User talk:Atsakiris

Radin above criticism?
To critize Radin is not smearing him. This a cognitive distortion. Things in the world are not black and white. Radin is the one who devulged the information about bending a spoon at a spoon party on his own web page. It would seem he wants others to know about it. There is no doubt Radin quoted Carl Sagan in a very unusual manner and readers of Sagan caught it. This not is something to sweep under the rug. Especially when Radin claims this is evidence of skeptics (Sagan) "changing their minds " and bring ups the names of Noble Laurates to give a greater authority to parapsychology.User:Kazuba 17 Jan 2007

NPOV
Yea, but we’re shooting for a NPOV here. Just because I guys admits to attending a PK party and having a strange experience doesn’t make his private life fodder for Wiki page.

This guy’s a serious scientist, well trained, great credentials, publishes papers in peer-reviewed journals… all the right stuff. This Wiki page should focus on who he is, what books and papers he’s published and leave it at that. The ‘controversy’ over PSI research is a sideshow… an interesting one, but still a sideshow.

I recently interviewed Radin for the http://www.skeptiko.com Podcast… I asked him some tough questions (and some easy ones). On the whole, I was impressed. I haven’t posted the interview with Radin yet, but if you want to listed to the pre-released version here’s the link http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3

I'd be very interesed to get your opinion.

BTW I love your Wiki page. I think we might have an interesting exchange on these issues since I probably share your disposition, if not your viewpoint. User:ATsakiris 17 Jan 2007

NPOV Regarding Radin
"I listened to your podcast. I am not much for listening to arguments. I am just not a listening person. Statements go by too quickly and that does not always give your curiousity a chance to construct (the proper?) questions. Sometimes this takes me years. I like to go over things very slowly. As for telepathy I don't deny it's existence. It may be there. Edison said he failed his way to success. Science is a patient game of failure and success. That is just the way it is. When and if someone creates the correct experiment for telepathy that is above the I do, or I do not believe it, I would imagine it will be embraced by the majority of the scientific community. They did with Einstein. From what I have observed that just has not yet happened. Magicians Martin Gardner and James Randi think it may happen, but this is unlikely. Personally, from looking back at the past, I think it has to do with how and who is doing the looking. Some critter discovered fire. The Wright brothers built bicycles. William Beaumont discovered how the stomache worked. Moses Findley was a child prodigy in ancient history. The first to escape from a milk can was Harry Houdini. I look forward to hearing your interview with Radin. I hope you really did your homework this time and your qustions are very specific. [User:Kazuba] 18 Jan 2007"

Funny… I’m almost exactly the opposite. I find I pick up stuff in Podcast and books-on-tape (at least the ones read by the authors) that I sometimes miss in text.

Regarding telepathy, I think a lot of otherwise skeptical people think similarly. Almost all of us know someone whose claimed to have had a telepathic experience. I’ve never had one, but one of my Aunt’s swears she has. Of course, anecdotal evidence is unreliable, but it does provide a natural history of human experience and leaves most of us with the sense that, ‘something’s there’. So, when we hear a story of identical twins that sense their sibling’s pain from a car accident, we tend to believe it.

So that brings us to Radin… here’s my perspective. First off, the guy is smart. PhD U of I (the guys who invented the Net). Industry experience at Bell Labs, probably the finest research company in the world at the time, SRI, and on and on. Also, consider that these major research organizations where paying him to do psi research – it was his job!

Second, the guy is a scientist. He does his research, publishes it in peer-reviewed journals (some very highly regarded ones), presents at scholarly conferences. In other words, he’s accepted by the gate-keepers of academic science with very high regard. Now, it may be true that some respected scientist disagree with him, but that kinda stuff happens all the time in science.

Point is -- he’s earned a certain degree of respect.

Point is – the only reason his Wiki page gets savaged is because his chosen area of research.

I was listening to an interview with Leonard Susskind, the guy who came up with String Theory, the other day. Seems like String Theorist have come under a lot of fire lately for not producing verifiable results in the 20 years the theory has been around. As I’m listing to this, I’m thinking, ‘this sounds like the psi debate’. Why the heck should Radin be heckled just because psi research is ‘controversial’ to some people?

Here’s my suggestion. I found this article on Radin’s research from Psychology Today http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000701-000034.html. I have quibbles with some of the information in it, but on the whole, it does a good job of explaining the state of the research in this area. I think Radin’s ‘Controversy and Criticism’ section should point to something like this and be done with it. A lot of that other stuff is disrespectful and unfair.

