Talk:Dean Radin

Criticism section reference

The first line in this section: "Skeptics have argued that Radin's work is pseudoscience" does not appear to be supported by the reference. Only one skeptic, the author, criticizes him in the article cited and the word "pseudoscience" does not appear in the article. Perhaps the link should go to the folder index page and not the article. The second line "Radin's work has been criticized by skeptics such as Morten Monrad Pedersen" uses the same article reference. Can you please point out where that name appears in the article? Did I miss it? And again, the ref does not seem to support the use of skeptics, plural, though I'm sure other refs could be found. 5Q5 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one day later and no corrective action has been taken. I am removing the Criticism section because its current content violates WP:Biographies of living persons. See also the warning banner about poorly sourced material at the top of this talk page. The reference "http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm An Evening with Dean Radin by Claus Larsen, a critical examination of Radin's research methodology" does not support the statements to which it is being used as a source. 1. only one skeptic is involved, not plural. 2. the article does not use the word pseuodscience. A URL or index page that does use the word pseudoscience (my earlier suggestion above) would not be acceptable as a high quality source. 3. the name "Morten Monrad Pedersen" does not even appear in the article. Therefore, the reference is, well, fraudulent as a source for that line. 4. there is a large photo of Dean Radin above the article that appears to have been taken from his website, possibly without his permission. This is not a relevant or high quality source for the Dean Radin article. I'm not against a criticism section. Someone is welcome to try again. 5Q5 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Update, It seems that whoever did the referencing fouled up the source code so that it resulted in the article appearing to be sourced by both references when actually the second line had a different reference, but not visible in the article. See the page here in the history log. The second reference for the name "Morten Monrad Pedersen" is for a book review written by him. Since it was published on a biased website and not a neutral third party, I am moving that book review to the external links section and still deleting the Crtiticism section as being nonneutral poorly sourced. 5Q5 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

