G-K0F4D5MY2P Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin - Tracking Wisdom

Episode 46

Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin

Tracking Wisdom

Episode 46

Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin

Recorded - 08/31/26

DESCRIPTION

In this follow-up to our discussion of Dean Radin, we turn to the other side of the debate through Robert Todd Carroll’s Skeptic’s Dictionary critique of Radin’s 1997 book, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena.

Carroll raises substantial questions about how Radin interprets experimental results, uses meta-analysis, accounts for alternative explanations, and moves from statistical anomalies to claims about psi phenomena. We examine where those criticisms appear strongest, including concerns about methodology, error, fraud, and the distinction between evidence for an unexplained effect and proof of a particular explanation.

But we also turn the same critical lens toward the critique itself. Where does legitimate skepticism become rhetoric? Does identifying weaknesses in Radin’s arguments justify dismissing the larger body of research? And how should a non-expert navigate a debate in which both proponents and critics can selectively emphasize the evidence most favorable to their position?

The conversation ultimately becomes less about deciding whether Dean Radin is right or wrong and more about a difficult problem we all face: how do we remain appropriately skeptical without allowing skepticism itself to become certainty?

We discuss:

  • Robert Todd Carroll’s major criticisms of Radin’s work
  • Evidence, proof, and alternative explanations
  • Meta-analysis and statistical anomalies
  • Methodological concerns, error, and fraud
  • The rhetoric used by both proponents and skeptics
  • The limitations of critique as a form of refutation
  • Confirmation bias and our tendency toward black-and-white conclusions
  • How non-experts can think critically when evaluating competing scientific claims

This episode is intended as a companion to our previous discussion of Dean Radin and as an exercise in engaging seriously with arguments that challenge our own assumptions.

Episode Resources

Want to be a guest on Tracking Wisdom? Send us a message on PodMatch

Interested in Podcasting? Captivate FM is an excellent hosting platform (Affiliate Link)

Consider showing your support to help make this content possible.

Review us on Podchaser

Leave a Review

We are grateful for your gifts

Support with a Tip

Show Merchandise

Tracking Wisdom Coffee Mug

Web and Social Media

Web & Social Media:

ETH Studio Website

Tracking Wisdom Reflections (Substack)

Facebook

Instagram

X

YouTube

License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.

The views, interpretations, and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests. They do not represent advice, counseling, or official positions of any institution, employer, or religious tradition. All content is provided for informational and entertainment purposes only. Please use your own discernment and, if needed, consult a qualified professional regarding any personal, spiritual, or mental health questions.

Copyright 2026 Ears That Hear Media Corporation

Keywords:Dean Radin critique, psychic phenomena evidence, parapsychology debate, meta analysis psi studies, random number generator experiments, global consciousness project, Robert T. Carroll Skeptics Dictionary, evaluating paranormal claims, scientific skepticism psi, telepathy vs precognition, psychokinesis research, methodological flaws parapsychology, statistical significance paranormal studies, Tracking Wisdom Podcast consciousness, fringe science and consciousness, how to evaluate psi studies, consciousness and awakening podcast, skeptics vs proponents psi, history of psi research, evidence vs proof psi

Transcript
Peter:

You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal

Peter:

truths that we see woven through culture, consciousness, and the human experience.

Ryan:

Morning everybody, and welcome back to another episode

Ryan:

of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.

Ryan:

I'm Ryan.

Peter:

I'm Peter.

Ryan:

And today we're doing a bit of a follow-up from our

Ryan:

previous episode on Dean Radin.

Ryan:

And this is a critique of Dean Radin's work and we wanted to kinda offer that

Ryan:

as a balance to the work he put out.

Ryan:

Some of his stuff is controversial, and so we wanted to try and present

Ryan:

and discuss the counterpoint.

Ryan:

And what we're reviewing today is from "The Skeptic's Dictionary."

Ryan:

This is a critique by Robert T.

Ryan:

Carroll, who was the founder and author of "The Skeptic's Dictionary."

Ryan:

He's also author and professor of philosophy, logic, and

Ryan:

critical reasoning at Sacramento City College from 1977 to 2007.

Ryan:

He unfortunately passed away back in 2016, but this was written on the

Ryan:

1997 published book by Dean Radin called " The Conscious Universe: The

Ryan:

Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena."

Ryan:

And the website didn't have a published date for this review but based on

Ryan:

my research here, I am assuming this was written between 2007 and 2016.

