Latest / Tracking Wisdom / Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin

Transcript

Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin · Tracking Wisdom

• 0:03
  Peter: You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal truths that we see woven through culture, consciousness, and the human experience.
• 0:17
  Ryan: Morning everybody, and welcome back to another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.
• 0:21
  Ryan: I'm Ryan.
• 0:22
  Peter: I'm Peter.
• 0:23
  Ryan: And today we're doing a bit of a follow-up from our previous episode on Dean Radin.
• 0:29
  Ryan: And this is a critique of Dean Radin's work and we wanted to kinda offer that as a balance to the work he put out.
• 0:39
  Ryan: Some of his stuff is controversial, and so we wanted to try and present and discuss the counterpoint.
• 0:48
  Ryan: And what we're reviewing today is from "The Skeptic's Dictionary."
• 0:54
  Ryan: This is a critique by Robert T.
• 0:57
  Ryan: Carroll, who was the founder and author of "The Skeptic's Dictionary."
• 1:01
  Ryan: He's also author and professor of philosophy, logic, and critical reasoning at Sacramento City College from 1977 to 2007.
• 1:13
  Ryan: He unfortunately passed away back in 2016, but this was written on the 1997 published book by Dean Radin called The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena."
• 1:28
  Ryan: And the website didn't have a published date for this review but based on my research here, I am assuming this was written between 2007 and 2016.
• 1:42
  Ryan: Evidence for that was that he seemed to have written it after he had left his teaching position back in 2007, and he also had mentioned references to Dean Radin's newer release back in 2006.
• 1:59
  Ryan: And of course, if he passed away in 2016, he didn't write it after that, so.
• 2:03
  Ryan: Likely this was written closer to 2007.
• 2:06
  Ryan: And I say that mostly because the review is on a book from 1997, which is now pushing 30 years old.
• 2:17
  Ryan: And the review itself is pushing 20 years.
• 2:23
  Ryan: And so there may be scientific findings, or general institutional or, wisdom that has changed to some degree.
• 2:34
  Ryan: I don't know that's true, but I think it's worth noting as far as the limitations of this discussion.
• 2:41
  Ryan: I think that pretty much sets up the background of what we're reviewing.
• 2:45
  Ryan: We will, of course, link this critique in the description.
• 2:51
  Ryan: And this review, I think, was a demonstrated effort to provide a balanced and rational critique of the work.
• 3:02
  Ryan: I think it's not without its own limitations a- and faults, but I think in general, the author did a pretty good job of moving beyond his clear bias on the likelihood of psi phenomena being proven or even likely.
• 3:22
  Ryan: So I think importantly, there are definitely a couple, off the top, points that he makes that are reasonable, rational, and relevant critiques of Dean Radin's work.
• 3:36
  Ryan: I think it's also important to kinda set the record in the beginning that The overall flavor of the review is less demonstrable that psi phenomena is not real, and more a grievance that the jump to conclusion that Dean
• 3:58
  Ryan: Radin makes about the findings is either irrational or unwarranted.
• 4:06
  Peter: Yes.
• 4:06
  Peter: So he does say in his note that it's more of a deconstruction than a review.
• 4:11
  Ryan: Yes.
• 4:12
  Peter: And I think it's an exercise in pointing out...
• 4:18
  Peter: it's an exercise in critical thinking, and it's an exercise in pointing out where Radin either misleads or seems misguided.
• 4:28
  Ryan: And in a way it kind of Lands on what the experimental record is entitled to establish.
• 4:37
  Ryan: And while some of the studies have critique about methodology, there are certain findings in the research that seem to be pretty undisputed that their findings are beyond chance, right?
• 4:56
  Ryan: That there are statistically significant findings that are beyond chance.
• 5:01
  Ryan: The points that the skeptics makes is that doesn't mean therefore psi is real, which is the jump that Dean Radin makes, and I do think that's probably a fair criticism.
• 5:13
  Ryan: I don't necessarily agree that's...
• 5:18
  Ryan: okay, actually there's another caveat I wanna make before we get into this.
• 5:21
  Ryan: Neither of us read Dean Radin's book,
• 5:23
  Peter: Yes
• 5:23
  Ryan: So we're kinda taking this review at its face value that what he's saying, and representing, is authentic or-
• 5:32
  Peter: Yes
• 5:33
  Ryan: correct.
• 5:33
  Peter: Yes I think a lot of the criticisms that he makes are reflected in Radin's interviews.
• 5:41
  Ryan: So the term I'm questioning, and I don't know if this is true, is at times the reviewer, Bob Carroll, seems to be conflating the term proof with the term evidence.
• 5:56
  Ryan: And I don't know, I have heard interviews of Dean Radin who says unequivocally, in his opinion, he doesn't necessarily say in his opinion, that psi phenomena is real based on his research.
