Talk:Dean Radin/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Criticism section reference[edit]

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 " 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)
The first line of this section, although I have just modified it to include the words "mixed and", still seems to be entirely original research - a synthesis of four separate, unrelated sources - and really has no place in the article at all, but I hesitate to outright delete things on a page as controversial as this. (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: my most recent edit was just reverted with no explanation to a version that is clearly not NPOV, and clearly retains the "original research" problem. Rather than delete the leading sentence as a compromise, I hope to encourage more discussion here about the lack of free speech on certain topics. Related to this dilemma is , where you will actually find the same editor mentioned who deleted my earlier post. I certainly don't mean to cause trouble here. (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (talk · contribs) you are using a proxy IP that has been blacklisted for comment spam and some unpleasant internet activities (Google it). I have a feeling you are the banned user (talk · contribs) which was a sock of the blocked user Jamenta (talk · contribs). Your writing style is the same and you commented on the same talk-pages. Wikipedia is not interested in your conspiracy theories or rants. Goblin Face (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

tags - Neutrality and Factual accuracy[edit]

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. ——Martinphi 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. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Does he do this on Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell at the helm? ;) Antelantalk 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. (-: ——Martinphi 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. ——Martinphi 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. -- (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. ——Martinphi 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 as a source on those claims of research. 03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Worthless Review of "Conscious Universe"[edit]

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:

Please removed it from the article. -- (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. ——Martinphi 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? ——Martinphi 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. ——Martinphi 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 website. -- (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? ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is published in the Journal of Parapsychology. -- (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? ——Martinphi 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[edit]

That ought to do it with Mr. Radin and his spoon. [ - this is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.] 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. (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. 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. (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. (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


  • 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.[ - this is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.]

Thanks User talk: Kazuba (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Bonus info:

Deleting cruft?[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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

Enhance biographical information[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Famousdog (c) 20:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson[edit]

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:

Notably, the Skeptical Inquirer is not peer reviewed, an in one case, made an article with fabrications and distortions:

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).": - is available on the internet: [ - this is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.]

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: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not reliable references, they are self-published. The "A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman" is a reliable source, but this paper hardly mentions Radin (search his name in the paper he is mentioned in one quote) and is a discussion of the ganzfeld experiments. It is not attempting to rebut Hyman's criticism of Radin in the Skeptical Inquirer, so what you added was original research. Dan skeptic (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
98.210 if you want to add the "A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman" paper, I suggest you add it to the Ganzfeld experiment article. A previous paper by Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio is already mentioned but not the one you mention and it would be also useful to cite Hyman, R. (2010). Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals Comment on Storm et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 486–490. I am surprised those references are not already mentioned on the article but they have no place on the Radin page. Dan skeptic (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please realize that Dean Radin has published in "Foundations of Physics": and "Physics Essays": and "Psychological Bulletin": - these are a step above usual parapsychology outlets, so we may want to be more careful and not commit the error of just layering on dismissive assertions against him. Radin has focused on just making points and has not focused on refuting notable skeptics - this might be to his disadvantage, but it does not nullify the fact that he has published in quality journals. It might be argued that Skeptical Inquirer could be used as a parity source, but the journals Radin has published in trumps these. Furthermore, some of the surveys given above challenge the broad dismissal of parapsychology. Moreover, the Parapsychological Association is a affiliate of the AAAS ( (see necessary qualifications for membership:

Victor Stenger's argument is a reflection of Good's arguments along with personal opinion (aspects of the opinion are challenged by the Josephson article), so I would like to advocate that this be reflected in the article.

Because Radin has published in notable peer reviewed sources, like those mentioned (and also because people like Josephson have supported him, even though that is not reflected in the article), I do not think it is appropriate to state generically "scientists" reject him. Rather, we might want to state "some of his opponents" reject him, or "partisans" reject him.

Radin has challenged Good's argument - I believe it is appropriate that this be reflected in the article:

Josephson's site is notable, because it contains unpublished correspondence, though the merits of including it are for Josephson to argue himself:

To put it another way, if Josephson can find non-self-published sources making these argument, or find a way justify the inclusion of his site, then it may be appropriate to include it.