tags - Neutrality and Factual accuracy

While this is a biography of living persons, there are clearly issues here as the article is a paen without any mention of the criticism this guy's received. We need to include that lest we mislead the reader. I've notified WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Radin has often responded to his critics. I'll make sure that his arguments are fairly represented. Those arguments will be in sufficient detail to make his basic counterpoints, which will generally make the critics seem stupid. Maybe I'll also include some of the nice scientific quotes from his critics, like the "woo-woo" one from Randi. Edit as you wish, but please do not put it throughout the article. That's because we need to keep it in one place and work with it to contextualize properly, and the entire article should not be a discussion of parapsychology, but rather focus on Radin himself. If no material is inserted, I'll remove the tag pretty soon. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This oughta be rich. I'll let someone else handle your madcap devotion to Radin's ability to make his critics appear "stupid". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to be a debate about Radin's published works, then don't list them, as listing them would require criticism in order for the article to be neutral and encyclopedic, at least if the rest of the research is as godawful as the random number stuff, which I've looked at carefully. I haven't seen Radin's response, if he has any, to the very convincing published critiques of this random number "research" (I mean specific published critiques of the research itself, not the general overall rejection by skeptics) but I've seen the response of one of the other researchers; it's a lot of smoke and bluster that doesn't even bother to confront the real serious issues with this research, whose conclusions are apparently based in a complete and utter failure to understand the concept of randomness. If you really don't want the research debated here, then don't put it in, but just describe the general areas that it covers. But still, in order to present a neutral picture of the subject, there must be some acknowledgement of how little respected he and his work are, as a result of the lack of intellectual and scientific rigor thereof. Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It will certainly be fun, and will certainly be deleted in the end, as no one will want to turn this into a debate page about parapsychology. That's why there isn't crit now. See talk page previous. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Does he do this on Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell at the helm? ;) Antelan^talk 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's George Noory now. Art Bell retired and only does guest spots. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you mention Coast to Coast. I used to listen to it 15 years ago or so, for pure entertainment, but hadn't heard it for a long time. The other night I came across it while cruising the dial, listened for a while and thought, OMG, it's just like reading Wikipedia!Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Living like I do, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "trivia" section, and some tidbits about his childhood. This guy is notable as a parapsychologist, and I fail to see the interest in reporting that he played in a bluegrass band at some point. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Current state of editing looks fine to me. In fact, people have been making good changes. The phrasing of some of that is better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Radin's work and responses by Radin to his critics, if added, will need to come from reviewed journals and academic textbooks, not the "Skeptical Enquirer" nor "USA Today", which are basically worthless in scientific terms. --70.55.183.87 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't make those decisions, whoever you are (a new account telling editors what they can do? Or?). The Skeptical Enquirer qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Doug Weller (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is untrue. It is a RS for skeptical opinion, but only for that. This is due to the fact that it is admittedly biased. So there is no chance it is an RS for bald statements of fact. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is regularly used as a reliable source. Frankly there is sometimes little in the way of peer reviewed critique of this stuff because the Parapsychology journals are mostly not peer reviewed and because it is seen as such a farcical mess of pseudoscience by the mainstream that few authors would bother submitting critiques to peer reviewed journals. Having been a regular reader of Skeptical Enquirer I would say that the academic standards for their articles, although not as high as that of a peer reviewed journal is at minimum equivalent to the standards set by the most academic publications of the parapsychology community.Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a "factual accuracy in dispute" flag at the top of this biographical article an admission by Wikipedia that the article does or may contain false information about Mr. Radin and yet is being published regardless, thereby putting the Wikipedia Foundation in risk of a defamation lawsuit by Mr. Radin, or at least through his attorney demand that the article be deleted immediately? If the article was about me, I sure would request immediate action. There are safer templates for biography issues: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. Any administrators reading this? 5Q5 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure at which point the neutrality tag disappeared from this article, but it is desperately needed. This is by far the least neutral article I have seen on wikipedia on any subject. The research section is almost certainly pseudoscience, as evidenced by the fact that it itself admits that it is not accepted by the ("mainstream") scientific community. Furthermore, the section presents as statements of fact a large number of extremely dubious claims. Even where these are published in "peer-reviewed" publications, the "peers" in question are of similarly dubious standing in the scientific community at large. Furthermore, the page is entirely devoid of criticism or opposing opinions despite the fact that these clearly exist (again, as evidenced by the fact that real scientists don't believe any of this). Citations are also frequently rather dubious, for example "He has published numerous scientific papers,[4]" pointing to something he said on his own website, which hardly inspires confidence in me. Mind you, I don't really have the patience, the time, or the interest to fix this myself, but the tag is surely needed to warn readers that this article is in essence a propaganda piece that resembles something Dean Radin might choose to write about himself. I apologise for the rant, but it really is that bad. Elithrion (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sources for the spurious claims of research. The man's own website cannot be a valid source for claims of this nature. Not to mention that attending a spoon bending party is not research. My changes were quickly reverted by Kazuba. I am again removing www.deanradin.com as a source on those claims of research. 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.206.84 (talk)

Worthless Review of "Conscious Universe"

This review of Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" is absolutely and utterly worthless because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal or book:

• Book review of The Conscious Universe by Morten Monrad Pedersen on the SkepticReport.com website.

Please removed it from the article. --70.55.183.87 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARITY. This review is perfectly fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources has nothing to do with it at all. However, the link could stay in if we also link to a review by a parapsychologsit or "pro" organization for balance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The link can stay in period. It gives balance, your suggestion just unbalances it again.Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it you believe SkepticReport is balanced? From the sound of the title, it isn't balanced. Or is it like the Christian Science Monitor? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'Balance' referring to the whole article, which right now if full of Dean Radin's viewpoint, his blog, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I have no objection to keeping the link. I would also support other highly relevant links. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dean Radin has published plenty of peer-reviewed articles on parapsychology. There is no parity at all between his work and the book review of The Conscious Universe on the SkepticReport.com website. --70.55.176.56 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there isn't any parity for one reason or another that is certain. Why not just go get some other links, like a book review which has a more balanced view? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is published in the Journal of Parapsychology. --70.55.176.56 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like just the thing. Peer reviewed journal. I think there is a prohibition against using online sources you have to pay to view? Is it anywhere else, or is there something similar? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for a review of this nonsensical book. The Review in SkepticReport is much better in terms of actual verifiability. WP:REDFLAG applies. We eschew fake "peer reviewed" journals like the Journal of Parapsychology because they are plainly unreliable fantasy reads and not real journals. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoon bending