• 6:10
  Ryan: But the term proof, which Carroll did use in this review, I don't know how much Dean Radin calls it proof as opposed to evidence, and I do think there's a meaningful distinction there.
• 6:23
  Peter: Oh, absolutely.
• 6:24
  Peter: In fact, I think, so up 'til now i've found Radin's discussions of his research very interesting.
• 6:33
  Peter: And I found his presentation, like the way he presents his position, to be fairly compelling.
• 6:40
  Peter: And part of that was the fact that he focuses on evidence and he doesn't say it's proven.
• 6:48
  Peter: Although, you know, certainly from the way Carroll talks about the book, it does sound like Radin says in the book, that things are pretty much scientifically proven.
• 7:02
  Ryan: Right
• 7:02
  Peter: Yeah
• 7:02
  Ryan: And I just don't know if that's his commentary or interpretation of what's said-
• 7:07
  Peter: Right, right
• 7:07
  Ryan: versus like a verbatim kind of quote from that.
• 7:10
  Ryan: Which it may be.
• 7:11
  Ryan: And I think trivially Dean Radin thinks his stuff is pretty solidly-
• 7:17
  Peter: Right
• 7:17
  Ryan: proven.
• 7:17
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 7:18
  Ryan: And I guess that could be evidenced as is described in the review that Dean Radin says, Psi researchers have moved beyond experiments on whether psi is real towards experiments on how it works."
• 7:36
  Ryan: So I guess that at least alludes to the fact that he believes this to be proven.
• 7:43
  Peter: You know, The fact that this is such an old book, like decades old, we might say, "Oh well, some of Carroll's criticisms aren't valid anymore," but I don't think we will say that.
• 8:00
  Peter: Because even though there is, you know, there's ongoing research, and there's new experiments and new evidence-
• 8:05
  Ryan: Yeah
• 8:05
  Peter: presumably, that's kinda not the nature of Carroll's criticism.
• 8:09
  Peter: Which is much more about how Radin presents...
• 8:16
  Peter: well, Radin's reasoning for his conclusions that psi is real, and what the logical holes are.
• 8:23
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 8:24
  Ryan: I would say this is a struggle both with the critique and with the referenced material in Dean Radin's work, via this book and book review, that the experiments are quite old.
• 8:40
  Ryan: And there is some, the random number generator stuff seems to be m- more recent, but a lot of the cited evidence is like late 19th century stuff.
• 8:50
  Ryan: And some of the citations that Carroll provides in refutation of it is like from the 1950s.
• 8:59
  Ryan: So I felt like some of this discussion was out of date in that regard, where, you know, oh, people in the 1950s didn't believe the stuff from the 1920s therefore...
• 9:12
  Peter: so I think part of the thing is a lot of what Radin talks about that Carroll has a problem with is what people believe.
• 9:23
  Peter: What this expert or this scientist says about psi.
• 9:29
  Peter: One of the ones I remember is Sagan.
• 9:31
  Peter: Carroll has, takes issue with the fact that Radin pulls a quote from Sagan to say Carl Sagan believes that psi is real.
• 9:39
  Peter: And so it's The older stuff I think is in response to Radin saying, even back then, these people believed this, or these people didn't believe that."
• 9:49
  Peter: And so Carroll's responding to kind of-
• 9:53
  Ryan: Sure
• 9:53
  Peter: you're misrepresenting what people said-
• 9:56
  Ryan: Right
• 9:56
  Peter: or what they believed.
• 9:57
  Peter: And there's no reason to think that, they think the way you say they're thinking.
• 10:00
  Peter: And I think overall, as we said off mic, there's a propensity on both sides of this...
• 10:10
  Peter: as we look at different kinds of paranormal discussion or discussion of para normal phenomena and their critics- we find that there's cherry-picking on both sides.
• 10:23
  Ryan: Right.
• 10:23
  Peter: And maybe I'm introducing that a little bit too early, but-
• 10:27
  Ryan: yeah, I think that's an important note, because that is one of my grievances with this review.
• 10:35
  Ryan: It was very well done.
• 10:36
  Ryan: I'm gonna...
• 10:37
  Ryan: And I am I don't have strong feelings on Dean Radin, but I don't feel as strongly about his conclusions as this- author reviewer did.
• 10:49
  Ryan: And I felt like this author did a very good job overall trying to present a very rational discussion and breakdown of each element I mean, it, it comes out to 60 pages, like a 13-part-
• 11:05
  Peter: Yeah.
• 11:05
  Ryan: It's extensive.
• 11:06
  Peter: Yeah.
• 11:07
  Ryan: And then there's these random comments, at the end of a chapter- or even in between- that detract from its the quality of the review, the unbiased attempt- Yeah where it's clear, and it even, he mentioned at the very
• 11:26
  Ryan: end what was the...
• 11:29
  Ryan: it had to do with healing with the mind, and he was talking about H.
• 11:33
  Ryan: pylori.