For now, I will modify the article according to what I brought up in this recent reply. (Radin's response, "Partisans", Victor Stenger's article as a reflection of Good's arguments). (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Radin's multiple response letters reacting to the critical review in Nature, I'd avoid a blow-by-blow description. The most accurate way to describe the kerfluffle is "an exchange of letters" as was done in this version. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


I desire to accurately reflect the state of these with respect to WP:BLP.

First - SkepticReport and "Skepdic" are self-published, so denying the Josephson citation while including those is an exercise in hypocrisy. Also, Robert Todd Carroll is not reliable in spite of how much he is liked by wiki editors. He has systematically misrepresented Richard Milton's arguments:

Second, arguments given above, suggest that their use as parity, if not balanced with Radin's supporters, is bad policy. The following article cites independent surveys that challenge the rejection of parapsychology: [ - this is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.]

"Many physicians want to unburden themselves of this secret part of their lives and go public with their experiences and beliefs. Bobrow cites a 1980 survey published in the American Journal of Psychiatry that asked psychiatry professors, residents in training, other medical faculty, and deans of medical schools the question: “Should psychic studies be included in psychiatric education?” More than half said yes. The authors of the survey concluded, “Our results indicate a high incidence of conviction among deans of medical schools and psychiatric educators that many psychic phenomena may be a reality, psychic powers are present in most or all of us, nonmedical factors play an important part in the healing process, and, above all, studies of psychic phenomena should be included in psychiatric education. …”49

Many skeptics have done their best to deny and obfuscate these trends. One often hears from skeptics that only a tiny percentage of practicing physicians and medical educators believe in beyond-the-body happenings. These skeptics imply that physicians who believe these things are out of step with the scientific tradition and are trying to take medicine back to the Dark Ages. But as the aforementioned survey shows, belief in these matters is held not by a few renegades, but is extensive in both clinical and academic medicine. Another national survey in 2004 examined the beliefs of 1,100 U.S. physicians in various specialties. The surveyors found that 74% believe that so-called miracles occurred in the past and that 73% believe they can occur today. (I suspect that for most physicians “miracle” does not mean a violation, suspension, or breach of natural law but an event that is not well understood. Most physicians would likely agree with St Augustine that so-called miracles do not contradict nature, but they contradict what we know about nature. This is my view as well.) Fifty-nine percent of the physicians said they pray for their patients as individuals, and 51% said they pray for them as a group.50 In a review of these trends, author Stephan A. Schwartz concluded, “[T]here is a growing understanding that ineffable considerations, most subsumed under the concept of nonlocal mind, hold considerable sway in the thinking of both the general population and the medical community.”51

Scientists in general hold similar beliefs. A 1973 survey of readers of the British journal New Scientist asked them to state their feelings about extrasensory perception, or ESP. New Scientist defines its readers as being mainstream working scientists, or as science oriented. Of the 1,500 respondents, 67% considered ESP to be an established fact or at least a strong probability. Eighty-eight percent considered psychic research to be a legitimate area for scientific inquiry.52

In another survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States, 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (psychologists excluded), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education said they believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility.53

Therefore, the contention that belief in beyond-the-body phenomena is rare among paid-up physicians, scientists, and academics may be dismissed as nonsense. In general, this notion is perpetrated by skeptics who are woefully informed about the depth of research in this field, and oppose it for ideological reasons.54, 55, 56"

So Brian Josephson and Kary Mullis may have fringe views in other areas, but in this case, they are qualified to be cited

Also, Victor Stenger is a questionable source. He attempts to attack David Bohm in "Quantum Gods", claiming to cite the book "Undivided Universe" in his attack (p. 127): [1]

But his very argument is refuted on p. 130 of "Undivided Universe", a book that Stenger claims to cite, but misrepresents: [2]

And by aspect himself: ttp://

And his overall argument in the book is refuted by recent experiments by Zeilinger:

Vlatko Vedral also challenges other aspects of his arguments in the article "Living in a quantum world" (search for the word "cells"):

But anyway, Josephson directly counters Stenger's argument here:

Kary Mullis also supports Radin, in spite of his other fringe views, this is notable in light of the surveys given above- he discussed, with endorsement, the statistical significance of Radin's presentiment experiments: - and has Radin in his recommended reading list:

Ray Hyman only briefly mentions Radin in the article. He makes the exact same argument, only briefly mentioning Radin, in the critique of the meta-analysis, which is more reliable than a skeptical inquirer article:

