People that sit on the both side what do you think about the propnet and skeptic?

As I said, I think there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards fraud in Geller's case. But I don't think you should give Randi credit for "exposing" him on that TV show. Or if you do, you should also give Randi the blame for Geller's being offered a pre-bent spoon!

As to whether fraud can explain the experiments on Geller at Stanford, that's something we discussed at length on the other thread. I don't think the sceptical explanations are always convincing. But maybe the sceptics weakened their case by trying to explain too much rather than saying "I don't know." Anyway, I think the suspicion of fraud against Geller is strong enough that those experiments aren't of any evidential value.

And as for Dean Radin's experience with the spoon, you imply the organisers of the event could somehow have treated the spoon so that it would become soft and pliable for a short time, but do you actually know of any way in which that could be done?

No, I don't, but honestly I don't know how Dynamo accomplishes his tricks, like many other magicians. And believe me, they can do some really absurd stuff.

Since we can't know how that spoon was made soft, what tricks were used (if any), the composition of the metal and so on, the evidence provided by his personal experience has (as far as I am concerned) no scientific value. It's a curiosity, and nothing more I wouldn't expect somebody claiming to be a scientist to insert that into some kind of evidence.

No, I don't, but honestly I don't know how Dynamo accomplishes his tricks, like many other magicians. And believe me, they can do some really absurd stuff.

Since we can't know how that spoon was made soft, what tricks were used (if any), the composition of the metal and so on, the evidence provided by his personal experience has (as far as I am concerned) no scientific value. It's a curiosity, and nothing more I wouldn't expect somebody claiming to be a scientist to insert that into some kind of evidence.

As far as I can see, Dean Radin is saying no more than it happened and that he can't explain it. As you can't explain it either, I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

As far as I can see, Dean Radin is saying no more than it happened and that he can't explain it. As you can't explain it either, I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

That it shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence, it shouldn't show up at all in scientific research. We want to study PK?

Sure, get some people of this spoon bending parties and see if they can do the same in a controlled environement with spoons provided by the researchers. But there wouldn't be much reason to do it, the "mini gellers" and many others were investigated and found out that they were frauds.

I'd stick with micro PK research. It's never gonna prove anything, as RNG spikes are not uncommon and so you will never have decisive proof, but at lewst you won't be spending time investigating magicians.

That it shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence, it shouldn't show up at all in scientific research. We want to study PK?

As I said above, Radin seems to be doing no more than saying what happened, and saying that he can't explain it.

The extent of the conclusion he draws, in Entangled Minds, footnote 1 to Chapter 12, is this:
"So I have good reason to doubt the usual skeptical assertion that all cases of metal bending are conjuring tricks or due to unconscious use of force."

That seems a reasonable conclusion to draw from his experience, doesn't it? (Assuming he is telling the truth about it.) You are not suggesting it was a conjuring trick, or the unconscious use of force, are you?

Yes, one way is simple work hardening. I have seen special spoons for sale in the past to achieve this trick, but cannot find them now... the spoon is formed from a metal which has a structure which is easily dislocated, so can be easily deformed (bent). But the action of bending causes the dislocations to get tangled up and locked together, causing the metal structure to become very stiff. Hence the prepared spoon can initially be very easily bent, but cannot be bent again.

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/impress/t...ns_02.html

You can see a simply demonstration here using a prepared metal bar...

Thanks. Maybe that's a possibility, though I don't think this was a special spoon. From the photo on Radin's website, it was an ordinary mass-produced silver-plated one. And what he describes is that it became soft only momentarily, after 5 minutes:
"After 5 minutes of intently watching the woman attempting to bend a similar spoon, to my surprise my spoon started to bend!  In accordance with previous claims I had read, the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown.  It immediately hardened up, and it felt cold throughout."
http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

As I said above, Radin seems to be doing no more than saying what happened, and saying that he can't explain it.

The extent of the conclusion he draws, in Entangled Minds, footnote 1 to Chapter 12, is this:
"So I have good reason to doubt the usual skeptical assertion that all cases of metal bending are conjuring tricks or due to unconscious use of force."

That seems a reasonable conclusion to draw from his experience, doesn't it? (Assuming he is telling the truth about it.) You are not suggesting it was a conjuring trick, or the unconscious use of force, are you?

Probably a mix of both. Conjuring tricks can lead to lower resistance on the metal, and also to make the person holding the spoon apply more pressure/force than he thinks he was using (basically, tricking the mind of the subject).

I don't like that this event is even take in consideration until it is repeated in a controlled environement. It's the same "mind setting" that I've seen in an OBE research conducted by Charles Tart. During his experiment, he admitted he was sleeping on the other side of the room where the experiment was being carried on. The woman, who claimed could see hidden targets with an OBE while sleeping, managed to "see" the target on day 4, but there is no actual proof that she didn't just climb up on the bed and saw the target with her own eyes as the researcher himself was sound asleep. Now, I get that camera surveillance wasn't much of a thing during 1968, but hire somebody to take turn! The experiment was going to last a week or so, get somebody to do 4 hour night shifts so you can take turns sleeping. This way, Blackmore has been able to easily point out this incredibly big flaw in the research and, according to the EEG readings, state the the girl just climbed on the bed.

I mean, we are trying to demonstrate something so big that could shake our entire world. research has to be extra tight, damn.

Yes, one way is simple work hardening. I have seen special spoons for sale in the past to achieve this trick, but cannot find them now... the spoon is formed from a metal which has a structure which is easily dislocated, so can be easily deformed (bent). But the action of bending causes the dislocations to get tangled up and locked together, causing the metal structure to become very stiff. Hence the prepared spoon can initially be very easily bent, but cannot be bent again.

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/impress/t...ns_02.html

You can see a simply demonstration here using a prepared metal bar...

Yes, it probably wwent exactly like this. I can't take Radin seriously after this, he is a believer, he wants to believe. His bias, in my opinion, is just too big.

Yes, it probably wwent exactly like this. I can't take Radin seriously after this, he is a believer, he wants to believe. His bias, in my opinion, is just too big.

You think Radin is too biased to take seriously?

You think Radin is too biased to take seriously?

Yes, either that or he is incredibly naive, allowing to trick him easily. Anyway, I can't take his research really seriously.

I'll still be interested in his studies, but nothing more.