• 11:34
  Peter: Yes.
• 11:34
  Ryan: And then basically said, "Even if you showed me it- I wouldn't believe it."
• 11:38
  Ryan: Which, kinda goes, flies in the face of his initial opening, which is skeptics have to have an open mind.
• 11:45
  Peter: So Yeah, I think this is the bigger discussion, that looking at this leads to.
• 11:53
  Peter: But I wanna go back to some of his specific criticisms, or general criticisms, of Radin, 'cause I think that's important in looking at Radin's credibility overall.
• 12:05
  Ryan: Yes.
• 12:05
  Peter: Up till now, I've found Radin fairly credible.
• 12:09
  Ryan: Mm-hmm.
• 12:09
  Peter: Like, Oh, this is really interesting stuff.
• 12:10
  Peter: He seems...
• 12:11
  Peter: I think uh, when we reviewed something earlier, I said, something I really like about Radin is that he doesn't come across as crazy enthusiastic, and he seems very measured."
• 12:22
  Ryan: Yes.
• 12:22
  Peter: And, I think a big part of that was because of his, use of evidence versus proof in his presentation.
• 12:28
  Peter: But I think, Carroll points out or picks on two major areas of overall approach that are a problem for Radin.
• 12:40
  Peter: And I think the biggest one is meta-analysis.
• 12:45
  Peter: And the second one, it's related, is statistics.
• 12:48
  Peter: So basically Radin's most compelling argument, or the argue, the argument that he presents as the most compelling information, in support of psi phenomenon, is and I'm not clear here, 'cause he might have said it in the book, that
• 13:06
  Peter: science proves...
• 13:07
  Peter: we don't know that.
• 13:08
  Peter: But that it's based on meta-analysis.
• 13:13
  Peter: And Carroll's point is that me- meta-analysis allows Radin to incorporate invalid studies into valid results and say, "overall, these many hundreds of experiments have been done, and the likelihood that these outcomes are random is, very small."
• 13:37
  Peter: And then that's where the, the statistical part comes in.
• 13:41
  Peter: Actually, it's not so much st- statistics as interpretation.
• 13:44
  Peter: Which is that because it's non-random, it therefore proves- Is the reality of psi.
• 13:53
  Peter: Or yeah, that the most likely explanation for this non-randomness is psi phenomenon.
• 13:58
  Ryan: Right.
• 13:59
  Peter: That's the, probably-
• 14:00
  Ryan: Right
• 14:00
  Peter: ....the fair way of putting it.
• 14:02
  Peter: Or therefore we can conclude that it's psi.
• 14:05
  Peter: And Carroll takes exception, and is, really pretty emphatic, that Radin is disregarding error and basically a whole bunch of non-intentional causes, of statistical anomaly.
• 14:24
  Ryan: Yeah, I think, so this is where it was tough for me, because from what I recall, Carroll specifically said he didn't go through these meta-analyses.
• 14:34
  Ryan: So some of what he's saying is coming across, at least to me when I'm, like, listening to the two of them, as "Well, "it could have been," right?
• 14:43
  Ryan: And I think that's fair-
• 14:45
  Peter: Mm-hmm
• 14:45
  Ryan: ...that to raise that, but he is also presenting it in a way that is "There was."
• 14:51
  Ryan: And I th- some of them definitely did-
• 14:53
  Peter: Exactly
• 14:53
  Ryan: ha- had studies that subsequently had methodologies that were in question and/or had non-compliance with the actual methodology.
• 15:04
  Peter: Exactly.
• 15:04
  Peter: Yeah.
• 15:04
  Ryan: And and obviously those bring the results into question.
• 15:08
  Ryan: But it wasn't across the board that all the-
• 15:10
  Peter: Exactly
• 15:11
  Ryan: all the studies and experiments and everything had these things.
• 15:14
  Peter: I, I think overall the issue is that, if controls are inadequate, so you're not controlling for fraud, you're not controlling for error, you're not controlling for information bleed-through with subjects, that those then become possible explanation for the statistically
• 15:37
  Peter: compelling outcomes, and that Radin doesn't address that.
• 15:42
  Ryan: I think in certain circumstances he seemed to.
• 15:45
  Ryan: Now, I think he didn't address it to Carroll's satisfaction.
• 15:49
  Ryan: But there were- some points in the review where basically he cited Radin saying "we determine that," and Carroll's kind of questioning how they determine that.
• 16:00
  Ryan: I think Carroll's criticism about Radin's compulsion to move to therefore it's psi, has its teeth.
• 16:08
  Ryan: But I'm also making some presumption that Radin is, and those who are doing this are, making attempts to isolate and remove or measure for those factors.
• 16:22
  Ryan: It's not perfect, I recognize that, and there were some studies that were determined that they had fallibility.
• 16:29
  Ryan: The thing is Radin discounts any other naturalized potential cause.