This critique is refuted by the authors of the meta-analysis - the refutation could, in and of itself, make a case for psi:

The 1986 Joint Communque between Honorton and Hyman incidentally states:

"We agree that there is an overall significant effect in this data base that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis. We continue to differ over the degree to which the effect constitutes evidence for psi, but we agree that the final verdict awaits the outcome of future experiments conducted by a broader range of investigators and according to more stringent standards." (cited in "The Elusive Quarry"[3])

Hyman has been criticized by parapsychologists for misleading his superiors by willfully and knowingly omitting the conclusions of the NRC commissioned work by Robert Rosenthal which were fundamentally inconsistent with and diametrically contradicted Hyman's statement that there was “no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena”, in his NRC report, during the time when he was appointed to the National Research Council committee on enhancing human performance for the U.S. Army, when he served as chair of the parapsychology subcommittee.:

That is a psi-friendly source (a copy of a The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research article), but given the above surveys, it can be used.

Finally, Chris French's comment is misleading. This is what Radin actually wrote in "Debating Psychic Experience", a book that, if you read, you will see refutes your views on psi in general. Radin's actual statement, which French selectively glosses over, regarding the Fox sisters, is as follows ("Debating Psychic Experience", p. 18) - "Meanwhile, in the United States in 1848, as war with Mexico was winding down and conflict between the Northern and Southern states was heating up, two young sisters named Margaretta and Catherine Fox of Hydesville, New York, reported that they had established communications with spirits who were responding to their questions with rapping sounds. Similar poltergeist ("noisy ghosts") outbreaks had been reported from antiquity, but this one caught the public fancy and the spiritualism craze quickly spread throughout the United States and Europe. Seances to contact the dead became a widely popular parlor game. Con artists immediately took advantage of gullible public interest by offering performances staged as legitimate seances, and many of these so-called mediums were unmasked as frauds. A few remain genuine enigmas. A Scottish medium named Daniel Dunglas Home astounded European audiences by, among other things, levitating in plain view, with many witnesses present. He performed this and other feats not matched before - or since (Beloff, 1993, p. 45). Despite dozens of performances, Home was never caught cheating. His unusual performances remain a mystery.

The British scientist Sir William Crookes, President of the Chemical Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and Vice-President of the Royal Society was so intrigued by Home's performances that he created special laboratory equipment to study him. Crookes was impressed with the results and considered Home to have genuine abilities."

I am aware that you may dispute this, but your views on this have been challenged:

Furthermore, they have nothing to do with French's critique of Radin.

Finally, the critiques do not accuse him of "not understanding science", from what I can see, but only accuse him of embracing pseudoscience. Therefore, unless you can cite specific passages otherwise, that will be removed per WP:FAKE. (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are undue weight to unreliable fringe pseudoscience, I have removed them. You are also clearly a sockpuppet account: (talk · contribs) This is your main account that you were topic banned on: (talk · contribs) you are also off topic by pasting in nonsense about Daniel Dunglas Home, that has nothing to do with Radin or this article. Dan skeptic (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Please note I am not reporting you for socking 198, it's clear you are not hiding your identity as you use the exact same writing style as your other IP. You were banned for 1 month and you only have a few days left until you are unbanned... I do understand how you are desperate to get on Wikipedia but you need to brush up on some of the policies on undue weight and fringe theories. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia you shouldn't be causing this type of trouble which really is a waste of time, unfortunately most of the references you cite are pseudoscience. As for your criticisms of Hyman they are unfounded, see ganzfeld experiment. Dan skeptic (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is extremely bias[edit]

Why is there only criticism of Radins work on this page. In fact it seems as though this entire article was constructed solely by skeptic(s) that picked and chose what to acknowledge in order to discredit him.

Pseudoscience and fringe science are labels used to rationalize dismissal. Wikipedia is about relaying the truth and this Wikipedia page does not accurately represent the truth as there is much more credible evidence available then has been depicted here.

This page is not neutral, in fact it's really ignorant, bias and disrespectful.

