Talk:Mental Radio

Depression comment is a complete misdirection
I've had this book for some years and am familiar with it. Neither is the depression mentioned a central feature nor could I even find a mention of it. Here is Einsteins original Preface: Ich habe das buch von Upton Sinclair mit grossem Interesse gelesen und bin uberzeugt, dass dasselbe die ernste Beachtung, nicht nur der Laien, sondern auch der Psychologen von Fach verdient. Die Ergebnisse der in diesem Buch sorgfaeltig und deutlich bescriebenen telpathischen Experimente stehen sicher weit ausserhalb desjenigen, was ein Naturforscher f&uuml;r denkbar haelt. Anderseit aber is es bei einem so gewisssenhaften Beobachter und Schriftsteller wie Upton Sinclair ausgeschlossen, dass er eine bewusste Tauschung der Leserwelt anstrebt; seine bona fides und Zuverl&auml;ssigkeit darf nicht bezweifelt werden. Wenn also etwa die mit grosser Klarheit dargestellten Tatsachen nicht auf Telepathie, sondern etwa auf unbewussten hypothischen[sic] Einfl&uuml;ssen von Person zu Person beruhen sollten, so waere auch dies von hohem psychologischen Interesse. Keinesfalls also sollten die psychologisch interessierten Freise and diesem Buch achtlos vor&uuml;bergehn. gez. A. Einstein den 23 Mai 1930

I've reproduced the German above because for one thing there is a glaring mistranslation of the word 'hypothischen' above to 'hypnotic' in the translation given in the Russell Targ edition. Personally, most of the stuff in the Russell Targ editions is bogus as is the overwhelming bulk of the stuff in this field. But the material due Sinclair and the commentaries from figures such as Einstein and Turing are of another character altogether.

And as far at that which a Recognized Scientist can hold to be thinkable, I am reminded of a wide variety of phenomenon including Einsteins reception of Quantum Mechanics, Martin Gardners recent comments on modern physical theories, Ayn Rands comments on homosexuality, etc. Fortunately objective truth and the judgement thereof does not rest on the character of venerable if fallible individuals. Nor do these failings, except in cases such as that of say a Robert Mugabe lessen the well earned veneration.

Lycurgus 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mentalradio.gif
Image:Mentalradio.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact tagging negative assertion
In science, any statement of fact, whether positive or negative needs to be empirically and/or theoretically justified. There are many complications in identifying and verifying the phenomenon of telepathy/empathy including identifications of individuals who are suitable test subjects. It is reasonable to think that like other mental properties there would be substantial, likely crucial individual differences. That there have been studies whose results are well into statistical significance is I think established but in any case the protocols the Sinclairs followed are very well described in the book and although they were obviously not scientists that really doesn't affect a rational examination, application of mathematical statistics to same, etc., once you grant that they as individuals are beyond the reproach of having consciously or otherwise perpetrated a fraud which most like Einstein were/are willing to grant. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Results at the Sinclairs Level only not duplicated
I tagged the sentence in the current last &para; because it's only the level of &Psi; that has not been duplicated and not statistically significant &Psi;. Their results are several times what are needed for statistical significance and the latter has famously been achieved in a number of well known studies that were in fact controlled. This is one of those things that could become a silly issue for milling where editors wanting to put the kibosh on what they consider bunk weigh in but the facts are what they are. Also there are other idiosyncratic cases like the Sinclairs but all without rigorous scientific method. So it's wrong to just say they haven't been duplicated so as to imply a probable fraud intentional or otherwise. Lycurgus (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC) and most scientists would claim that evidence for it does not exist.


 * Also "and most scientists would claim that evidence for it does not exist." is both weasel worded, a fabrication and ignorant/stupid, probably written by a person with little understanding of science. In fact most scientists would probably claim ignorance of the matter and only the opinion of active investigators would be of relevance anyway, the endorsement by Einstein for example adds nothing to the truth or falsity of the Sinclairs contention. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

removed &para;
deleted this:"However, Sinclair's results have been replicated at SRI and Rhine Research Center.. The existence of telepathy is still a matter of extreme controversy, and most scientists would claim that evidence for it does not exist under the current paradigm, but with the quantum paradigm shift, less resistance to the idea is being cultivated.". In defense of Upton and Craig I will push stuff like this into the main articles on telepathy where the controversy can more properly rage. 72.228.177.92 (talk)