• 16:36
  Ryan: In some of these studies, there have been results that have been acknowledged even by critics that, "yeah, it's beyond-
• 16:43
  Peter: It's statistically
• 16:44
  Ryan: significant it's statistic-
• 16:44
  Peter: Yeah.
• 16:45
  Ryan: But
• 16:46
  Peter: right, right
• 16:47
  Ryan: then branch and are like "the best we can say responsibly is we, it's weird and we don't know."
• 16:53
  Ryan: And Radin takes the other branches, like "it's psi."
• 16:57
  Peter: So that's Carroll's main-
• 17:00
  Ryan: Yeah
• 17:01
  Peter: criticism.
• 17:01
  Ryan: Which I think is totally fair.
• 17:02
  Peter: Is that you can't just assume that that the, the reports repeatedly use the argument that because this is so statistically significant, it must be psi.
• 17:16
  Peter: Without, number one, specifically controlling for things-
• 17:20
  Ryan: Right
• 17:20
  Peter: because they're not extreme- they're not rigorously designed.
• 17:24
  Peter: Or number two just not considering alternate explanations.
• 17:30
  Peter: And there are multiple examples of intentional misleading- results, fraudulent results that end up getting incorporated-
• 17:42
  Ryan: Yeah
• 17:42
  Peter: In, in the kind of overall story.
• 17:45
  Peter: And then his second major criticism other than that interpretation of statistical significance, which is a major- that's a a major objection is Radin's insistence that meta-analysis is so compelling-
• 18:03
  Ryan: Right
• 18:03
  Peter: that it is essentially proof.
• 18:06
  Peter: I think where we've heard Radin up till now, we haven't heard such a emphasis on meta-analysis.
• 18:16
  Peter: I think that was really, the core of this book was meta-analysis.
• 18:20
  Peter: And I think Carroll points out that it's Radin's standard approach.
• 18:24
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 18:24
  Peter: I think that he references another book, 'cause he's done a whole bunch of books.
• 18:27
  Peter: And Carroll's looked at previous books or reviewed or, published on them.
• 18:32
  Peter: And that, is just his, one of his major modus operandis-
• 18:35
  Ryan: Right
• 18:36
  Peter: Is to do meta-analysis and then write a book about it.
• 18:39
  Peter: So I think those are definite weaknesses for Radin's case.
• 18:44
  Ryan: I agree.
• 18:45
  Ryan: I so To be fair enough to Radin, Carroll critiques this book, in some circumstances, as if it's a published scientific paper, that should have extensive exposition on methodology and how all this works.
• 19:01
  Ryan: And this book is
• 19:04
  Peter: Right
• 19:04
  Ryan: consumer level.
• 19:06
  Ryan: So to expect that level of detail on the methodology and the evidence and the studies and all that, I think is a little unreasonable.
• 19:14
  Ryan: He does have published papers, and it would've been interesting, and maybe it does exist.
• 19:19
  Ryan: I haven't scoured all the Dean Radin criticisms that he has on this website, but, perhaps a critique of an actual study of the meta-analysis or whatever would've had more teeth in that regard.
• 19:35
  Ryan: I think there is a, a, another good point made.
• 19:38
  Ryan: Not that meta-analyses have no value, but it is retrospective, and that there is the opportunity to bring in the analyzer's bias of expectation that can curate the data.
• 19:54
  Ryan: I think all of that is totally reasonable and founded.
• 19:58
  Ryan: And that That the counter to that is you need to prospectively be establishing what information is transferred, what is the expected outcome.
• 20:10
  Peter: Yeah.
• 20:10
  Ryan: And obviously that would be in line with rigorous scientific practice.
• 20:16
  Ryan: Then there's the retort that experiments with humans are inherently confounded because n-no single event can ever truly be re-replicated.
• 20:31
  Ryan: Fine.
• 20:32
  Ryan: And then the critique that Radin fails to consider alternate modalities of causation to the results.
• 20:42
  Ryan: And again, even beyond, even if the experiments were all perfect and had zero issue in methodology he isn't considering any other causal factor.
• 20:57
  Ryan: I mean, he even went as far as calling out, "Did Zeus do this?"
• 21:01
  Ryan: Which obviously is a bit facetious, and...
• 21:04
  Ryan: whatever.
• 21:04
  Ryan: The point is made, he's not considering any other potential causations, and even Radin notes that we don't know if it's telepathy versus precognition, which are two different modalities.
• 21:21
  Ryan: But on the same hand, the skeptics don't seem to be accepting that PK or, psi could be a thing.
• 21:31
  Ryan: There was comments like, "I can't say it doesn't exist, but I don't think it does,".
• 21:36
  Ryan: I think if you stop at we can't say that it doesn't exist brings better clout than, but I don't think it does.
• 21:46
  Peter: So, I think that's really the crux of the discussion, that what we're talking about is belief in the context of science.
