern Vermont Posts: 2,052	Originally Posted by Cleon Incidentally, that particular book--The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark--should be required reading for any person who considers themselves a skeptic, or even wants to know more about skepticism and science in general. You beat me to it, Cleon. I've just finished re-reading this, and remember the particular passage. Of course by quote mining an entirely different viewpoint seems to have been made. When I become dictator this book will be required reading for EVERY person....period.

30th January 2007, 10:50 PM	#7
ChrisC Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: BC, Canada Posts: 348	Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions. Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away. Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book.

30th January 2007, 11:04 PM	#8
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,727	Originally Posted by omegablue Hmmm... looks like it was really cropped. But in the end I did not know Carl Sagan was convinced that this things deserved serious study. I also do not get it as like he was saying that psi exists. But looks like the results being obtained by the experiments was raising even a few hardcore skeptic´s brows at that time, otherwise he would be mocking the claims and exposing the experiments. He distinguish his oppinion from fact: oppinion: these claims are not likely to be valid. facts: there is at least a few experimental support. conclusion: this deserves serious study. Wow, this is being skeptic, truly. If it inspires true skepticism and not "war on the paranormal", like many places and "skeptic" sites over the internet promotes, I do agree with you. My oppinion is that skepticism is a tool, its a tool for thinking and applying science, not a lifestyle. I think things like "I´m a skeptic, just watch me doubt about anything" is the same as being religious. It is just a matter of misinterpretation of what skepticism really is and should be used as. Yes, that's all marvellous, but it's not quite the same as this post: Originally Posted by omegablue There is already a huge ammount of supporting evidence for telepathy and ESP, that for some reasons which remains mostly unknown, they are all rejected, mocked or forced to be forgotten. So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"?
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

30th January 2007, 11:17 PM	#9
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,552	Originally Posted by ChrisC Thanks to the people on this forum, I purchased DHW. I'm having a hard time getting through it, but not because it's at all crummy. Quite the opposite. I find every page gives me something to think about and I end up putting the book aside for at least a moment to ponder what Sagan has written. I really appreciate that he never seems to fall into the trap of dismissing people as idiots or fools when he obviously disagrees with them. There's no note of mean-spirited-ness. Even his criticism of, for example, the witch burnings comes across as honest instead of assaultive. I find that style of communication far more persuasive than bashing, even when the bashing is warranted. He really makes a good case and I can't see any reasonable person from either side of the fence being alienated by his opinions. Everyone should read this book. I'm buying another copy so that I can give this one away. Sorry to go on... I'm just really enjoying this book. Be sure to get Dawkin's new one too (if you haven't). It is well-written, and thought provoking.
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins

31st January 2007, 02:33 AM	#10
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	It isn't often we see a new trick from the tricksters. This is an old trick that gets dusted off from time to time, in the vain hope that someone haven't seen it before. For some reason, they think they can get away with it, even right here on this forum: Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Mark, a lot of them pick and choose from what Sagan wrote. Sagan said that one of the only borderland studies worth examining are the random number generator ones, which I thought was interesting, something which a lot of people here dismiss. Of course, such fraud is quickly revealed.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st January 2007, 04:09 AM	#11
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,233	It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

31st January 2007, 04:39 AM	#12
Lothian (edited for breach of rule 10) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A small, blue-green world in one of the less fashionable sectors of the galaxy Posts: 7,033	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together. Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ?
	__________________ "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne JREF Forum Campaign Group

31st January 2007, 05:17 AM	#13
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,661	Originally Posted by Lothian Are you suggesting that science can not be used in debunking or are you just being a wanker as usual ? I'll take door number two please Bob. Just reading DHW myself and was initially shocked to read the paragraph in question. Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them. Great book though; really explains scepticism as a something that can be balanced with "open-mindedness" and needn't be aggressive. Then again he really had a downer on elements of popular culture that he doesn't seem to have fully understood; famously the X-Files, but also Beavis and Butthead! Had he watched the latter I would hope he'd realise that it was a form of social commentary on the very phenomenon (lazy uncritical thought, poor education) he saw it as promoting. Perhaps it did, for those too young or otherwise unable to see past the toilet humour.
	__________________ "One of the fundamental freedoms is to write what you like, including nonsense: another, which I am exercising, is to denounce it." -Robert Raikes bshistorian.wordpress.com