Why aren't any of these peer-reviewed publications lead by Radin mentioned or included? This page misleads the reader by portraying Radin as a fanatic and only includes the few tidbits of criticism he's received while selectively omitting all of the credible work he's done.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaypronx (talkcontribs) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

we only use reliably published sources and present the content representing the way the subject is viewed by mainstream academics. When the subject is viewed as a crank, presenting them as a crank is not bias, it is following our policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you continue to delete my edits? I'm attempting to make the page more neutral, especially the last line considering not all scientists disagree with Radin. Your edit makes it seem that way and by looking at your talk page you have a history of making questionable edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaypronx (talkcontribs) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am deleting your edits because YOU are making the article LESS compliant with policy and sources. WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID the "some" scientists who do not laugh Radin off the stage are too insignificant number to account for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jaypronx. WP:FRINGE requires us to make it clear that ideas such as Radin's do not have broad acceptance. It's not bias, it's Wikipedia policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
IMHO the article has been mangled by Jaypronx, a SPA. I intend to boldly go back to where it was before they got involved, and any further changes by people trying to correct since then will be lost, cos I'm not particularly good at editing. I'm going back to the version at 08:30 on 18th jan, after I last edited. @Jaypronx - please do not edit the article without getting some consensus for further changes. The changes you have made so far are taking the page away from NPOV. Thanks. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Jbricklin[edit]

User Jbricklin (talk · contribs) deleting mention of the Fox Sisters from the Chris French reference claiming in his edit summary the reference "distorts" the truth, but the reference does mention the Fox Sisters:

Dean Radin provides a brief and extremely selective historical overview of parapsychology. For example, he completely fails to mention that two of the three Fox sisters publicly confessed that their alleged communications with the spirit world were fraudulent. Similarly, the fact that Sir William Crookes was convinced that Florence Cook has genuine mediumistic powers despite the fact that she was caught red-handed engaged in acts of trickery both before and after his investigations is not referred to in Radin's piece.

Chris French in Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential Or Human Illusion?. Chapter 10. Page 149 Goblin Face (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The French source is good for French's opinion about the Fox sisters, which is now properly attributed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a good source of a false claim. As Pulitzer prize winning author Deborah Blum made clear in her 2006 book Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death, only one sister, Maggie, made such a confession, and she did so under severe economic duress for a promised amount of money from those who wanted to discredit the phenomenon. She later retracted that confession, calling it "false in every particular" (p. 155.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the full story. Two of the sisters confessed to fraud (Margaret and Katie), but Margaret (Maggie) is the one most people remember because she later retracted. You can read about it in detail in the book A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology edited by Paul Kurtz. You can also read about their confessions in the book The Death-blow to Spiritualism: Being the True Story of the Fox Sisters, as Revealed by Authority of Margaret Fox Kane and Catherine Fox Jencken published in 1888 which contains at the beginning of the book two signatures from Margaret and Katherine (Katie) giving approval to Reuben B. Davenport to document their tricks. But the thing is none of that has anything to do with the article. We can only mention sources if they mention Radin, neither Blum or Kurtz mention Radin. The only source that does on this case is Chris French which is why he has been cited on the article. Please read Wikipedia policy on original research. Because this is an article on Radin, we can only cite sources that mention Radin. What Blum says is irrelevant for the article. Goblin Face (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You pile on one biased source after another to support your biased half truth distorting the full truth. Consider clinging less to the letter of Wikipedia's policies, and more to their spirit of steering past subjective biases, historical or otherwise, as illustrated by its entry on the Fox Sisters:

"Margaret recanted her confession in writing in November, 1889, about a year after her toe-cracking exhibition. Kate's first letters back to London after Margaret's exhibition express shock and dismay at her sister's attack on Spiritualism, but she did not publicly take issue with Margaret."

Your promotion of Chris French's ill-informed detail even undermines any legitimate point he might have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC) we can only mention sources if they mention Radin. What the Chris French reference says that two sisters confessed to fraud, not one is the truth of the case and is confirmed by other references going back over 100 years. You would know this if read some of the literature on this subject. See Frank Podmore:

In the autumn of 1888 Mrs. Kane (Margaretta Fox) and Mrs. Jencken (Catherine Fox) made public, and apparently spontaneous, confession, that the raps had been produced by fraudulent means. Mrs. Kane even gave demonstrations before large audiences of the actual manner in which the toe joints had been used at the early seances. Mrs. Jencken, at any rate, if not also Mrs. Kane, afterwards recanted her confession.