• 21:56
  Peter: And, it's not a discussion of whether science proves things or not.
• 22:02
  Peter: It's a question of, is your belief supported by the science?
• 22:07
  Peter: And so Radin is saying, "I'm doing science.
• 22:12
  Peter: The scientific record, the evidence supports this belief."
• 22:17
  Peter: And Carroll is saying no, you haven't demonstrated that the evidence supports this belief because you're not looking at the limitations of the evidence- because of experimental design, blah, blah, blah.
• 22:31
  Peter: And you're using logical fallacies in your analysis and conclusions."
• 22:36
  Peter: And so, he's not devaluing or rather not denying the value of meta-analysis.
• 22:42
  Ryan: Mm.
• 22:42
  Peter: What he's really focused on is over-interpretation and conclusions,
• 22:47
  Ryan: Right
• 22:47
  Peter: drawn from whatever method you're using.
• 22:50
  Peter: Whether it's meta-analysis or something else.
• 22:52
  Peter: And I think that's a hard hurdle for proponents of paranormal phenomena to overcome.
• 23:00
  Ryan: Sure.
• 23:00
  Peter: Because it seems to be that critics are constantly able to say, This is why you're over-interpreting what you're presenting."
• 23:10
  Peter: Not that that's not some evidence supporting, but the evidence is very weak.
• 23:18
  Peter: And so then it becomes a choice of belief rather than a really strong case that the scientific method supports this.
• 23:28
  Peter: Yeah, I think I got there.
• 23:30
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 23:31
  Ryan: No, I think that's absolutely the, the single most valuable piece of the critique in the paper here.
• 23:38
  Peter: Then on the other hand, as you alluded to, Carroll's attitude comes through.
• 23:43
  Ryan: Right.
• 23:43
  Peter: He does a really good job of using his, really his profession was critical thinking and- understanding all the kind of tools of philosophy and logic.
• 23:56
  Peter: And that's what's great about this piece-
• 23:59
  Ryan: Yeah
• 23:59
  Peter: is that there's a lot of application of that and links to-
• 24:05
  Ryan: Yeah
• 24:05
  Peter: the Outline Skeptic's Dictionary, and it's like, here's a whole list of arguments that you need to consider when you say you're proving something.
• 24:13
  Peter: So that's all great.
• 24:14
  Peter: But then he slides.
• 24:17
  Peter: He doesn't really slide 'cause it's kind of from the beginning.
• 24:20
  Peter: So he's got this overall context of supreme supremely rational, reasonable interaction, and then he uses a lot of language that's really, very highly colored.
• 24:35
  Peter: And you said h- ad hominem earlier.
• 24:38
  Peter: I don't know if it was on mic or not, and I was like it wasn't quite ad hominem, but it was it's pretty strong."
• 24:43
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 24:44
  Ryan: I mean, One of them, this wasn't necessarily specifically at Radin, but says that the approach makes one look like a babbling idiot.
• 24:54
  Peter: Yeah and there was an argument.
• 24:56
  Peter: At one...
• 24:56
  Peter: The end, the very end of one of the sections it says, "It just sounds like a whining dog."
• 25:01
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 25:02
  Peter: Those are such highly colored turns of phrase that it's like you're really not sounding...
• 25:09
  Peter: I mean, they're not logical arguments.
• 25:10
  Peter: And of course the other major thing we're, finding is I I think, you know, he's criticizing Radin for cherry-picking some stuff.
• 25:21
  Peter: And then at the same time, it seems-
• 25:23
  Ryan: Cherry-picking
• 25:24
  Peter: he's also cherry-picking.
• 25:25
  Ryan: Right.
• 25:26
  Peter: So that's a real challenge for us in, for-
• 25:30
  Ryan: Laypeople.
• 25:30
  Peter: the public, for laypeople in "Oh, who do we believe?"
• 25:33
  Peter: Because again, and this has come up for us before, where the proponents and the critics seem to be cross-talking in a way because they're cherry-picking their quotes or they're cherry-picking You know, who they say represents science and who
• 25:48
  Peter: they say represents the proponents.
• 25:52
  Peter: The, it undermines the argument of both sides.
• 25:54
  Peter: So when the critics only cite the outright frauds, that doesn't address everybody else.
• 26:01
  Ryan: Right.
• 26:01
  Peter: The other, sources of evidence.
• 26:03
  Peter: Because finding a fraud doesn't mean that everyone's a fraud.
• 26:06
  Peter: And then likewise, Radin says something about critics like, "Oh," the overall argument the, that Carroll really objects to is all the air- all the critics say this is impossible.
• 26:19
  Peter: And it's like, no, I'm not saying it's impossible.
• 26:22
  Peter: I'm saying that you haven't provided the evidence and the logical conclusion from the evidence, that it's proven.
• 26:30
  Peter: So I don't have to believe it because
• 26:32
  Ryan: Right
• 26:33
  Peter: it's not proven.