Ryan:

Evidence for that was that he seemed to have written it after he had left his

Ryan:

teaching position back in 2007, and he also had mentioned references to Dean

Ryan:

Radin's newer release back in 2006.

Ryan:

And of course, if he passed away in 2016, he didn't write it after that, so.

Ryan:

Likely this was written closer to 2007.

Ryan:

And I say that mostly because the review is on a book from 1997,

Ryan:

which is now pushing 30 years old.

Ryan:

And the review itself is pushing 20 years.

Ryan:

And so there may be scientific findings, or general institutional or, wisdom

Ryan:

that has changed to some degree.

Ryan:

I don't know that's true, but I think it's worth noting as far as

Ryan:

the limitations of this discussion.

Ryan:

I think that pretty much sets up the background of what we're reviewing.

Ryan:

We will, of course, link this critique in the description.

Ryan:

And this review, I think, was a demonstrated effort to provide a balanced

Ryan:

and rational critique of the work.

Ryan:

I think it's not without its own limitations a- and faults, but I

Ryan:

think in general, the author did a pretty good job of moving beyond his

Ryan:

clear bias on the likelihood of psi phenomena being proven or even likely.

Ryan:

So I think importantly, there are definitely a couple, off the top,

Ryan:

points that he makes that are reasonable, rational, and relevant

Ryan:

critiques of Dean Radin's work.

Ryan:

I think it's also important to kinda set the record in the beginning that

Ryan:

The overall flavor of the review is less demonstrable that psi phenomena

Ryan:

is not real, and more a grievance that the jump to conclusion that

Ryan:

Dean Radin makes about the findings is either irrational or unwarranted.

Peter:

Yes.

Peter:

So he does say in his note that it's more of a deconstruction than a review.

Ryan:

Yes.

Peter:

And I think it's an exercise in pointing out…

Peter:

it's an exercise in critical thinking, and it's an exercise in pointing out where

Peter:

Radin either misleads or seems misguided.

Ryan:

And in a way it kind of Lands on what the experimental

Ryan:

record is entitled to establish.

Ryan:

And while some of the studies have critique about methodology, there are

Ryan:

certain findings in the research that seem to be pretty undisputed that their

Ryan:

findings are beyond chance, right?

Ryan:

That there are statistically significant findings that are beyond chance.

Ryan:

The points that the skeptics makes is that doesn't mean therefore psi is real, which

Ryan:

is the jump that Dean Radin makes, and I do think that's probably a fair criticism.

Ryan:

I don't necessarily agree that's…

Ryan:

okay, actually there's another caveat I wanna make before we get into this.

Ryan:

Neither of us read Dean Radin's book,

Peter:

Yes

Ryan:

So we're kinda taking this review at its face value that what he's saying,

Ryan:

and representing, is authentic or-

Peter:

Yes

Peter:

… Ryan: correct.

Peter:

Yes

Peter:

I think a lot of the criticisms that he makes are reflected in Radin's interviews.

Ryan:

So the term I'm questioning, and I don't know if this is true,

Ryan:

is at times the reviewer, Bob Carroll, seems to be conflating the

Ryan:

term proof with the term evidence.

Ryan:

And I don't know, I have heard interviews of Dean Radin who says unequivocally,

Ryan:

in his opinion, he doesn't necessarily say in his opinion, that psi phenomena

Ryan:

is real based on his research.

Ryan:

But the term proof, which Carroll did use in this review, I don't know

Ryan:

how much Dean Radin calls it proof as opposed to evidence, and I do think

Ryan:

there's a meaningful distinction there.

Peter:

Oh, absolutely.

Peter:

In fact, I think, so up 'til now i've found Radin's discussions

Peter:

of his research very interesting.

Peter:

And I found his presentation, like the way he presents his

Peter:

position, to be fairly compelling.

Peter:

And part of that was the fact that he focuses on evidence

Peter:

and he doesn't say it's proven.

Peter:

Although, you know, certainly from the way Carroll talks about the

Peter:

book, it does sound like Radin says in the book, that things are

Peter:

pretty much scientifically proven.

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

Yeah

Ryan:

And I just don't know if that's his commentary or

Ryan:

interpretation of what's said-

Peter:

Right, right

Ryan:

versus like a verbatim kind of quote from that.

Ryan:

Which it may be.

Ryan:

And I think trivially Dean Radin thinks his stuff is pretty solidly-

Peter:

Right

Ryan:

proven.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Ryan:

And I guess that could be evidenced as is described in the review that Dean

Ryan:

Radin says, " Psi researchers have moved beyond experiments on whether psi is real

Ryan:

towards experiments on how it works."