Originally published 1902, reprinted in 2011. Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism. Cambridge University Press. p. 188. Also another reference:

By the 1880s, Maggie, like her sister Kate who was now widowed after losing her English husband Jenckens, had become a full-blown alcoholic. In 1888, the sisters confessed that they had faked the ghostly rapping which precipitated the age of spirit contact. They claimed to have produced knocking sounds by manipulating and cracking the joints in their feet and knees. For a while they made money giving lectures about this "deathblow" to Spiritualism. However, before she died, Maggie recanted the confession, and Kate began conveying spirit messages to close friends once again. Ultimately, trance mediumship brought the sisters neither wealth nor happiness. Both died in penurious circumstances, essentially drinking themselves to death.

Amy Lehman. (2009). Victorian Women and the Theatre of Trance: Mediums, Spiritualists and Mesmerists in Performance. McFarland p. 87

So the statement by Chris French is correct, two of the Fox Sisters confessed to fraud and that is what the reference says. The reason we are not mentioning the recantation is because it is not mentioned in the French reference. If you don't have any references that mention Radin then please stop wasting time here. Goblin Face (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is good to see you quoting a source about Maggie recanting her confession, which she did, calling it "false in every detail." I have no idea whether Chris French was aware of that retraction; but that you are aware, and still feel it's OK to present what you know to be a half truth as a full truth is worth your reconsideration. You are, indeed, right and I am wrong, about the double confession, even if Kate's was even far more problematic than Maggie's, and anything but the "apparently spontaneous" characterization of your cite [Stuart, Nancy Rubin, The Reluctant Spiritualist: The Life of Maggie Fox]. Their confessional history, including why Davenport's book is, in fact, "based soley upon Maggie's comments," can be found in Stuart's historical (as opposed to polemical) bio. What is most relevant to emphasize is that their sad late impoverished lives led them to fake those confessions for money. There is plenty of corroborative support for Isaac Funk's assessment:

"But does some one remind me that Mrs. Margaret Fox Kane, not long before her death, confessed that she and her sisters had duped the public, that the phenomena of raps, etc., which were manifested through them were produced by the snapping of joints, etc. ? I know all this, knew of this theory at the time of my experiments through her ; but I also know that so low had this unfortunate woman sunk that for five dollars she would have denied her mother, sworn to any thing. At that time her affidavit for or against anything should not be given the slightest weight." [Isaac Funk, Funk and Wagnalis, p. 16]

While I don't know whether the Fox sisters were for real or not, or what Radin's actual full opinion of them might be, he is at least not dealing in half-truths-distorting-whole truths by reviving their memory. He is well within the tradition of exacting professional scientists who have preceded him (such as Nobelist Charles Richet) rather than professional skeptics, like French:

"In 1847 Margaret was fifteen and Kate twelve. Can we suppose that these two children organized a fraud that was tested thousands of times during seventy-five years? The reality of rappings does not depend on the Fox sisters. In 1888 it was too late for denial and their recantation proves nothing." [Richet, Thirty Years of Psychical Research, 1923, Vertag, p 27]

Your notion that it is OK to present a distorted half-truth as long as you have a source, and disallow any exposure of that half-truth unless the exposure contains a reference to the target, is a formula for hatchet-job Wikipedia bios such as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said the reason we can't mention the recantation is because no reference in connection with Radin mentions it. French does not mention it (neither does any other source that also mentions Radin), if we added that in it would be original research because it isn't supported by the French source and this is against Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:No original research. Also I think the claim of a "half-truth" is misleading in this case, anyone can click on the Fox sisters Wikipedia article and see the recantation is there, nobody is suppressing this information. Critics and skeptics of spiritualism have acknowledged it for over 100 years.
As you know this is an article about Dean Radin not the Fox sisters. French criticizes Radin for not mentioning the confessions of fraud from the Fox sisters (and not mentioning the fraud of Florence Cooke) it's that simple that is what the source says. We can only cite what the sources say. But having read French's other books and papers he is well aware of the recantation, he obviously didn't mention it because it was not relevant, he was only criticizing Radin for ignoring cases of fraud not discussing the history of mediumship. The mathematician I. J. Good in a review also criticized Radin for ignoring cases of fraud. On Radin's recent blog post against Wikipedia on Eileen Garrett he also fails to mention that Samuel Soal and a group of parapsychologists failed to confirm Rhine's findings with Garrett. I could be correcting Radin's errors all day but see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum we should not be discussing this as it has nothing to do with the article. I will not be further contributing. Goblin Face (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin is not, primarily, a historian of psychical research. He is a scientist doing original and exacting science published in peer-reviewed journals. But anyone reading about him for the first time in this article would readily conclude that he willfully conceals known instances of fraud. That is what your half-truth distortion cite clearly implies. That people, as you correctly point out, can get the full truth elsewhere, does not exonerate you for placing only half the truth here, and then hiding behind a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy to keep this half-truth-distorting-the-whole truth in play.