• 26:35
  Peter: And I'm still gonna say it's possible, and that was I referenced the Sagan quote-
• 26:39
  Ryan: Mm-hmm
• 26:39
  Peter: Before, and S- Sagan was basically saying, "I can't say it's impossible."
• 26:43
  Peter: And the, the use of the quote was more along the lines of, "See, Sagan believes it, so you should, too."
• 26:49
  Peter: Because he's-
• 26:49
  Ryan: And then omitted that he said that he didn't think it.
• 26:53
  Peter: Yeah.
• 26:53
  Peter: He said, "I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it's true."
• 26:56
  Peter: Like, he's not convinced.
• 26:58
  Peter: And I think that's, kind of where from the evidence where we have to land.
• 27:02
  Peter: Fr- and I don't wanna s- specify from the evidence.
• 27:06
  Peter: Now, personally, do I believe in some of the stuff?
• 27:11
  Peter: Yeah.
• 27:12
  Peter: I do believe in some of the stuff.
• 27:13
  Peter: But I'm not gonna go say-
• 27:15
  Ryan: It's proven
• 27:15
  Peter: it's proven by science.
• 27:17
  Peter: And I think that's where, we have to admit as proponents.
• 27:22
  Peter: If you're gonna be a proponent, I think you have to admit that it's not proven, but I believe it.
• 27:29
  Ryan: Correct.
• 27:29
  Peter: And I believe it because of all these accounts, and I don't believe that these people are making this up, and I don't believe that tho- those people are making this up, and I don't believe that everybody's a fraud.
• 27:38
  Peter: And I don't believe that everybody's just believing someone else and is just gullible.
• 27:44
  Peter: 'Cause I think people are having real experiences.
• 27:47
  Peter: They may be misinterpreting it, them.
• 27:49
  Peter: But it doesn't mean that because they're misinterpreting it, it's not psi.
• 27:54
  Ryan: Correct.
• 27:55
  Peter: Which is the point that you were making about precognition versus telepathy.
• 28:00
  Ryan: Telepathy.
• 28:01
  Peter: Yeah.
• 28:02
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 28:02
  Ryan: And I think that's kinda where Radin is landing even if his language is I'm gonna say unintentionally misleading because I don't think he's setting out...
• 28:13
  Ryan: I think he fully believes what he believes and is trying to be honorable in the way he presents his work.
• 28:21
  Ryan: I don't think he's a fraud specif- like-
• 28:24
  Peter: Right.
• 28:25
  Peter: The, the-
• 28:25
  Ryan: intentionally-
• 28:25
  Peter: the problem is-
• 28:26
  Ryan: defrauding people
• 28:26
  Peter: the problem is he wants to write books, and once you write a book, it's forever there available-
• 28:32
  Ryan: Sure.
• 28:32
  Ryan: Oh, yeah
• 28:32
  Peter: for someone to say he made this argument-"
• 28:34
  Ryan: Absolutely
• 28:34
  Peter: "therefore..."
• 28:34
  Peter: And there's, the cherry-picking.
• 28:35
  Ryan: Yep.
• 28:36
  Peter: It's pick this book.
• 28:37
  Peter: He said this thing, therefore that proves that his reasoning is not sound and da da.
• 28:43
  Ryan: Correct.
• 28:44
  Peter: It's like the reasoning that he presented in this section of this book is not sound.
• 28:48
  Peter: It doesn't prove, equally, doesn't prove that he's wrong about everything.
• 28:54
  Ryan: Right.
• 28:54
  Ryan: And I mean, he's convinced that it exists.
• 28:58
  Ryan: To his satisfaction, this has sufficient evidence that it's a real thing, and he's more inclined to moving towards how it works more than does it exist.
• 29:10
  Ryan: Now, it doesn't, just 'cause he believes it doesn't make it real.
• 29:13
  Ryan: But I do think that's part of where he's at now is he thinks it exists.
• 29:20
  Ryan: There was comment on the random number generators and whether they're truly random.
• 29:27
  Ryan: And that seemed to be a refutation, in that latter third where they were talking more specifically about studies.
• 29:36
  Ryan: At the same time, one of the critics had mentioned a non-fully random number generator would have similar impact on both the control and the studied arm.
• 29:49
  Ryan: And for me, I'll say two things.
• 29:52
  Ryan: Number one, when it comes to generating randomness for human interaction, almost any randomized thing, whether it has, pseudo entropy versus some source of real entropy, is going to be random enough that the human isn't going to be able
• 30:14
  Ryan: to follow patterns.
• 30:16
  Peter: Right.
• 30:16
  Peter: Yeah.
• 30:17
  Ryan: But at the same time, when they're talking about random number generators globally and looking at the random number generation in correlation to world events, they mentioned Princess Diana and Mother Teresa, and that there was a correlation of less
• 30:39
  Ryan: randomization in the US and the UK when Princess Diana's funeral was going on, versus when Mother Teresa died.