BTW I glad you checked out the Podcast. I hope you made it to the Radin interview that hasn’t been officially posted to the Podcast website. It’s at: http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3. In this interview Radin talks about the whole spoon bending thing, and addresses the ‘baseline’ criticism alluded to in the Psy Today article, and in some of Ray Hyman’s critiques. I think you’d enjoy it… well maybe if you were stuck in traffic with nothing else to do.AD 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Advise
I'm new to Wiki and wanted your advice on how to handle some of the shamefully biased stuff that keeps showing up on the Dean Radin page. I made some edits in an attempt to tone down the pejorative language and personal attacks, but my edits were reversed. Any thoughts on how to make this fair?

BTW I recently interviewed Dr. Radin for the http://www.skeptiko.com Podcast. I haven’t posted the interview yet, but if you want to listed to the pre-released version here’s the link http://reason9.com/podcast/upload/skeptiko2-radin-1.mp3

I'd be very interested in your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atsakiris (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks Atsakiris, that was the best interview I've heard with Radin. I especially found his comments on presentiment fascinating; I would have loved to hear his ideas on how he sees this as functioning. Precognition and presentiment are areas I often wonder about in terms of how they could be possible. Straight telepathy and esp are much easier to appreciate on this level, but seeing through time is much trickier. Do you have any thoughts on this?


 * As far as the bias, it is a real problem, the best thing you can do is make sure you cite sources and try to go to the original source if at all possible. If you have solid papers to draw from there is little reason to revert, unless you are not being neutral, see Neutral Point of View Policy. I noticed that you added a point that Radin denies a criticism about a Carl Sagan quote, if you'd cited a source for this you would have been OK I would guess. Without a citation it could look like original research (which is not allowed on WP), and essentially any problem with what you add will be jumped on by those wishing to show only a negative image of Radin and anything related to psi. It also looks like you added "unrelenting skeptics", this would be seen as biased language, again see the Neutral Point of View Policy. In general we have to be far more exacting with our contributions to psi related articles as there is a core group of sceptics on WP who do not mind attacking your position in an almost agressive way, which seems to me far from scientific. Best wishes - Solar 12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding presentiment, I share your uneasiness (kinda makes my head hurt thinking about it), but the data looks pretty amazing. Multiple replications, positive results after meta-analysis. Science has been showing us that our reality ain’t what we think it is for 100 years, but it’s still hard for me to let go of the dance.

As far as WP, I guess I’ll just keep plugging away. I’m new to it so it may take a while. I tried to sum up my position with, NOPV Re Radin. I’ll see what kind of response I get. AD 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've summed it up, Radin is mainly personally criticised, rather than on the basis of his findings. I am always surprised that out of the many hundreds of pages he has published the actual scientifically based criticisms with any substance are few and far between, I think that speaks for itself with the amount of sceptics who would love to find something to use against him as a scientist. Most of the arguments are ad hominum attacks, like his credibility must be poor because he reported a strange experience at a spoon bending party or he was sacked once, etc., etc. And of course ad hominum arguments are logical fallacies and would not stand in any mature discussion of his work.


 * I also listened to your interview with Rupert Sheldrake, for me Sheldrake is a little trickier and I'm not sure about his ideas, but it was a very interesting interview. I am always impressed by the calm balanced maturity that these scientists maintain in the face of so much criticism, something the likes of Randi, Dawkins and Hyman could learn from. - Solar 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Sheldrake is brilliant… but that’s just my opinion. He recently posted audio of a head-to-head debate he did with Chris French (a noted British skeptic). The link is: http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/realaudio/Sheldrak&French281106.mp3

It kinda long, but excellent. AD 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Atsakiris, Don't get me wrong I find Sheldrake extremely interesting and his ideas fascinating, it's probably just my understanding of physics is much better than my understanding of biology, so I feel less familiar with the territory. I believe all scientists who have stood up to be counted on the issue of psi deserve great respect and admiration. I there is anything I can do to help with your podcast from the UK, let me know. - Solar 14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally got to listen
Finally got to listen to the Radin interview. My computer whiz son helped me out. I enjoyed it.

"Kazuba – you gotta listen to the interview again because he said almost the exact opposite, see below…"

Radin is smart, and smart enough to see his flaws. I think he just about agreed with every thing Hyman said. Here's what I got: Seldom are Radin's experiments replicated by himself. He says it has to do with funding, and he gets bored. He said he’s replicated the presentiment experiment three times and that each time took more than a year and many thousands of dollars. Very few other people try to replicate his experiments. The largest number he gave was half a dozen.