31st January 2007, 05:49 AM	#14
Beady Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W Posts: 4,970	Originally Posted by Big Les Sagan really should have thought about future quote-mining exercises by the woos; it's a godsend for them. You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it. BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility.
	__________________ I don't care what you do to the women, leave me alone! -- Badlands Beady

31st January 2007, 05:52 AM	#15
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi It is because Sagan wasn't a dismissive, negative type of skeptic. That is, he wasn't a debunker or a self promoter, and was more interested in Science. In fact, he had more Science is his pinky nail that probably all of the skeptical clubs put together. Here, T'ai Chi tries to separate skepticism from science (oh, sorry: Science). He wants skeptics to be seen as people who are not doing science: Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Nope, skepticism is not science no matter how much one wishes. True to form, he has argued the exact opposite before: Originally Posted by T'ai Chi The best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism? I'd say by encouraging people to study science. Originally Posted by T'ai Chi The best thing in my opinion that one can do to promote critical thinking and skepticism is to study both sides of an issue, which includes also recognizing the assumptions in science. T'ai Chi is a very confused young man.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st January 2007, 06:35 AM	#16
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,661	Originally Posted by Beady You can't live your life or perform your work according to what other people might do with it. BTW, there's another passage by Sagan, somewhere in Broca's Brain, I believe, where he posits the beneficial efffects of mind-altering drugs. I'm suprised folks haven't seized on it for whatever reason, but my point is that that passage was written in the '70s, when people were making all kinds of claims for all kinds of drugs. Sagan, as I remember and interpret it, was saying the same thing then about drugs that he later said about ESP. He wasn't advocating anything other than interest in a possibility. Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable". I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it?
	__________________ "One of the fundamental freedoms is to write what you like, including nonsense: another, which I am exercising, is to denounce it." -Robert Raikes bshistorian.wordpress.com

31st January 2007, 06:49 AM	#17
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,709	Originally Posted by Big Les Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable". I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it? It was published about 10 years ago, things move on. It is very unlikely that Sagan would, for instance, still be saying that there was something in the random number generator effect idea since the major studies have concluded that there is no effect. The OP quote is being used as a false appeal to authority.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st January 2007, 06:59 AM	#18
Jekyll Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The other other place Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by Big Les Quite right. I think it would be worth bearing in mind for anyone writing on related subjects though. Sagan's writing style seems a little bit "stream of conciousness" to me; with a slightly different sentence and paragraph structure the quote wouldn't have been so readily "minable". I do wonder why Sagan even mentioned the three things as being particularly worthy of "serious study". Do they merit it? At the time they hadn't been show to be conclusively false, and they were sufficiently fringe like phenomena that Sagan didn't feel they could be ruled out. Since then things have moved on, PEAR's negative result and subsequent shut-down has ruled the effect of the mind on random number generation. And by serious study, Sagan just meant legitimate study by actual scientists rather than the existing new age spin, and not that large amounts of resources should be pumped into the exploration of the field.
	__________________ And I looked. And behold a green horse, and his name that sat on him was death. ~Tyndale New Testament

31st January 2007, 08:17 AM	#19
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,661	Fair enough; thanks for the clarification. It's interesting that the subject title of this thread should be so similar to the old myth about Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Believers really will try anything to lend legitimacy to their nonsense.
	__________________ "One of the fundamental freedoms is to write what you like, including nonsense: another, which I am exercising, is to denounce it." -Robert Raikes bshistorian.wordpress.com

31st January 2007, 08:24 AM	#20
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by The Atheist So, where's this "huge amount of evidence"? The evidence is there and everywhere for anyone to dismiss or accept based on what criteria one use to be convinced that something is going on. All the meta-analyses of the experiments that are being conducted for more than a century points out that there is a real effect other than chance and design flaws, file-drarwer effect and other known possible problems that could decrease the confidence on the results. In fact the claims that the tighter the controls , the dimmer the results seem to be plausible at some extent. But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more. So the point is not whether there is huge evidence or not, but how different people with different points of view and beliefs react to and accept these results. One can whine and bitch about the methods in particularly any way, based on his/her creativity and skills in rhetoric, or simply based on what they want to accept or not. Note that this can even be exaggerated to the point where you cannot say one is doing science anymore, but making science to behave like one´s intentions, beliefs or hopes. The evidence convinced many people (like Sagan) that something was going on, and it was not due to chance, nor the other factors cited above, because increasing and increasing the controls the results (this extended to the period beyond /Sagan´s death though), the results maintained way higher than expected by chance. Since I could not find anything serious and truly scientific debunking these experiments other than general moaning and claiming by exaggerated skeptics I have to agree with Sagan, that this deserves further and serious studies, apart from our oppinions and hopes about the truth behind these effects.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 08:27 AM	#21
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,709	Originally Posted by omegablue The evidence is there and everywhere ...snip.... So to repeat The Atheist's unanswered question - where's this "huge amount of evidence"?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st January 2007, 08:34 AM	#22
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,798	Originally Posted by omegablue The evidence is there and everywhere for anyone to dismiss or accept based on what criteria one use to be convinced that something is going on. All the meta-analyses of the experiments that are being conducted for more than a century points out that there is a real effect other than chance and design flaws, file-drarwer effect and other known possible problems that could decrease the confidence on the results. In fact the claims that the tighter the controls , the dimmer the results seem to be plausible at some extent. But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more. Could you please give a specific example?
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