• 30:51
  Ryan: And the assumption is that because Princess Diana's event was more traumatic, the global consciousness had some sort of impact on the randomized state of these generators at that time.
• 31:06
  Ryan: Those things definitely have to be fully random.
• 31:11
  Ryan: The other thing I picked up on was comments about, and I think this is legitimate, right?
• 31:18
  Ryan: At any given point in time in a study of limited sample, results can land that appear significantly out of random, right?
• 31:29
  Ryan: So you could take 10 pennies, and while it should technically be 50/50, you could have seven-
• 31:35
  Peter: mm-hmm, mm-hmm
• 31:36
  Ryan: heads in a row.
• 31:37
  Ryan: But the concept is the longer the sample, the more-
• 31:41
  Peter: Mm-hmm
• 31:42
  Ryan: iterations you have, the closer it gets to that ultimate 50/50.
• 31:46
  Ryan: Some of these studies that had really strong results could have that confounding factor.
• 31:54
  Ryan: That if done for an extended period of time, eventually you would start seeing this regression.
• 32:01
  Ryan: And he actually calls out Radin, who says that when they were trying to have people try and influence something, that over time their efficacy of being able to produce good results waned.
• 32:17
  Ryan: And Radin's interpretation of that is they get tired, basically.
• 32:22
  Ryan: And Carroll's comment is that's evidence that, or you're not even considering that it's evidence of regressing towards the mean- It, it- which is what you would expect over time.
• 32:32
  Peter: Exactly.
• 32:32
  Peter: Because if you flip a coin 10 times, it's very unlikely that you will get five heads-
• 32:39
  Ryan: Right
• 32:39
  Peter: and five tails.
• 32:40
  Peter: That is not at all expected.
• 32:43
  Peter: And so the fact that you get seven heads and three tails is not evidence of anything.
• 32:48
  Peter: But if you do it over thousands of times, then you start to expect approaching 50/50.
• 32:55
  Peter: But you still don't expect 50/50.
• 32:57
  Ryan: Which is part of Radin's point about meta-analyses, whether his ultimate assumption around them is flawed is another thing.
• 33:08
  Peter: Mm-hmm.
• 33:08
  Ryan: But his point is that you raise that sample by looking at the body of work versus any one single event.
• 33:16
  Ryan: Which isn't wrong, and if you're putting garbage in, you get garbage out.
• 33:22
  Peter: That's exactly the Because the problem is that then you're not-
• 33:24
  Ryan: Which is the critique
• 33:24
  Peter: controlling for controls.
• 33:26
  Ryan: Correct.
• 33:26
  Peter: You're not controlling for quality of experiment.
• 33:28
  Peter: And so you're able to introduce much more error and much more intentional influence-
• 33:34
  Ryan: Right
• 33:34
  Peter: than, than you would in a large-
• 33:39
  Ryan: prospective blind study
• 33:40
  Peter: prospective yeah, rigorous study, which is really what needs to be done.
• 33:45
  Peter: Obviously that's a very significant challenge, especially with fringe science.
• 33:51
  Ryan: Mm-hmm
• 33:51
  Peter: or paranormal.
• 33:51
  Peter: And, I don't use fringe science in a derogatory way.
• 33:54
  Peter: But anything that's farther away from well- mainstream.
• 33:58
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 33:58
  Peter: Yeah.
• 33:59
  Peter: So I think w- we're gonna continue to be interested in fringe science, as far as what the listeners will know as our overall orientation towards explorations of consciousness and awakening and that kind of thing.
• 34:16
  Peter: And interested in, to what extent people claim scientific evidence, and then also the critiques of those people.
• 34:27
  Peter: But, what we're seeing is there's just a lot of imperfection.
• 34:31
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 34:32
  Peter: We haven't seen a critical piece that is so solid that we don't say, "Wait a second, You're making a bad point here," or "you're, you're really showing a bias."
• 34:43
  Ryan: Which of course doesn't invalidate their good points.
• 34:45
  Peter: R- exactly.
• 34:46
  Ryan: Which is exactly the same on the other hand.
• 34:48
  Peter: Exactly.
• 34:49
  Peter: Exactly.
• 34:49
  Peter: So it's a very, it's a very, it's a very demanding situation.
• 34:53
  Peter: I don't think we can read one or two
• 34:56
  Ryan: Mm-hmm
• 34:56
  Peter: pieces from either side and say, "Oh well, I'm convinced."
• 34:59
  Peter: That's the problem.
• 35:00
  Ryan: Yep.
• 35:00
  Peter: It is easy to be convinced-
• 35:02
  Ryan: Yep
• 35:02
  Peter: depending on your own inclination.
• 35:07
  Ryan: Yep.