He said that at least 6 other experimenters have replicated his work. Given how small the filed is, and the amount of time and effort required to properly conduct an experiment, that’s quite a few. Most of the time Radin computes his statistics different ways, as he said, to get the best results. Is he after accuracy or after statistics that benefit his experiments? He is not very clear.

Wait a minute, he points out that in the intervening 1-2 years between experiments he developed improved means to measure the variation from the base. This sounds totally reasonable. Most importantly, he points out that he conducted a meta-analysis including all the experiments and applied one statistical measure to all, and that this also produced statistically significant results. Please read that last sentence over a couple times and let it sink in – all the data – all three experiments – same statistical measure – statistically significant results! Radin claims he bent a spoon. It will not take him over a million dollars to bend a spoon in front of Randi, regardless of his hi tech research. Certainly the story of the bent spoon reduces his credibility and stands out. I went with this woman. Which woman? What are the names of others at this spoon bending party to verify this story? Obviously he doesn't care. He expects you to believe him. He has a photo of a bent spoon.

I understand why you’re uncomfortable with the spoon bending. It’s so far outside my personal experience that it’s hard to get a handle on. At the same time, I respect his public-vs-private argument. Here’s a guy who had this experience. He’s not calling it research, or isisting that anyone believe him. He just saying, “don’t make me deny my experience to keep my job”. I can respect that. Things like negative PSI and his work at SRI with Remote viewing also hurt his credibility. The Stargate project cost the US Goverment 20 million dollars. Why didn't it work? He says it was applied the wrong way. Couldn't the correct way be shown in ten years? Until Radin's experiments, not jumping from one to another, are replicated hundreds of times and get the same results-with the same method of statistics used by all parties will he be taken seriously.

That’s may be your opinion, and that’s fine. My whole point is – that should not be the position of his WP page. His WP page should be an encyclopedic reference to his work. If you don’t like his research topics, or his methods take it up with the folks that publish his papers. Skeptics works best when they are uncovering fraud and deception not splitting scientific hairs. AD 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Loved the way he hedged around J.Z. Knight and said nothing about whether or not she may be using deception or be out in space. If his gut feeling tells him she's on the level, well....User:Kazuba 22 Jan 2007

Self deception is a reality
There is a thing called self-deception. Sometimes called experimenter effect. In the history of just about everything this has been around a long time. It can pop up anywhere. It can even pop up in parapsychology. It has poped up a lot in the history of psychical research and parapsychology. Is Radin overly enthused? Time will tell. Self-deception in science is not splitting hairs. The Stargate project, certainly a classic in self-deception, cost the US tax payer 20 million. That was a cold reality. User:Kazuba 23 Jan 2007

Of course, but we don’t know if that’s what’s happening here. My point is simply that Radin is following scientific procedures by conducting research and publishing in peer-reviewed journals. He’s done this for years and gained acceptance as a very competent scientist. So, let’s respect him as a professional and let his WP page reflect his professional work. As a final resolution of the whole RV thing, I suggest we add a link to the articles you reference in Reference, See Also, or External Links. I think this would put it in perspective for the casual WP reader. Is this acceptable? BTW I’m going to repost this in the Radin discussion so we don’t have to re-hash with others. AD 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a Gander
This connection is from the Radin entry. It is a link to his published articles. Take a good slow look at the complete list of the names of the journals he appears in. They are not main stream. Lots of new age stuff. After that take a good slow look at all article titles. There are some odd ones. This is why Dean Radin is not thought to be a recognized scientist in the main body of the scientific community. He has very little to do with it. http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/activitiespubs.html User:Kazuba 25 Jan 2006


 * I’m not familiar with all theses publications, but I think they are probably much more credible than you are assuming based on their names. Take the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Sounds kinda new-age-ish and flaky – it’s not.  I used to subscribe and it’s very well done, peer-reviewed and professional.  Take a look at their counsel; http://www.scientificexploration.org/council.php.  Moreover, the fact that parapsychology is marginalized and taboo within mainstream academia doesn’t mean the research results should be discounted. AD 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Different
You and I have a very different ideas about what constitutes as investigative research, evidence and critical history. So it goes. We are very different. Now let's see what happens to this stuff and how long it will stand the test of time. Let's look in on it from time to time and amuse ourselves. User:Kazuba 26 Jan 2006