That ought to do it with Mr. Radin and his spoon. http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm Kazuba (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The man's own website is not a proper source. Find another. Not to mention that attending a spoon bending party is not research.216.232.201.101 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dean Radin is the only source for this story. (Curiously) No one else. But if I remember it correctly, it also appears in a foot note in his book "Entangled Minds" page 331. He also talks about it in a Skeptiko interview. http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1313289 He thinks going to a spoon bending party to see if there is really something to spoon bending is research. There are different levels of research. It does not always involve doing scientific experiments. When I do early historical research it involves the collecting of information about incidents. In many cases there is no way to discover if the information is factual. The same goes for a scientific experiment in a scientific rearch paper. Did it really occur? Did it occur that way? Or is it made up to impress the scientific community and readers in an effort to continue or increase grants and contributions, or for fame. This happens in many sciences. Is the information that appears in only personal diaries and autobiographies worthless? You decide. Kazuba (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If Radin is the only source then it should be removed. I don't find it curious that the only source available is a few words in html on the man's own website. That just goes to show how unimpressive it is, how unverifiable. That is no more research than a few photos and some html on the website of a conspiracy theorist. There are reasons why verifiability matters, and this is simply unverifiable. Lacking any source that isn't blatantly self serving, the quote should be removed.216.232.198.248 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, WP:REDFLAG. This quote clearly fits both. Self published, regarding a fringe theory, contradicting the prevailing view within the relevant field. Fringe theories require high quality sources. 216.232.198.248 (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RECORD OF REMOVED DATA

• Psychokinesis: In 2000 Radin attended a spoon bending party. To his surprise the spoon he was holding started to bend. The bowl momentarily felt like putty. Using one finger and thumb he easily pinched the end of the bowl over, nearly bending the bowl to half its length. Dean had decided in advance that the only bend he might find interesting would be of the bowl of a spoon, because to do this without tools and/or leverage is beyond the capability of most people, including himself. The silver-plated soup spoon he held bent as he had previously desired.http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm www.deanradin.com

Thanks User talk:216.232.198.248 Kazuba (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Bonus info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA&feature=related

Deleting cruft?

Is this deletion of the majority of the article really warranted? I wonder if there are better ways of cleaning up any unwarranted information, or whatever. Straight out deleting 6 of 10k seems a little extreme.--Asdfg12345 17:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This material (which wasn't exactly unreferenced) was the only reason to read the article. People don't look Dean Radin up to find out if he plays the violin or not, they look him up to find out what parapsychology he's been up to. POV correction and more refs needed, not censorship. More refs are available, BBC video footage of the presentiment idea for example. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/decisions/highlights/ K2709 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Same goes here. If it was overly promotional, the language could be tidied up. I wonder whether outright deletion is the best thing for readers.--Asdfg12345 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing every one of the languages his books have been translated into was needless peacockery, but if his academic and work credentials were vetted by independent sources they might be spared. Ditto for his long list of "research" which could have been condensed down to a paragraph that included only the things covered by WP:RS. My opinion is the deletions were warranted to pull the article back to WP:BLP guidelines after it evolved over time to become a coatrack for various fringe theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is more concerned with who made the edits than what the edits were I think. Simonm223 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, but if this guy is a main proponent of these certain "fringe theories," then putting them on his biography page would be relevant, right?--Asdfg12345 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Radin's 'theories' are largely self-promoted and don't receive attention or acceptance from mainstream science, but there may be some independent, reliable sources that could be used to write a summary of these suitably framed as fringe science. You'd want to avoid sourcing it from Radin himself or from fringe publications, as has been attempted in the past. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is but a foot note