Ryan:

So I guess that at least alludes to the fact that he believes this to be proven.

Peter:

You know, The fact that this is such an old book, like decades old, we

Peter:

might say, "Oh well, some of Carroll's criticisms aren't valid anymore,"

Peter:

but I don't think we will say that.

Peter:

Because even though there is, you know, there's ongoing research, and there's

Peter:

new experiments and new evidence-

Ryan:

Yeah

Ryan:

… Peter: presumably, that's kinda not the nature of Carroll's criticism.

Ryan:

Which is much more about how Radin presents…

Ryan:

well, Radin's reasoning for his conclusions that psi is real,

Ryan:

and what the logical holes are.

Ryan:

Mm-hmm.

Ryan:

I would say this is a struggle both with the critique and with the

Ryan:

referenced material in Dean Radin's work, via this book and book review,

Ryan:

that the experiments are quite old.

Ryan:

And there is some, the random number generator stuff seems to be m- more

Ryan:

recent, but a lot of the cited evidence is like late 19th century stuff.

Ryan:

And some of the citations that Carroll provides in refutation

Ryan:

of it is like from the 1950s.

Ryan:

So I felt like some of this discussion was out of date in that

Ryan:

regard, where, you know, oh, people in the 1950s didn't believe the

Ryan:

stuff from the 1920s therefore…

Peter:

so I think part of the thing is a lot of what Radin talks about that Carroll

Peter:

has a problem with is what people believe.

Peter:

What this expert or this scientist says about psi.

Peter:

One of the ones I remember is Sagan.

Peter:

Carroll has, takes issue with the fact that Radin pulls a quote from Sagan to

Peter:

say Carl Sagan believes that psi is real.

Peter:

And so it's

Peter:

The older stuff I think is in response to Radin saying, " even back then,

Peter:

these people believed this, or these people didn't believe that."

Peter:

And so Carroll's responding to kind of-

Ryan:

Sure

Peter:

you're misrepresenting what people said-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

or what they believed.

Peter:

And there's no reason to think that, they think the way you say they're thinking.

Peter:

And I think overall, as we said off mic, there's a propensity

Peter:

on both sides of this…

Peter:

as we look at different kinds of paranormal discussion or discussion

Peter:

of para normal phenomena and their critics- we find that there's

Peter:

cherry-picking on both sides.

Ryan:

Right.

Peter:

And maybe I'm introducing that a little bit too early, but-

Ryan:

yeah, I think that's an important note, because that is one

Ryan:

of my grievances with this review.

Ryan:

It was very well done.

Ryan:

I'm gonna…

Ryan:

And I am I don't have strong feelings on Dean Radin, but I don't feel

Ryan:

as strongly about his conclusions as this- … author reviewer did.

Ryan:

And I felt like this author did a very good job overall trying to present a

Ryan:

very rational discussion and breakdown of each element I mean, it, it comes

Ryan:

out to 60 pages, like a 13-part-

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

It's extensive.

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

And then there's these random comments, at the end of a chapter- … or

Ryan:

even in between- … that detract from its the quality of the review,

Ryan:

the unbiased attempt- Yeah … where it's clear, and it even, he mentioned

Ryan:

at the very end what was the…

Ryan:

it had to do with healing with the mind, and he was talking about H.

Ryan:

pylori.

Peter:

Yes.

Ryan:

And then basically said, "Even if you showed me

Ryan:

it- … I wouldn't believe it."

Ryan:

Which, kinda goes, flies in the face of his initial opening, which is

Ryan:

skeptics have to have an open mind.

Peter:

So Yeah, I think this is the bigger discussion, that looking at this leads to.

Peter:

But I wanna go back to some of his specific criticisms, or general

Peter:

criticisms, of Radin, 'cause I think that's important in looking

Peter:

at Radin's credibility overall.

Ryan:

Yes.

Peter:

Up till now, I've found Radin fairly credible.

Ryan:

Mm-hmm.

Peter:

Like, Oh, this is really interesting stuff.

Peter:

He seems…

Peter:

I think uh, when we reviewed something earlier, I said, " something I really

Peter:

like about Radin is that he doesn't come across as crazy enthusiastic,

Peter:

and he seems very measured."

Ryan:

Yes.

Peter:

And, I think a big part of that was because of his, use of evidence

Peter:

versus proof in his presentation.