31st January 2007, 08:35 AM	#23
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,695	Originally Posted by omegablue But even ruling out the most of this things, the meta-analysis like the reported by Radin in his books, seems to be in the order of 1 chance in 1 million or more. I no longer have The Conscious Universe to hand, but it is full of mistakes regarding the two fields of which I know a fair bit about: the ganzfeld, and his brief summary of the debate about continetal shift in the introduction are both riddled with errors. You can discuss Radin's ganzfeld meta-analysis here... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70950
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" http://ersby.blogspot.com

31st January 2007, 08:42 AM	#24
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Of course, such fraud is quickly revealed. One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 08:44 AM	#25
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by Ersby I no longer have The Conscious Universe to hand, but it is full of mistakes regarding the two fields of which I know a fair bit about: the ganzfeld, and his brief summary of the debate about continetal shift in the introduction are both riddled with errors. You can discuss Radin's ganzfeld meta-analysis here... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70950 Fine, thanks for the link, I will read through it and will enter that discussion , if I can add something worthy of discussing to that. Thanks.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 08:46 AM	#26
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Could you please give a specific example? I´ll be with the book in hands later on, for now i´m at work. I will give you his examples ASAP.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 08:50 AM	#27
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Originally Posted by omegablue One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so. The fraud I was talking about was the selective quoting of Sagan's words. People think they can get away with it, in order to make it appear as if Sagan supported the existence of these phenomena. They can't. If you want examples of fraud in parapsychology, I got plenty.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st January 2007, 08:51 AM	#28
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Friends, I would like to ask any of you to provide me any links about debunking Dean Radin and the Meta-Analysis method. What I found does not suffice as debunking evidence, but still it may well be plausible arguments and peer reviewed studies with statistical details, and plausible arguments about the bunk nature of such things.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 08:59 AM	#29
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,798	Originally Posted by omegablue One of your rhetoric rules of thumb says: "extraodrinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Where is the evidence of this fraud being revealed? I mean business, scientific evidence , not exaggerated skeptic´s oppinions only. Now this is interesting and believe me, I am willing to accept this evidence of yours, if it is so. Psi involves a force that is unlike any other force known in nature. Until psi-researchers submit their overwhelming evidence, we are left with a choice: 1) Accept psi as real and reject all previous study. The new previously undiscovered psi force must inserted into current science. A whole new field of study needs to be opened. 2) Consider the possibility that psi evidence may be the product of error, fraud, or poor scientific protocol. #1 requires a restructuring of science as we know it. We know that #2 happens on a regular basis in life. Until we get repeatable data from the psi researchers, I find #2 more likely.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

31st January 2007, 09:01 AM	#30
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by CFLarsen The fraud I was talking about was the selective quoting of Sagan's words. You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence. What followed and was cropped was Sagan´s oppinion about psi. Quote: People think they can get away with it, in order to make it appear as if Sagan supported the existence of these phenomena. They can't. Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense. Quote: If you want examples of fraud in parapsychology, I got plenty. In fact there is a lot! We agree about this. I would like to see the most extensive and serious of them being debunked. I´m still to see it.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Last edited by omegablue; 31st January 2007 at 09:08 AM. Reason: misspelled "see" for "be" :)