The real article, about how Dean Radin dodges scientific method is missing--137.229.131.34 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Enhance biographical information

I am a new user/editor so please feel free to be instructive. My first concern with this article is that the biography is pretty sketchy. Would it be appropriate to insert Dean Radin's own short biography, adding appropirate references and neutralizing any obvious editorializing on his behalf? PeterSymposium (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, PeterSymposium! We can't just copy information directly from another published source. That would be a copyright violation. The material needs to be reworded and also reworked to remove self-promotion and "peacock" wording (puffery). Especially with this article, claims (for example, degrees, awards, etc.) need to be referenced independently as much as possible. Finally we need to follow the guidelines for biographies of living persons. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I asked Dean Radin for the copy that he wanted us to start with and he directed me to his short bio on his website. I thought that would be a good place to start given that we have his permission.PeterSymposium (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but you still need to reword and rework the text, otherwise it will still be a copyright violation. You can use this bio as a reference. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the claims such as working on "classified projects for the US government" will have to be verified by someone other than Radin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Let me give it a try. Would you like me to put my version in the article or post it somewhere else for you to critique it? PeterSymposium (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just adding the material. Other editors will critique by changing it, hopefully improving it. This is an iterative process among all the editors, yourself included. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So here's my current conundrum: What the heck is "Mainstream" Science? The concept of a mainstream is naive because there are hundreds of sub-communities in science, most of whom know and care nothing about what the others are up to. So a claim that Radin's work isn't mainstream sounds like a major discrediting when in fact only two years later there are some two dozen replications of the presentiment experiment, and the overwhelming majority provide supportive evidence for this effect. PeterSymposium (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the majority of reliable sources we have say parapsychology is fringe. The majority of reliable sources we have characterize Radin's parapsychological research as fringe. I'm not aware of any academic support for the existence of presentiment except within the relatively small and marginalized community of parapsychologists. WP:FRINGE requires us to clarify for the reader which ideas do not have "broad acceptance". It's not "discrediting", it's just Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Another question (and thank you for your patience): What purpose is there in including "A critical review of The Conscious Universe was published by Nature" that required a correction? PeterSymposium (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhat unclear exactly what you're asking, but I'll take a guess. You want to know why we're including criticism if it was retracted or corrected? The answer is that (according to the link contained in the reference) the criticism itself wasn't retracted or corrected, only a minor administrative detail contained within it was. If anything, the sentence in question is being unfairly leveraged to suggest that Nature "corrected" itself in favor of Radin. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nature" dispute - factual accuracy

The previous text in the Wiki entry stated that "Nature" printed a "full version" of Radin's original letter in (Nature 394, 413 (30 July 1998)). However, according to the information on the link provided, "Nature" printed a slightly edited version, cutting the last sentence of the original letter. I have corrected the Wiki text here to reflect that fact: it now reads "slightly edited version".

Referencing in this article

Okay, I've tagged several self-published sources from both sides of the sectarian divide and I'll be coming back here soon to check if any of them have been replaced with WP:RS. If not, then they (and the material they "support") should be removed from WP. Famous_dog (c) 20:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson

blog posts by many skeptics are used in many contentious articles in WP, therefore, Brian Josephson, who is notable and a proponent of the other side, deserves to be used: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html

Notably, the Skeptical Inquirer is not peer reviewed, an in one case, made an article with fabrications and distortions: http://www.blindspotmapping.com/hariett_hall_syndrome.html

However, I am not advocating for its removal, just for notable sources that controvert it

The Medline indexed article "A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010).": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565166 - is available on the internet: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2010Nothingtohide.pdf

It refers to Radin's arguments of consistency, also made by others, and defends them. Therefore it will be used.

finally, there are official surveys rejecting psi in academia, but many independent, also notable surveys give a different picture: http://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_academic_opinion_regarding_parapsychology