Peter:

But I think, Carroll points out or picks on two major areas of overall

Peter:

approach that are a problem for Radin.

Peter:

And I think the biggest one is meta-analysis.

Peter:

And the second one, it's related, is statistics.

Peter:

So basically Radin's most compelling argument, or the argue, the

Peter:

argument that he presents as the most compelling information, in

Peter:

support of psi phenomenon, is

Peter:

… and I'm not clear here, 'cause he might have said it in the

Peter:

book, that science proves…

Peter:

we don't know that.

Peter:

But that it's based on meta-analysis.

Peter:

And Carroll's point is that me- meta-analysis allows Radin to

Peter:

incorporate invalid studies into valid results and say, "overall, these many

Peter:

hundreds of experiments have been done, and the likelihood that these

Peter:

outcomes are random is, very small."

Peter:

And then that's where the, the statistical part comes in.

Peter:

Actually, it's not so much st- statistics as interpretation.

Peter:

Which is that because it's non-random, it therefore proves-

Peter:

Is … the reality of psi.

Peter:

Or yeah, that the most likely explanation for this non-randomness is psi phenomenon.

Ryan:

Right.

Peter:

That's the, probably-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

….the

Peter:

fair way of putting it.

Peter:

Or therefore we can conclude that it's psi.

Peter:

And Carroll takes exception, and is, really pretty emphatic, that Radin

Peter:

is disregarding error and basically a whole bunch of non-intentional

Peter:

causes, of statistical anomaly.

Ryan:

Yeah, I think, so this is where it was tough for me, because from what

Ryan:

I recall, Carroll specifically said he didn't go through these meta-analyses.

Ryan:

So some of what he's saying is coming across, at least to me when I'm,

Ryan:

like, listening to the two of them, as "Well, "it could have been," right?

Ryan:

And I think that's fair-

Peter:

Mm-hmm

Ryan:

…that

Ryan:

to raise that, but he is also presenting it in a way that is "There was."

Ryan:

And I th- some of them definitely did-

Peter:

Exactly

Ryan:

ha- had studies that subsequently had methodologies that were in

Ryan:

question and/or had non-compliance with the actual methodology.

Peter:

Exactly.

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

And and obviously those bring the results into question.

Ryan:

But it wasn't across the board that all the-

Peter:

Exactly

Peter:

… Ryan: all the studies and experiments and everything had these things.

Peter:

I, I think overall the issue is that, if controls are inadequate,

Peter:

so you're not controlling for fraud, you're not controlling for error,

Peter:

you're not controlling for information bleed-through with subjects, that those

Peter:

then become possible explanation for the statistically compelling outcomes,

Peter:

and that Radin doesn't address that.

Ryan:

I think in certain circumstances he seemed to.

Ryan:

Now, I think he didn't address it to Carroll's satisfaction.

Ryan:

But there were- … some points in the review where basically he

Ryan:

cited Radin saying "we determine that," and Carroll's kind of

Ryan:

questioning how they determine that.

Ryan:

I think Carroll's criticism about Radin's compulsion to move to

Ryan:

therefore it's psi, has its teeth.

Ryan:

But I'm also making some presumption that Radin is, and those who are doing

Ryan:

this are, making attempts to isolate and remove or measure for those factors.

Ryan:

It's not perfect, I recognize that, and there were some studies that were

Ryan:

determined that they had fallibility.

Ryan:

The thing is Radin discounts any other naturalized potential cause.

Ryan:

In some of these studies, there have been results that have been acknowledged

Ryan:

even by critics that, "yeah, it's beyond-

Ryan:

" Peter: It's statistically

Ryan:

significant … it's statistic-

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

But

Ryan:

… Peter: right, right

Ryan:

then branch and are like "the best we can say responsibly is

Ryan:

we, it's weird and we don't know."

Ryan:

And Radin takes the other branches, like "it's psi."

Peter:

So that's Carroll's main-

Ryan:

Yeah

Ryan:

… Peter: criticism.

Ryan:

Which I think is totally fair.

Peter:

Is that you can't just assume that that the, the reports repeatedly

Peter:

use the argument that because this is so statistically significant, it must be psi.

Peter:

Without, number one, specifically controlling for things-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

because they're not extreme- they're not rigorously designed.

Peter:

Or number two just not considering alternate explanations.

Peter:

And there are multiple examples of intentional misleading- … results,

Peter:

fraudulent results that end up getting incorporated-

Ryan:

Yeah

Peter:

In, in the kind of overall story.

