6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

This paper needs to show that they have at least excluded vibration (not exhaustive) as a cause of changes to fringe measurements, before suggesting they have found a new force in nature. They haven't done that in this study. I can confirm your opening OP that this looks like an independent replication of Radins studies, and further that the paper is the same junk I've seen in other studies from Radin. You won't find such studies in reputable publications because they are very poor.

So instead of retracting and apologising for your fraud insinuation against Radin, you continue to act like sound/vibration might be the cause (it isn't) and you call Radin's work 'junk'. Not only are ypu arrogant, you're nasty and rude as well.

So instead of retracting and apologising for your fraud insinuation against Radin, you continue to act like sound/vibration might be the cause (it isn't) and you call Radin's work 'junk'. Not only are ypu arrogant, you're nasty and rude as well.

That's our Max... In the end, I suspect that he is more annoyed by what Guerrer wrote on pages 8-9 (the protocols to prevent EM interference) because in his hypothesis all sorts of mental interactions (and apparitions as well) are dependent on EMFs.

I'm a proponent for what it's worth

Hi Max

I for one don't have any issues with you trying to poke holes in something you see as flawed. That's the best spirit of these types of forums. Just curious in what way you are a proponent. Are there particular aspects of psi that you feel more strongly about? And I ask in all earnestness as it seems that members are starting to see you as someone who has a need to show that these things aren't true, but as you call yourself a proponent, I thought it might be interesting to hear "of what"? Thanks!

Berkelon

Well you can start a thread on that if you like... because we don't want to make this thread too confusing.

As soon as you take your diatribe about Dean to the relevant thread, Max.

I think I covered that in my reply to Malf, and I've already explained they didn't measure vibrations through air pressure at all, indeed they introduced richly harmonic sound into the test room at different pressure levels for each of the two test state periods they we're trying to compare. The obvious thing to do is look at what they changed.

I am having a hard time understanding your objection. Maybe you can clarify it.
The study says that they have investigated artifacts caused by sound generated during the experiment. You object saying that the they "didn't measure vibrations through air pressure"

You say tomato, I say tomahto
At the end of the day they need to make sure that sounds produced during the test don't affect the interferometer. Are you complaining because they didn't use the wording you expect?

Also, why are you pretending not to see the fact that meditators scored signficantly better than non-meditators in the same setup? If air vibrations were the cause of the anomaly you wouldn't see any difference.

Cheers

[Laird]

Max, I say this half as a regular member and half as a moderator (because moderation policy on this issue hasn't yet been determined).

Roberta is right: your insinuations against Dean Radin in posts #12 and #19 to this thread are irresponsible and you should retract them. You are essentially accusing Dean of deliberately engaging in research malpractice in order to secure funds for IONS. Whilst your accusations are framed in suggestive language, I doubt that this framing would save you in a legal case of defamation, should Dean choose to press one (which I doubt he would).

I encourage you to consider what your reaction would be if somebody impugned your professional and personal reputation in such a way. I doubt that you would be happy about it, and would probably do as I and Roberta are asking of you: request that they retract it.

Max, you have no proof that the suggestion you made has any basis in fact, and whilst you are free to speculate privately, to do so publicly is unfair to the man whose reputation you have impugned.

Please retract your insinuation that Dean deliberately engages in research malpractice in order to secure funds.

Thanks.