 * Yea, I’m surprised at the differences, but then I’m just getting introduced to the ‘skeptical community’. I completed an interview with Michael Shermer last week fro Skeptiko.  Very interesting and likeable guy.  AD 13:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I (Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV an illusion?
I do NOT define myself as a skeptic, but rather a genuinely curious, amateur historian, puzzler and observer of social psychology. Genuine curiousity, investigative research, interpretation of the evidence, and disclosure is the process of the critical historian. That this material will result in neutrality is not known until summation. Though it may be be politically correct is there really such an animal as neutral history? There are no errors, injustice, irrationality, villians, horror, reason, heroes, goodness, truth, lies, good or evil, not to mention unconscious selectivity and preference, in the real world? The goal of a critical historian is objectivity. User:Kazuba 1 Feb 2007


 * Wasn’t trying to label you. Just remember your remark about James Randi and assumed you were inclined to lean in this direction.  Are you an atheist? AD 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No
I don't think so. I just think the picture of the Divine in Biblical literature ( I am on more familiar ground with Biblical literature and the ancient world. Grew up that way.) is very out dated and a product of its time. I think all pictures of the Divine are products of different cultures and times and change. And will continue to do so as long as humanity survives. I certainly do not believe in the supernatural. See my screwy user page. User:Kazuba and its internal links.


 * Amen... well, at least right up there until the end. I'm not willing to completely dismiss the supernatural. Not sure it exists, but not as sure as you that it doesn’t. AD 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

James Randi and I, though we have never met, go back a long way. 30 years? We certainly do not see eye to eye. Just like the master magicians before him, I do not think he will ever come across someone with a supernatural or psychic power. (Of course I and he could be wrong, but I doubt it. We have the past on our side.) Randi is not the easiest guy to get a long with. He has many enemies. He used to wear a bullet proof vest. Randi is a master magician and deeply respected by the old guard of the magic world. And trust me, these old magicians are VERY wise. Damn, at 65, now I'm an old magician. Martin Gardner, now 92, is Merlin incarnate. He was my teacher. Martin, Rudolf Bultmann,the study of history, my wife, my grand parents, clergy, friends and many of the stories I have read taught me a lot about the importance of faith in the Divine. User:Kazuba 1 Feb 2007


 * Randi’s contributions are significant and many of them need to be lauded. He’s also has become a victim of his own success.  He’s locked into a position that leaves limits genuine inquiry and can wind up sounding as dogmatic as the folks he debunks. AD 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A Randi interview with the right questions
I think you are wrong about Randi when it comes to the paranormal. I think he still has the capability to admit he is wrong. He has done this in the past. A magician investigator close to Randi recently stated Randi is willing to change his mind and that he remains flexible and that he would like to find evidence of PSI. He would make big money on this discovery. Randi is not against the inquiries of parapsychology. He is against hokum in parapsychology. Be fair and interview him too. Ask him; how he can recognize hokum? Ask him; how can you be so sure this reputable scientist's reports are nonsense when they appear in many journals? How can the uninformed layman do the same? Ask him the big one. Couldn't there possibly be evidence NOW that PSI exists with certainty on a definite small level above chance and you are in denial, dogmatic and being unfair? It seems that is what you want to know. Isn't it? Ask him.User:Kazuba 2 Feb 2007


 * I hope I get the chance to interview him. I did have an interview with Michael Shermer last week (not yet up on the Skpetiko site).  He’s very likeable and smart.


 * I have noticed a softening in Rani/Shermer’s position regarding psi, but if you listen to the whole of what they say (I’ve listened to a lot of their interviews) they can still sound quite dogmatic. AD 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Religion Bit
It was interesting you asked if I was an atheist. I don't think religion has anything to do with telepathy. (I suspect this is the ONLY form of PSI that exists, nothing else, sorry. ) If telepathy exists I suspect it is connected to the emotions, uncontrollable and just as ordinary as dreaming, being startled or getting a headach. It is no big deal. Certainly nothing controversial that will change the science books as Radin seems to think. User:Kazuba 07 Feb 2007


 * I have interviews with two of the editors of Psi Wars coming up on Skeptiko. I'm going to ask. AD 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Interview, Folie a Deux, and BZ
Before you do interviews dealing with books, have you read the book cover to cover, taken notes on the material and examined the bibliography?