Peter:

And then his second major criticism other than that interpretation of statistical

Peter:

significance, which is a major- … that's a a major objection is Radin's insistence

Peter:

that meta-analysis is so compelling-

Ryan:

Right

Ryan:

… Peter: that it is essentially proof.

Ryan:

I think where we've heard Radin up till now, we haven't heard

Ryan:

such a emphasis on meta-analysis.

Ryan:

I think that was really, the core of this book was meta-analysis.

Ryan:

And I think Carroll points out that it's Radin's standard approach.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

I think that he references another book, 'cause he's

Peter:

done a whole bunch of books.

Peter:

And Carroll's looked at previous books or reviewed or, published on them.

Peter:

And that, is just his, one of his major modus operandis-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

Is to do meta-analysis and then write a book about it.

Peter:

So I think those are definite weaknesses for Radin's case.

Ryan:

I agree.

Ryan:

I so To be fair enough to Radin, Carroll critiques this book, in

Ryan:

some circumstances, as if it's a published scientific paper, that

Ryan:

should have extensive exposition on methodology and how all this works.

Ryan:

And this book is

Peter:

Right

Peter:

… Ryan: consumer level.

Peter:

So to expect that level of detail on the methodology and the evidence

Peter:

and the studies and all that, I think is a little unreasonable.

Peter:

He does have published papers, and it would've been interesting,

Peter:

and maybe it does exist.

Peter:

I haven't scoured all the Dean Radin criticisms that he has on this website,

Peter:

but, perhaps a critique of an actual study of the meta-analysis or whatever

Peter:

would've had more teeth in that regard.

Peter:

I think there is a, a, another good point made.

Peter:

Not that meta-analyses have no value,

Peter:

but it is retrospective, and that there is the opportunity to

Peter:

bring in the analyzer's bias of expectation that can curate the data.

Peter:

I think all of that is totally reasonable and founded.

Peter:

And that That the counter to that is you need to prospectively be establishing

Peter:

what information is transferred, what is the expected outcome.

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

And obviously that would be in line with rigorous scientific practice.

Ryan:

Then there's the retort that experiments with humans are inherently

Ryan:

confounded because n-no single event can ever truly be re-replicated.

Ryan:

Fine.

Ryan:

And then the critique that Radin fails to consider alternate modalities

Ryan:

of causation to the results.

Ryan:

And again, even beyond, even if the experiments were all perfect and had

Ryan:

zero issue in methodology he isn't considering any other causal factor.

Ryan:

I mean, he even went as far as calling out, "Did Zeus do this?"

Ryan:

Which obviously is a bit facetious, and…

Ryan:

whatever.

Ryan:

The point is made, he's not considering any other potential causations, and

Ryan:

even Radin notes that we don't know if it's telepathy versus precognition,

Ryan:

which are two different modalities.

Ryan:

But on the same hand, the skeptics don't seem to be accepting that

Ryan:

PK or, psi could be a thing.

Ryan:

There was comments like, "I can't say it doesn't exist,

Ryan:

but I don't think it does,".

Ryan:

I think if you stop at we can't say that it doesn't exist brings better

Ryan:

clout than, but I don't think it does.

Peter:

So, I think that's really the crux of the discussion, that what we're talking

Peter:

about is belief in the context of science.

Peter:

And, it's not a discussion of whether science proves things or not.

Peter:

It's a question of, is your belief supported by the science?

Peter:

And so Radin is saying, "I'm doing science.

Peter:

The scientific record, the evidence supports this belief."

Peter:

And Carroll is saying no, you haven't demonstrated that the evidence supports

Peter:

this belief because you're not looking at the limitations of the evidence- because

Peter:

of experimental design, blah, blah, blah.

Peter:

And you're using logical fallacies in your analysis and conclusions."

Peter:

And so, he's not devaluing or rather not denying the value of meta-analysis.

Ryan:

Mm.

Peter:

What he's really focused on is over-interpretation and conclusions,

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

drawn from whatever method you're using.

Peter:

Whether it's meta-analysis or something else.

Peter:

And I think that's a hard hurdle for proponents of

Peter:

paranormal phenomena to overcome.

Ryan:

Sure.

Peter:

Because it seems to be that critics are constantly able

Peter:

to say, " This is why you're over-interpreting what you're presenting."

Peter:

Not that that's not some evidence supporting, but the evidence is very weak.

Peter:

And so then it becomes a choice of belief rather than a really strong case that

Peter:

the scientific method supports this.

