Talk:Dean Radin

Not a biography

I wanted to gain an impression of Dean Radin's life and work to date but, as it now is, this bio appears to be little more than a chance to put forward criticism of Radin and his career.

Criticism has its place but this page does seem to be unable to state anything positive at all and is therefore rendered one-sided, inadequate and, regrettably, unworthy of publication by Wikipedia.

BarryNL1 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced in the negative direction. NPOV? ---Dagme (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to use the reliable sources that exist. If they are uniformly critical, what do you suggest we should do? Sweep the criticism under the carpet? Use unreliable sources praising him? Invent fake sources praising him?

Your understanding of NPOV is faulty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "does not appear to be more neutral". For example, the review in Journal of Scientific Exploration is not suitable. It's published by Society for Scientific Exploration, which, according to its Wiki article, embraces views that are "are often at odds with those of mainstream science". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, it's al;so basically a SPS as far as Radin is concerned. Guy (help!) 15:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Not neccessary to revert the whole thing to an earlier version. My main addition was references to Nobel laureate Brian Josephson's website at Cambridge University, where he supports Radin's book and also supports Radin's point of view in his debate in Nature. We might not share Josephson's view, but definitely a Nobel laureate shoould be listened to. So I have now reverted to the earlier version, but taken your objection to heart and removed the reference you did not approve of. D'Espagnat

As a new Wikipedian, you need to read our WP:FRINGE guidelines. The bulk of your edits are aimed at introducing a false balance, portraying the fringe view and the mainstream view as equally credible. Note that our articles on such concepts as parapsychology, psi and dream telepathy clearly state the lack of scientific support for such claims. Biographies of living persons should not be written so as to argue against scientific consensus on these matters, or to attempt to add praise for them by citing some supporters credentials. Also please note that adding superlatives like "inspired author" is considered WP:PUFFERY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JSE does in fact undertake the same processes as do the major journals, in particular having submissions refereed by experts, and it is indexed in Scopus and Elsevier Abstracts, which should indicate that some conventional institutions consider it of high standard. And while its Wiki article may assert that it 'embraces views that are "are often at odds with those of mainstream science", what the journal's web site actually says is that its aim is 'to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science', and I can't see why JSE should be considered a bad source, given that it subscribes to the same careful admission procedures as any other journal does. 'Embracing' is a loaded word that misrepresents the journal's attitude, and its wiki page could do with being amended accordingly. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
And since you are so keen on quoting wiki, let me note what the wiki article about Scopus says about it: "All journals covered in the Scopus database, regardless of who they are published under, are reviewed each year to ensure high quality standards are maintained."--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And can Guy explain what he means when he says JSE is an SPS (self-published source) as far as Radin is concerned?--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, it means that his wibble gets effectively no critical peer-review in that "journal". JSE is not a scientific journal in any meaningful sense. It's more of a fanzine. Guy (help!) 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your comment above seems to derive much more from preconceptions on your part than from the factual information that I have provided. Please check out what I said in regard to Scopus. Enlarging on the referring aspect, the JSE website says specifically: "All articles are peer reviewed by 2 JSE editors (the Editor-in -Chief and at least one Associate Editor) and at least 2 outside reviewers who are experts in the field and not on the Journal staff or Board". Your allegation in this regard falls hardly short of being libellous in character, and I would kindly suggest that you withdraw it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim that parapsychology is "inadequately studied" in the mainstream is an editorial bent which is intellectually bereft and corrupt to an extent that JSE is almost always excised from Wikipedia and will continue to be. The WP:MAINSTREAM may not be nice to people who believe in ESP, ghosts, and so forth, but, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's a battle you must fight somewhere else. jps (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel that the only thing to say on this point jps, is hear hear. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We also have a well-sourced and interesting article on the Editor-in-Chief mentioned above by professor Josephson: Stephen E. Braude. I recommend it for an overview of Braude's claims and publications. Seriously, the JSE can't by any stretch of the imagination be called a reliable source. Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

A typically biased WP article, that goes without saying. Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Surely you know how this subject is looked upon in the wider world. We are not making up this bias against those who believe in the paranormal. It's the way things are. If you don't like it, you should try to convince your colleagues rather than mucking around on a website that is merely trying to document the status quo. jps (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, that’s not peer review, it#'s "appear-reviewed". It's like the woo journals specialising in homeopathy and like bollocks: the nonsense is reviewed by credulous people, often with a vested interest in the validity of an invalid claim, and they review it for scienceyness, not actual science. As to the below, so what? The majority of people believe that the world was created by one of a number of mutually contradictory deities. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. As of this date, not one single psychic phenomenon has been demonstrated in a repeatable way through controlled experiments yielding objective results that are demonstrably inconsistent with the null hypothesis. And - as I think you know - the Sheldrakes and Radins of this world would not be in the position of constantly arguing for Wikipedia to reflect their delusions as truth if they were indeed demonstrable truth, rather than what they are. See also WP:LUNATIC. Guy (help!) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That is just not the case! A survey by Ipsos MORI shows that the majority of people in Great Britain believe telepathy/ESP is real. Similar surveys among scientists are suspect, as many may be reluctant to disclose their true beliefs in case doing do might harm their reputation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Public opinion is no basis on which to write an encyclopedia. We rely on expert evaluation, and if you think the scientists are all scared to share their true feelings, go ahead and work to create reliable sources which expose that phenomenon. However, until you have such sources, we are stuck listening to those experts who secretly believe in magic but refuse to respond to opinion surveys in kind. jps (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Brian Josephson, you have been a Wikipedia editor for many years now, you're not a newbie. Please indent your posts correctly to make the discussion more readable. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