31st January 2007, 09:28 AM	#31
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,362	Originally Posted by omegablue You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm Yes, fraud. The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case. The "cropping" was essentially a lie--i.e., fraud. Quote: The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence. You're fishing for something that isn't there. Sagan felt that the "lab evidence" was "dubious" (his word), and that further serious study (i.e., controlled experiments) would show that the experiment was an anomaly. This happens all the time, which is why repeatability is so important to the scientific process. If a scientist writes up a paper indicating that an experiment established X, then other scientists analyze the study, look for flaws in the controls, and ultimately try to replicate the results. If they are unable to get the same results as the original study, then either the original study was flawed or a statistical anomaly. Quote: Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense. That's exactly the way Radin is portraying it--which is why his "cropping" is an act of fraud.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

31st January 2007, 09:35 AM	#32
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Originally Posted by omegablue You are being exaggerated. The quote was cropped, maybe because it would not add that desired wait to Radin´s arguments, and that was bad i agree. If I were Radin I would use the entire excerpt, that would be flawlessly honest. Perhaps this is it. But fraud...hnmmm It's fraud. There is no way neither Radin or T'ai Chi could have ignored Sagan's following words. Originally Posted by omegablue The core of the argument was maintained, that was: Sagan really thought at that momment that those things deserved serious study because the claims were being supported with lab evidence. What followed and was cropped was Sagan´s oppinion about psi. Now you are being dishonest. The part that was deliberately left out explains why Sagan does not - as it was desired to indicate - support the existence of these phenomena. Originally Posted by omegablue Sagan supported that those things deserved further and serious studies, nothing more. If someone is getting it as Sagan was saying psi exists, this person is a little lacking in critical thinking and even common sense. Without the omitted part, how else would they perceive it? That's why the latter part was left out: To give the false impression that Sagan believed the phenomena were actually real. Originally Posted by omegablue In fact there is a lot! We agree about this. I would like to see the most extensive and serious of them being debunked. I´m still to see it. Which cases are you talking about?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st January 2007, 09:40 AM	#33
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Psi involves a force that is unlike any other force known in nature. Until psi-researchers submit their overwhelming evidence, we are left with a choice: 1) Accept psi as real and reject all previous study. The new previously undiscovered psi force must inserted into current science. A whole new field of study needs to be opened. 2) Consider the possibility that psi evidence may be the product of error, fraud, or poor scientific protocol. #1 requires a restructuring of science as we know it. We know that #2 happens on a regular basis in life. Until we get repeatable data from the psi researchers, I find #2 more likely. I cannot agree more! Finding it more likely is the key healthy skepticism, if you want to provide your oppinion in a tenable way. But spitting out about the whole psi thing being bunk is like stepping completely out of the line. Sagan would not have forgiven psi if it was completely bunk. I will read carefully that thread about Radin´s meta-analysis and see if i can find anything convincing in there. Up till now, what I´ve found about it, is more likely to be just oppinions and claims than scientific facts.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599

31st January 2007, 09:54 AM	#34
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,927	Originally Posted by Cleon The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case. It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the quotation from Radin in the O/P The Demon-Haunted World is described as "a 1995 book" rather than being given its actual title, and no actual page reference is given, just "one paragraph among 450 pages". Makes it nice and easy to check the context of the quotation, doesn't it?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "All blasphemies do not become great truths." - George Bernard Shaw

31st January 2007, 10:30 AM	#35
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by Cleon Yes, fraud. The quote was "cropped," as you put it, for the express purpose of making the claim that Sagan was changing his mind about ESP. This was clearly not the case. The "cropping" was essentially a lie--i.e., fraud. Nopester, not so fast. You possibly want it to be a fraud, based on what you believe, and want it to be. But calling it fraud seems not to be plausible with just this information we have. I agree that he could have been flawless if he put up the entire quotation or paragraph and specifying what was Sagan´s personal oppinion and scientific oppinion. Calling Radin a fraud because of this, would be laughable and you would be stepping completely out of the line. You can call it a mistake, but hardly a fraud. Originally Posted by Cleon You're fishing for something that isn't there. Sagan felt that the "lab evidence" was "dubious" (his word), and that further serious study (i.e., controlled experiments) would show that the experiment was an anomaly. Ah come one pal, so what Sagan meant is that the further studying of the phenomena would prove them wrong??? If this is what you mean, this is awful. You are disguising your oppinion and beliefs as facts. Originally Posted by Cleon That's exactly the way Radin is portraying it--which is why his "cropping" is an act of fraud. Like I said above, I disagree.
omegablue Suspended Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 599