Peter:

Yeah, I think I got there.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Ryan:

No, I think that's absolutely the, the single most valuable piece of

Ryan:

the critique in the paper here.

Peter:

Then on the other hand, as you alluded to, Carroll's

Peter:

attitude comes through.

Ryan:

Right.

Peter:

He does a really good job of using his, really his profession was critical

Peter:

thinking and- … understanding all the kind of tools of philosophy and logic.

Peter:

And that's what's great about this piece-

Ryan:

Yeah

Peter:

is that there's a lot of application of that and links to-

Ryan:

Yeah

Ryan:

… Peter: the Outline Skeptic's Dictionary, and it's like, here's a whole list of

Ryan:

arguments that you need to consider when you say you're proving something.

Ryan:

So that's all great.

Ryan:

But then he slides.

Ryan:

He doesn't really slide 'cause it's kind of from the beginning.

Ryan:

So he's got this overall context of supreme supremely rational,

Ryan:

reasonable interaction, and then he uses a lot of language that's

Ryan:

really, very highly colored.

Ryan:

And you said h- ad hominem earlier.

Ryan:

I don't know if it was on mic or not, and I was like it wasn't quite ad

Ryan:

hominem, but it was it's pretty strong."

Ryan:

Yeah.

Ryan:

I mean, One of them, this wasn't necessarily specifically at Radin,

Ryan:

but says that the approach makes one look like a babbling idiot.

Peter:

Yeah and there was an argument.

Peter:

At one…

Peter:

The end, the very end of one of the sections it says, "It just

Peter:

sounds like a whining dog."

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Those are such highly colored turns of phrase that it's

Peter:

like you're really not sounding…

Peter:

I mean, they're not logical arguments.

Peter:

And of course the other major thing we're, finding is I I think,

Peter:

you know, he's criticizing Radin for cherry-picking some stuff.

Peter:

And then at the same time, it seems-

Ryan:

Cherry-picking

Ryan:

… Peter: he's also cherry-picking.

Ryan:

Right.

Peter:

So that's a real challenge for us in, for-

Ryan:

Laypeople.

Ryan:

… Peter: the public, for laypeople , in "Oh, who do we believe?"

Ryan:

Because again, and this has come up for us before, where the proponents and the

Ryan:

critics seem to be cross-talking in a way because they're cherry-picking their

Ryan:

quotes or they're cherry-picking You know, who they say represents science and

Ryan:

who they say represents the proponents.

Ryan:

The, it undermines the argument of both sides.

Ryan:

So when the critics only cite the outright frauds, that

Ryan:

doesn't address everybody else.

Ryan:

Right.

Peter:

The other, sources of evidence.

Peter:

Because finding a fraud doesn't mean that everyone's a fraud.

Peter:

And then likewise, Radin says something about critics like, "Oh," the overall

Peter:

argument the, that Carroll really objects to is all the air- all the

Peter:

critics say this is impossible.

Peter:

And it's like, no, I'm not saying it's impossible.

Peter:

I'm saying that you haven't provided the evidence and the logical conclusion

Peter:

from the evidence, that it's proven.

Peter:

So I don't have to believe it because

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

it's not proven.

Peter:

And I'm still gonna say it's possible, and that was I referenced the Sagan quote-

Ryan:

Mm-hmm

Peter:

Before, and S- Sagan was basically saying, "I can't say it's impossible."

Peter:

And the, the use of the quote was more along the lines of, "See, Sagan

Peter:

believes it, so you should, too."

Peter:

Because he's-

Ryan:

And then omitted that he said that he didn't think it.

Peter:

Yeah.

Peter:

He said, "I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it's true."

Peter:

Like,

Peter:

he's not convinced.

Peter:

And I think that's, kind of where from the evidence where we have to land.

Peter:

Fr- and I don't wanna s- specify from the evidence.

Peter:

Now, personally, do I believe in some of the stuff?

Peter:

Yeah.

Peter:

I do believe in some of the stuff.

Peter:

But I'm not gonna go say-

Ryan:

It's proven

Ryan:

… Peter: it's proven by science.

Ryan:

And I think that's where, we have to admit as proponents.

Ryan:

If you're gonna be a proponent, I think you have to admit that

Ryan:

it's not proven, but I believe it.

Ryan:

Correct.

Peter:

And I believe it because of all these accounts, and I don't believe

Peter:

that these people are making this up, and I don't believe that tho- those

Peter:

people are making this up, and I don't believe that everybody's a fraud.