As for Eileen Garrett, no psychic bats 1000. But few have offered themselves to more open scientific scrutiny than her. There is plenty of compelling evidence of successes to sift through. You can launch a good discussion with the Rhine/Soal discrepancy, or, if you follow the example of this webpage, you can use it to launch a list of her other failed verifications, and offer only a link or two for her successes to give the semblance of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anybody reading the evidence of his cherry-picking data he likes and ignoring or concealing concrete evidence of fraud, would indeed conclude that his approach is at best methodologically sloppy, and at worst outright misleading. This is a real world issue and not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
What "exacting science" in what "peer reviewed journals" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You know. Journals like Perceptual and Motor Skills, Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Journal of Scientific Exploration, European Journal of Parapsychology and Subtle Energies. The kind of journals that only publish real quality research like that of other well-known authors. Famousdog (c) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes he's published in a lot of fringe journals but Radin has also published a paper in Frontiers in Psychology on the topic of communicating with the deceased [4], I was surprised how that kind of thing would be published in a journal like that especially as one of the authors is a spiritualist who has published a bunch of new age books. Radin has also co-written a parapsychology paper with Jessica Utts and other parapsychologists in the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience [5]. I had a look it appears Frontiers in recent years have been publishing a minority of parapsychological papers. Goblin Face (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This paper discusses methodological weaknesses in the studies Radin and other parapsychologists concluded supported the psi hypothesis. Acunzo, D.J., Evrard, R., Rabeyron, T. (2013). Anomalous Experiences, Psi, and Functional Neuroimaging. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 893. [6]. It only mentions Radin in one reference so it won't be useful for this article, but more critical commentaries will probably be published in the future. Goblin Face (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed the reference to Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine. And that's supposed to persuade us of rigorous peer reviewed science? Not hardly! Frontiers is legit, but these crank journals need to be (and are being, I think) excluded. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User Talk:Roxy the dog[edit]