Institute of Noetic Sciences

This,"...whose legitimacy is questioned by Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch." should be sourced. I didn't see the judgement of INS on the Quack Watch page but certainly could have missed it. As well, I don't see that the opinion of one person is a legitimate source for Wikipedia content. If we were to comply with Wikipedia standards for reliable sources we would find multiple sources (with oversight) that consider the Institute of Noetic Sciences a questionable institution. I don't have any desire to fight any battles here; someone may want to find good RS sources for the statement. I won't remove it. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, IONS is generally ignored. The only sources that discuss it in any depth are by people associated with it or like-minded cranks. Even the famous skeptical books only mention it in passing. Guy (help!) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• [1]. Seems reliable to me. Very useful list. jps (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the content I'm questioning the source. The source is not reliable per our own standards. If this institution, INS, is not legitimate I'm sure there are sources that say so, if not then it's legitimacy or not is the opinion of one person, Barrett, and the editors here. That doesn't comply with Wikipedia. If there is consensus to use this source, so be it, I don't really care, but at the very least, source it to Barrett. It's a very strong statement about an institution so we probably should source it somehow. Once we source it we no longer have to say, it's on such and such a list we just have to say it's questionable. The source, as per our referencing guidelines, backs up the statement. At the very least reference the statement we have now in place to QuackWatch and Barrett. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, it is cited by Government agencies around the world, and is probably the best known source for quack medical claims. Guy (help!) 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This particular list is the work of one person and that doesn't jive with our policies- no oversight. Other parts of Quackwatch do sometimes have oversight. I'd reference the statement rather than not. Wikipedia has its own standards; citing Quackwatch in general doesn't discriminate between Barrett's opinions and those parts which have more oversight. But as I said I won't fight over this. There seems to be agreement to mention the list with out actually referencing the source. I personally thinks it weakens the article. I sourced the list. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it as good as Quantumuniversity.com? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Quackwatch link

[2]

• "Removed quackwatch ref in the first paragraph. Biased. Quackwatch itself is questionable." That is really bad reasoning. Quackwatch is not questionable, so of course I reverted that without even looking.
• "Removed again biased observation regarding IONS. Time to stop the skeptic guerrilla in wikipedia" That is simple ad hominem. Also bad reason. Reverted without looking again.
• "Not consistent policy; Edgar Mitchell's article has no added explanations of the sort." Also a bad reason because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

But at least it made me look it up, and it turns out the link does not belong in the Dean Radin article because it does not mention Dean Radin. It does not even mention Mitchell.

So, removing it was right, but the edit summaries were shit. Learn how to write better edit summaries, IP. Even better: learn how to think like a serious Wikipedia editor instead of like a PROFRINGE POV warrior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Even had it mentioned the subject, any material by Barrett on Quackwatch is a self-published source, and thus banned from here per WP:BLPSPS. See \:RSNP for confirmation on this. I have once again deleted the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

More biographical information needed

I agree with the above comment that says this article is not a biography, and think more biographical information would do more justice to this man. The article available in the online parapsychology encyclopedia of the Society for Psychical Research, available at:

  https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/dean-radin

is quite strong on the life of Dean Radin. If one reads this article, one will see that he trained as a classical violinist. The article also tells us the university from which he got his Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering - the University of Massachusetts. Rollo August (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Rollo August, Wikipedia works from reliable independent secondary sources. Most of them ignore Radin. That's not our problem to fix, sadly. a "psi encyclopaedia" is canonically unreliable if it is user-editable or proceeds from the assumption that psi is real. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The Psi Encyclopedia is not "user-editable", it is written by members of the Society for Psychical Research. Rollo August (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a polemical blog to me: [3] - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. A site spouting the usual fringe believers' disapproval of Wikipedia's refusal to accept every random piece of bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Rollo August, Ah, members of the SPR. Wikipedia prefers reality-based sources, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Impartiality Of This Page is Extremely Questionable

It is like this page has been written by some angry "skeptics", to undermine scientific facts. Another hopeless attempt to bury the truth. Welcome to old world. Take a look at it. It won't last. People are creating organizations and helping the law enforcements by using psychic abilities even though so called skeptics (they are more like cynics) ignore. Wikipedia allows angry and radical editors occupy this website. The history will be a witness that Wikipedia has been vandalized by cynics who made an oath to bury the truth. I wish them good luck. They will be the ones who'll be forgetten. 159.146.121.8 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so. Just look at the way these people have been blocking links to the valuable information source Psi Encyclopedia. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is supposed to write what you consider true, but to echo reliable sources. Usually, reliable sources do not believe in magic, so Wikipedia embraces that position too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)