"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

But Chris, it's so wide open... what is such a wide open study supposed to tell us...?

Is it any wonder people don't take the study seriously, and don't take much time to bother understanding it before dismissing the experiment, when researchers don't bother to improve their experiment... Selecting from an apparently unlimited range of events with flexible timescales which have already happened, and won't say how they make the selection. Who take no steps to shield their nose-based RNG devices, or improve their devices power supply quality. Who don't run controls with non XORed data to find correlations. It's typical of the Radin/ION's junk experiments I've mentioned elsewhere.

Radin/ION's 'junk experiments' - where the authors showed they dealt with your concerns about said experiments, yet you're still claiming they're junk?

So far, they seem to have the same sorts of things in common. 
If you think that a particular phenomenon has better evidence in its favor than the Ganzfeld experiments, please share. 
Linda

I'd rather not try and find the one example that can't be refuted. Not that it doesn't exist (for me), but that there will always be a crack in any example of anything. And since I've spent enough time talking about the individual size and shape of those cracks, however small, I'm talking about a different, larger view of it.  

My point really was that there is also a great weight cast by virtue of the vast array of examples, the shear number and variety of them, all pointing at different aspects of the nature of things, all reinforcing the same basic theme of non-physicality. 

In this view, it's not about the merits of a particular one, but the weight of the whole. And whether it is reasonable that by some odd quirk of fate, the evidence for each would have a different flaw that would discount it. Seems like a long and therefore unlikely string of apparent coincidences to me.

So far, they seem to have the same sorts of things in common. 
If you think that a particular phenomenon has better evidence in its favor than the Ganzfeld experiments, please share. 
Linda

What things do you refer to?

And could I ask: given the non-physical nature of much of this stuff, theoretically what would constitute a compelling example for you? Pick a field of non-physical psi. Any one.

Of course, shield the devices from all sources that can affect them, and control the experiments properly...

Which is what they did, Radin and Guerrer both told you this - why still say the experiments are 'junk'? It's strange, do you think if you pretend you haven't been disproven then people will forget this happened?

This is an example of  well designed, well controlled, double-blinded study...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...T_at_30_Hz

It's results are way way more solid, controversial, puzzling and therefore interesting to me, than any of Radin's studies. It's like good healthy food. Where as Radin's studies are like 'junk' food, satisfying to consume until you look a little deeper...

I think it is perhaps the fact that it is studying a specific material phenomenon -electro-mag fields- , that makes it so appealing. It is relatively easy to design an experiment around "material" things that we sort of understand how to create and measure. 

No?

This is an example of  well designed, well controlled, double-blinded study...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...T_at_30_Hz

It's results are way way more solid, controversial, puzzling and therefore interesting to me, than any of Radin's studies I've read. It's like good healthy food. Where as Radin's studies are like 'junk' food, satisfying to consume until you look a little deeper... as one learns more, one learns to reduce the amount of junk food one consumes.

Interesting that you skirted around what I said beforehand. You keep saying Radin's work is junk, yet he stated that he controlled for your 'concerns' about his double slit studies etc. Why are you still saying his work is junk?

But Chris, it's so wide open... what is such a wide open study supposed to tell us...?

My point is that no one has been able to suggest, even in general terms, how the departure of the RNGs from ideal behaviour could produce correlations between the outputs of two different devices - and still less why this should be observed only during periods of global events (which, we're told, were defined before anyone examined the data).