Note: this is regarding "His books have received negative reviews from the scientific community." vs "His books have received negative reviews from some members of the scientific community." in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you reverted my amended edit and called it "POV"? What is your stake in that phrase, exactly? I'm trying to find a reason to avoid escalating this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just trying to ameliorate your fringe pushing on that page, along with the other editors involved. Pov is shorthand for Point of View. Not sure how to respond to your "stake" question, except by explaining what pov means. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
it would be a WP:REDFLAG claim that there are "some" views from the scientific community that are far from the multiple sourced views currently represented in the article. but perhaps it would be better to highlight a few specific comments in the lead rather than to summarize. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What it says in the article "His books have received negative reviews from the scientific community" is correct according to the sources. If you search online for reviews of Radin's books (there are about six) from philosophers and scientists they are all negative. No neutral scientist has positively reviewed his work.
Of course we could add that the parapsychology community have positively reviewed his books, i.e. from the "remote viewer" Courtney Brown [7]. But it's clear no scientist has positively reviewed his work, so as stated in the article the comment about the "scientific community" is accurate. Goblin Face (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Roxy and TRPoD: you should be aware that FreeRangeFrog is an OTRS volunteer, and a very patient and careful editor. Accusing him of "fringe pushing" is not at all appropriate. I am no more keen on Radin than you, and I don't think FRF is either, that is not the issue, the issue is that this is not black and white. Of course most of the scientific community don't have anything to say at all about Radin's books, because they form no part of rigorous scientific discourse so are irrelevant; this naturally means that the only commentators are likely to be partisans one way or another. We need to reflect status of Radin's ideas (in my view they are generally ignored or rejected, but that's just my opinion) in a way that does not violate WP:ASSERT, WP:SYN and the like. In other words, everything we say must be accurate to the point that, whether he likes it or not, he would at least have to acknowledge that it's fair. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Guy for your comments above. I have no idea what OTRS does, as having investigated in the past It appears to be some sort of complaints handling system, but I am unable to see anything that it does. As far as I can recall, I have had no previous interaction with FRF, so I have to go on the only evidence I have available, this page and my talk page, including the implied threat above.
The evidence of this page squarely frames FRF as a petty fringe pusher, happy to edit outside the Manual of Style. My last edit to the article, offered as an olive branch, (and also ignoring MOS), was immediately reverted by FRF, and the page is now unacceptable. I suggest FRF revert back to the "His books have received negative reviews from the scientific community." version asap, or brings the page back into compliance some other way. I will happily do so if FRF doesn't.
I do hope that FRF's work at OTRS does not lead to complainants getting the same opinion of him that I have been given, and note that his experience here is far greater than my own, and hope that this is an isolated incident. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Mate, you are so wrong it's not funny. I know Frog well enough to be completely confident that what he is doing is trying to defuse a situation that could blow up in our faces. Reading between the lines, the most likely scenario is that Radin or a representative has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation about the tone of this article. Whether that is true or not, every word we write on any biography, be they saint or charlatan, should be written as if we have the eyes of history looking over one shoulder and the subject's lawyer looking over the other. There is no area where it is more important to be fair and accurate. Note that fair and accurate absolutely does not mean fawning or uncritical.
You badly need to revise your opinions of the Frog. He is good people. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic scenario in which WP:Fringity is ignored by mainstream sources. How can we be WP:HONEST and say that "this so fringey it's ignored by nearly everyone in mainstream science" without violating WP:NOR? Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the interesting Courtney Brown link provided by Goblinface above, I really would feel uncomfortable using it in the article, as I am sure there is an admonishment in the MOS somewhere not to link to web pages that are inaccurate or unreliable. I would be happy to be proven wrong of course, but I don't think we should link to woo, or use it as a source for anything. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
If we want to say the parapsychology community have positively reviewed his books, look no further than The Journal of Parapsychology... - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that FRF will not be obliging us with a fix here, despite my polite request, and ample opportunity, as he has been active on other pages today.
So, per WP:LEAD "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I have removed the bit about support from the fringers that is unsupported in the article body, and isn't cited. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, stop with the Frog-bashing. OTRS people have a massive crapflood to deal with. The usual technique is to remove anything that is generating complaints, drop it on Talk and move on. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Your fake politeness is tiresome, and I'm starting to understand how this little system works. First, full-on personal attack, accusations of "fringe pushing" when my concern is a BLP that lacks neutrality. Then I'm violating the MOS, no less. And had I actually tried to address that, it would have been for naught because, obviously as you stated above, those sources are not reliable as far as you're concerned. What a stupendous Catch-22. @JzG: Thanks, as always. But I know when to walk away. This is a problem that needs fixing but I admit I have no idea how to do it. Consensus relies on people letting go of their ingrown biases and looking at the wider picture, and that's something the Fringe Enforcement Brigade is obviously incapable of doing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
That is a problem, it's a side-effect of the siege mentality that can set in when defending articles on cranks and whacknuttery (especially parapsychology, which is particularly prone to conspiracy mongering foolishness). Guy (Help!) 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I fully recognize that might be a large component of this problem, yes. But we have to strive to be better than the PR hacks. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an article here which includes some critical commentary on Dean Radin by the psychologist Scott McGreal [8], not sure if it is worth adding or not. Goblin Face (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