Peter:

And I don't believe that everybody's just believing

Peter:

someone else and is just gullible.

Peter:

'Cause I think people are having real experiences.

Peter:

They may be misinterpreting it, them.

Peter:

But it doesn't mean that because they're misinterpreting it, it's not psi.

Ryan:

Correct.

Peter:

Which is the point that you were making about

Peter:

precognition versus telepathy.

Ryan:

Telepathy.

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Ryan:

And I think that's kinda where Radin is landing even if his language is I'm

Ryan:

gonna say unintentionally misleading because I don't think he's setting out…

Ryan:

I think he fully believes what he believes and is trying to be honorable

Ryan:

in the way he presents his work.

Ryan:

I don't think he's a fraud specif- like-

Peter:

Right.

Peter:

The, the-

Peter:

… Ryan: intentionally-

Peter:

… Peter: the problem is-

Peter:

… Ryan: defrauding people

Peter:

… Peter: the problem is he wants to write books, and once you write a

Peter:

book, it's forever there available-

Ryan:

Sure.

Ryan:

Oh, yeah

Ryan:

… Peter: for someone to say he made this argument-"

Ryan:

Absolutely

Ryan:

… Peter: "therefore…"

Ryan:

And there's, the cherry-picking.

Ryan:

Yep.

Peter:

It's pick this book.

Peter:

He said this thing, therefore that proves that his reasoning is not sound and da da.

Ryan:

Correct.

Peter:

It's like the reasoning that he presented in this section

Peter:

of this book is not sound.

Peter:

It doesn't prove, equally, doesn't prove that he's wrong about everything.

Ryan:

Right.

Ryan:

And I mean, he's convinced that it exists.

Ryan:

To his satisfaction, this has sufficient evidence that it's a real thing, and

Ryan:

he's more inclined to moving towards how it works more than does it exist.

Ryan:

Now, it doesn't, just 'cause he believes it doesn't make it real.

Ryan:

But I do think that's part of where he's at now is he thinks it exists.

Ryan:

There was comment on the random number generators and

Ryan:

whether they're truly random.

Ryan:

And that seemed to be a refutation, in that latter third where they were

Ryan:

talking more specifically about studies.

Ryan:

At the same time, one of the critics had mentioned a non-fully random number

Ryan:

generator would have similar impact on both the control and the studied arm.

Ryan:

And for me, I'll say two things.

Ryan:

Number one, when it comes to generating randomness for human interaction,

Ryan:

almost any randomized thing, whether it has, pseudo entropy versus some

Ryan:

source of real entropy, is going to be random enough that the human isn't

Ryan:

going to be able to follow patterns.

Peter:

Right.

Peter:

Yeah.

Ryan:

But at the same time, when they're talking about random number generators

Ryan:

globally and looking at the random number generation in correlation to world events,

Ryan:

they mentioned Princess Diana and Mother Teresa, and that there was a correlation

Ryan:

of less randomization in the US and the UK when Princess Diana's funeral was

Ryan:

going on, versus when Mother Teresa died.

Ryan:

And the assumption is that because Princess Diana's event was more

Ryan:

traumatic, the global consciousness had some sort of impact on the randomized

Ryan:

state of these generators at that time.

Ryan:

Those things definitely have to be fully random.

Ryan:

The other thing I picked up on was comments about, and I

Ryan:

think this is legitimate, right?

Ryan:

At any given point in time in a study of limited sample, results can land that

Ryan:

appear significantly out of random, right?

Ryan:

So you could take 10 pennies, and while it should technically

Ryan:

be 50/50, you could have seven-

Peter:

mm-hmm, mm-hmm

Ryan:

heads in a row.

Ryan:

But the concept is the longer the sample, the more-

Peter:

Mm-hmm

Ryan:

iterations you have, the closer it gets to that ultimate 50/50.

Ryan:

Some of these studies that had really strong results could

Ryan:

have that confounding factor.

Ryan:

That if done for an extended period of time, eventually you would

Ryan:

start seeing this regression.

Ryan:

And he actually calls out Radin, who says that when they were trying to have

Ryan:

people try and influence something, that over time their efficacy of being

Ryan:

able to produce good results waned.

Ryan:

And Radin's interpretation of that is they get tired, basically.

Ryan:

And Carroll's comment is that's evidence that, or you're not even considering

Ryan:

that it's evidence of regressing towards the mean- It, it- … which

Ryan:

is what you would expect over time.