• 35:07
  Ryan: No, and I think this even extends to the scientific community, where unless you're, up to your neck in the body of work, most people are skimming sources you know, like- right finding a couple of sources.
• 35:23
  Ryan: Potentially confirmation bias, right?
• 35:26
  Ryan: I need to find something that contradicts this," on either side.
• 35:30
  Ryan: And going and finding one or two of those studies or papers and saying, "See?
• 35:37
  Ryan: There it is."
• 35:38
  Ryan: It is very easy, and this is a key point of the author in this, and I think was clearly a life work for him, trying to teach that these things exist, and practicing getting out of them.
• 35:54
  Ryan: And I think that no amount of practice is ever going to alleviate any one of us from falling into these traps, but the more awareness we have of them, and the more practice w- and open-mindedness, I think.
• 36:08
  Ryan: Because when you're attached to something, that's when these fallacies and-
• 36:13
  Peter: Yeah
• 36:13
  Ryan: the ego takes over, and that's when- the whole thing breaks down.
• 36:16
  Ryan: And nobody can claim science at that point.
• 36:20
  Ryan: That doesn't mean good points don't exist in it, but it becomes more difficult to suss out what is a good point versus what's emotionally driven.
• 36:28
  Ryan: I do wish, and I guess we're probably seeing some of it, one of the the kind of emotions or frustrations that came up for me in reading this, there's a disinclination of mainstream materialist science to consider it at
• 36:46
  Ryan: all.
• 36:47
  Peter: Yeah.
• 36:47
  Peter: I agree.
• 36:48
  Peter: It's very disappointing to have things dismissed rather than held more lightly as possible but improbable.
• 36:59
  Peter: I think the argument tends to be that it's either fraud or superstitious-
• 37:05
  Ryan: Right
• 37:05
  Peter: belief, like completely non-critical acceptance of the idea- or superstitious belief, rather than finding the limitations of the argument, finding the limit- limitations of the work, and then evaluating what remains.
• 37:21
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 37:22
  Peter: But, unfortunately the functional context of science, and its funding by governments, and it's it's embedding in capitalism.
• 37:33
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 37:33
  Peter: Just you...
• 37:34
  Peter: That's the way it's gonna be.
• 37:36
  Peter: Which is I would say overall What we're hoping for in terms of consciousness and awakening, right?
• 37:45
  Peter: It's like it doesn't have to be this way.
• 37:47
  Peter: Like humans don't have to be this way.
• 37:50
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 37:50
  Peter: It is the way we are right now.
• 37:51
  Peter: It is the way our society is right now But what we're learning from our experience and explorations is that it doesn't have to be.
• 38:00
  Peter: And so if we could change the context where these things are happening, then people would be able to hold more openness and more, even more contradiction.
• 38:11
  Peter: Rather than saying that's a contradiction, therefore you're a liar."
• 38:16
  Peter: "And everything that you say is a lie."
• 38:18
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 38:18
  Peter: Cause that's kinda where we land.
• 38:20
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 38:20
  Peter: That's kind of the shape of things as they are.
• 38:22
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 38:23
  Peter: Whereas, oh, I found something that is untrue, and I have to do some work in finding where the truth is in what you're saying.
• 38:31
  Peter: Is there something true there?
• 38:33
  Peter: But it's just much more obviously convenient and emotionally satisfying to to be black and white.
• 38:42
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 38:43
  Peter: Yeah, so it's a tough- it's tough.
• 38:45
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 38:45
  Peter: It's a tough world.
• 38:48
  Peter: no, I think there's definitely a lot of good criticism in this piece-
• 38:52
  Ryan: Yeah
• 38:52
  Peter: of Radin, and not just of his methods, but of his rhetoric, You know, his writing, things that he said that are misrepresentations of things that other people have said.
• 39:03
  Peter: And that's pretty important, and difficult, for a casual reader to detect.
• 39:10
  Peter: So it's very helpful to have a critic like this go through and pull some of those things out.
• 39:16
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 39:16
  Peter: And then at the same time, this is like a circle-
• 39:19
  Ryan: Finding the limitations on that.
• 39:20
  Peter: Yeah, exactly.
• 39:20
  Peter: Exactly.
• 39:21
  Peter: It doesn't prove that he's just a liar.
• 39:23
  Peter: So yeah.
• 39:23
  Ryan: Cool.
• 39:24
  Ryan: Yeah.
• 39:24
  Ryan: So we will, of course, link this.
• 39:27
  Ryan: It it definitely had some good stuff in it, and I think it's worthwhile to explore counterpoints and positions to our own beliefs.
• 39:35
  Ryan: So love to hear what you think if you read this, and then until next time, talk to you later.
• 39:41
  Peter: Bye now.
• 39:44
  Peter: Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom podcast.
• 39:46
  Peter: Join us next time as we continue the discussion.
• 39:49
  Peter: Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, and visit www.eth-studio.com for more information and content