It seems that the only "positive" reviews for Radin's books come from psychic believers, conspiracy theorists or pseudoscientists. Other than a positive review from the remote viewer Courtney Brown (who believes he has met aliens), the 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett has also given Radin's book a positive review [9]. I can not find a single positive review from a neutral scientist. As I understand it the "reception" section should really represent the mainstream scientific reception on this subject not a minority fringe view, I don't think we should include these reviews from fringe thinkers but let me know what you think. Goblin Face (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New book review here in the skeptical inquirer which documents Radin's statistical errors [10] Goblin Face (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I think. Where is the rule that no statements by scientists who support a position can be included? One might equally observe that the negative reviews come from scientists who aren't neutral. GF's position amounts to censorship, and is worthy of censure. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia as you know runs on reliable sources, it has nothing to do with censorship. The reason your personal defense of Radin's paranormal beliefs was removed from the article is because it was self-published on your own website. If you published something on Radin in a journal, newspaper, scientific paper etc then we could add it but you have not. If I asked you to cite a positive book review for Radin you would not be able to do this outside of the parapsychology community. Name me a "neutral" scientist who has positively reviewed Radin's books? None exist. There are no reliable scientific sources that are favorable for Dean Radin's paranormal beliefs if there were you would be able to demonstrate this by now. Goblin Face (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Proves my point, doesn't it? 'Words mean just what I decide they mean, nothing more, nothing less.' --Brian Josephson (talk)
And, what is more, 'guidelines that we apply to remove reviews we don't like may be cheerfully ignored in the case of reviews that support our own PoV'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What reviews are you talking about? List a science journal that has published a positive review for any of Radin's books. None exist. Goblin Face (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You are inelegantly ducking the fact that not all of the critical sources are reliable ones by wikipedia criteria, e.g. I see one, by someone 'best known for his involvement in the skeptical movement' that is self-published. That is surely not right, a clear case of double standards. Due diligence seems to be lacking where references that support your own PoV are concerned. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You are moving goal posts. Your original comment was "Where is the rule that no statements by scientists who support a position can be included?" This is what we are discussing. You seem to be assuming or claiming that scientists have supported Dean Radin's paranormal beliefs. If this was true you would be easily able to demonstrate this but you can't. I have called you out on this twice now but you have not listed any of these scientists. None exist. This conversation is over :) Goblin Face (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Re your point I am a scientist that supports Radin's beliefs, and I know of many others that do, e.g. many of those who signed this petition published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. And will you stop ducking my point about double standards? --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I have seen that before but there is no evidence from that link all those scientists support Radin's studies. It's just a list of fringe academics including Radin himself, Huston Smith and Chandra Wickramasinghe and old boy parapsychologists i.e. Stanley Krippner, Erlendur Haraldsson, Charles Tart, Robert G. Jahn. The list does not represent the scientific consensus. This is all old news. As for double standards there is not any. None of the sources on Radin's Wikipedia article are self-published apart from Steven Novella. If you read Wikipedia policy we can use self-published material by well-known professional researchers in some cases. For example you are an expert on quantum tunneling, if you created a website on the subject or blogged on it and what you said was relevant to the subject it would be a reliable source. Goblin Face (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I have put you back in the article as your website seems to be affiliated with the University of Cambridge. Goblin Face (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted by these small concessions. The point at issue is your attempt to dismiss people who signed the statement in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience as 'fringe academics'. Consider the case of Bernard Carr, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London (a member of the Russell Group of leading British research universities). Carr's publication record can be seen at What kind of definition of 'fringe academic' are you using, to dismiss academics such as him in this way? --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about Krippner, whom you equally dismiss? His w'pedia article itself says

In 2013, Krippner received the American Psychological Association [APA] Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to Humanistic Psychology. Other awards from the APA include the Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology (2002).

Your unwarranted dismissal of the credentials of the Frontiers list is an open and shut case of WP:disruptive editing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes they are fringe academics because whilst some of them have done some mainstream scientific work they mostly gave that up to publish fringe ideas i.e. stuff in parapsychology or pseudoscience journals about ghosts, psychic powers or telepathy. Bernard Carr a member of the SPR has published psychical papers. Stanley Krippner has published a lot of fringe papers on dream telepathy that were heavily criticized by the scientific community. Most of these guys are very old like in their late 80s, parapsychology is a dying field most of it's proponents will be dead in the next ten years and none of the upcoming younger scientists take it seriously. But all this is irrelevant to Dean Radin's Wikipedia article, we don't need to debate parapsychology here or other fringe proponents. There is no need to continue this conversation. I am busy working on other articles. Take care. Goblin Face (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it would be most inconvenient for you to continue this conversation, since I was about to point out that Carr is still publishing papers in regular science (see Perhaps if you are indeed going to be working elsewhere it will become possible to turn the Radin article into a decent one. You are wrong about there being no young scientists taking it seriously, by the way; see for example, --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And given your errors such as these re the present, your ability to predict the future ten years ahead must be called into serious doubt (unless of course you are psychic :-) ). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)