Ask Alcock about his own experiences with cases of Folie a Deux and how much abnormal psychology, and psychiatry does and does not know about it.(He wrote me that he has personally dealt with at least two cases, but explained little.) Aren't practitioners of abnormal psychology, and psychiatry pretty confident shared visual hallucinations can occur in Folie a Deux? And be brought about by the incapacitating agent, BZ? May this be a form of telepathy? And if so, or not so. So what? Is it really a big deal? It is taking place within a very unpleasant and uncontrolled psychotic state.

The incapacitating agent BZ produces effects not just in individuals, but also in groups. Sharing of illusions and hallucinations (folie à deux, folie en famille, and "mass hysteria") is exemplified by two BZ-intoxicated individuals who would take turns smoking an imaginary cigarette clearly visible to both of them but to no one else. [Clarification] When one observed subject mumbled, "Gotta cigarette?" His delirious companion held out an invisible pack, he followed with, "S'okay, don't wanna take your last one." In another test it was reported two victims of BZ played tennis with imaginary rackets.

"When you have got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." Author Elmore Leonard User:Kazuba 07 Feb 2007

Sandbox
Hi, I haven't read your whole talk page, but... You do interviews with Radin?? If so, way cool. (And, is there a way to download this stuff as mp3? my connection is way to slow for any kind of 'cast).

The sandbox you mentioned is only a sandbox because there is a movement to delete it as a sub-article of the Parapsychology article. Criticism and response in parapsychology. People say it has to be made more like other articles. I put it in a sandbox so that other editors could start to do that. I wrote most of it, so I think I should keep my hands off till it starts to take some other form.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring Parapsychology
The parapsychology article needs restructuring. Come on over to my sandbox and see how you can help.-- Annalisa Ventola (Talk 07:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can the supernatural beat this?
The more I learn, the more I observe, the natural is so bizarre there may not be room for the supernatural. Keith Richards, the 63-year-old Rolling Stone guitarist who has looked like he's on death's door for a decade, admitted in a bizarre interview in the British music magazine NME, 03 Apr 2007, that he snorted his father's ashes mixed with cocaine. "He was cremated, and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little blow. My dad wouldn't have cared...It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive." Aww, It was only a joke.User:Kazuba 04 Apr 2007 Check out my Radin stuff on my user page.

Alcock Interview
I just listened to your interview. You never spoke to Alcock about Folie a deux,incapacitating agent, BZ, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate,Ayahuasca and the possiblity of telepathy. Perhaps this a stupid question but why not? You guys just rambled on and on. It was the same old same old. Didn't it ever occur to you I might know what I'm talking about? Whatever.... User:Kazuba 20 Apr 2007

Animal ESP and Schwartz
Animal ESP was investigated about 40 years ago. There was nothing to it. Wiseman is correct. Sheldrakes's experiments are always sloppy, too few and use a very small number of subjects per experiment to make things look more significant than they really are.[If you try to duplicate Sheldrake's work don't make the same mistakes.] Gary Schwartz has gone over the edge. This too is old stuff. There is nothing new here. Both these guys, Sheldrake and Schwartz are like Radin, they are not completely rational when it comes to the paranormal.(Each person is a combination of rational and irrational. That's just the way it is.) I suspect the goal of these guys is to gain the public praise and academic recognition that only exists in their big heads. When all else fails they like to play selective meta-analysis and statistical number games to make themselves look good. The public is impressed and baffled by numbers, professional credentials and the quick desirable interpretations of their own personal experiences. These three guys DO NOT and probably never will have a serious interest in the paranormal. They chase glory, immortality and mysticism and avoid critical science. To question their work becomes an attack. (Just read what they say.) Wiseman is a serious parapsychologist. Don't expect them to all be the same. They are not. [In the back of your head you already know this stuff.] One can have faith in the Divine, myth, honesty and good and still not be stupid. Don't expect it to be easy. I'm outta here and the Wikipedia too for good. I promised the wife. It's been a gas. Damn. I get the last word. Why doesn't it make me happy? User:Kazuba 26 Apr 2007

Dreadstar RfA
  Click there to open your card! → → → Alex, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili,  Phaedriel , and  Anonymous Dissident , for their co-nominations. Thank you all! Dreadstar

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thanks for your support! I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing borrowing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! How wonderful to receive your vote..a true honor. Dreadstar †  07:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Famous Mrs. Leonora Piper
I have pretty much completed a few paragraphs at the beginning of the Leonora Piper entry. Very interesting. I once heard it said if you want to learn about a subject you must research and write about it. I have found this quite true. Check em' out. Oh, it looks like the Gary Schwartz entry is in a finis stage. Kazuba (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)