Peter:

Exactly.

Peter:

Because if you flip a coin 10 times, it's very unlikely

Peter:

that you will get five heads-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

and five tails.

Peter:

That is not at all expected.

Peter:

And so the fact that you get seven heads and three tails

Peter:

is not evidence of anything.

Peter:

But if you do it over thousands of times, then you start to

Peter:

expect approaching 50/50.

Peter:

But you still don't expect 50/50.

Ryan:

Which is part of Radin's point about meta-analyses, whether

Ryan:

his ultimate assumption around them is flawed is another thing.

Peter:

Mm-hmm.

Ryan:

But his point is that you raise that sample by looking at the body

Ryan:

of work versus any one single event.

Ryan:

Which isn't wrong, and if you're putting garbage in, you get garbage out.

Peter:

That's exactly the … Because the problem is that then you're not-

Ryan:

Which is the critique

Ryan:

… Peter: controlling for controls.

Ryan:

Correct.

Peter:

You're not controlling for quality of experiment.

Peter:

And so you're able to introduce much more error and much more intentional influence-

Ryan:

Right

Ryan:

… Peter: than, than you would in a large-

Ryan:

prospective blind study

Peter:

prospective yeah, rigorous study, which is really what needs to be done.

Peter:

Obviously that's a very significant challenge, especially with fringe science.

Ryan:

Mm-hmm

Ryan:

… Peter: or paranormal.

Ryan:

And, I don't use fringe science in a derogatory way.

Ryan:

But anything that's farther away from well- mainstream.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Yeah.

Peter:

So I think w- we're gonna continue to be interested in fringe science, as

Peter:

far as what the listeners will know as our overall orientation towards

Peter:

explorations of consciousness and awakening and that kind of thing.

Peter:

And interested in, to what extent people claim scientific evidence, and then

Peter:

also the critiques of those people.

Peter:

But, what we're seeing is there's just a lot of imperfection.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

We haven't seen a critical piece that is so solid that we don't say, "Wait

Peter:

a second, You're making a bad point here," or "you're, you're really showing a bias."

Ryan:

Which of course doesn't invalidate their good points.

Peter:

R- exactly.

Ryan:

Which is exactly the same on the other hand.

Peter:

Exactly.

Peter:

Exactly.

Peter:

So it's a very, it's a very, it's a very demanding situation.

Peter:

I don't think we can read one or two

Ryan:

Mm-hmm

Peter:

pieces from either side and say, "Oh well, I'm convinced."

Peter:

That's the problem.

Ryan:

Yep.

Peter:

It is easy to be convinced-

Ryan:

Yep

Ryan:

… Peter: depending on your own inclination.

Ryan:

Yep.

Ryan:

No, and I think this even extends to the scientific community, where

Ryan:

unless you're, up to your neck in the body of work, most people are

Ryan:

skimming sources you know, like- right

Ryan:

finding a couple of sources.

Ryan:

Potentially confirmation bias, right?

Ryan:

I need to find something that contradicts this," on either side.

Ryan:

And going and finding one or two of those studies or papers and saying, "See?

Ryan:

There it is."

Ryan:

It is very easy, and this is a key point of the author in this, and I

Ryan:

think was clearly a life work for him, trying to teach that these things exist,

Ryan:

and practicing getting out of them.

Ryan:

And I think that no amount of practice is ever going to alleviate any one of us from

Ryan:

falling into these traps, but the more awareness we have of them, and the more

Ryan:

practice w- and open-mindedness, I think.

Ryan:

Because when you're attached to something, that's when these fallacies and-

Peter:

Yeah

Peter:

… Ryan: the ego takes over, and that's when- … the whole thing breaks down.

Peter:

And nobody can claim science at that point.

Peter:

That doesn't mean good points don't exist in it, but it becomes more

Peter:

difficult to suss out what is a good point versus what's emotionally driven.

Peter:

I do wish, and I guess we're probably seeing some of it, one of the the kind

Peter:

of emotions or frustrations that came up for me in reading this, there's a

Peter:

disinclination of mainstream materialist science to consider it at all.

Peter:

Yeah.

Peter:

I agree.

Peter:

It's very disappointing to have things dismissed rather than held more

Peter:

lightly as possible but improbable.

Peter:

I think the argument tends to be that it's either fraud or superstitious-

Ryan:

Right

Peter:

belief, like completely non-critical acceptance of the idea-

Peter:

… or superstitious belief, rather than finding the limitations of the argument,

Peter:

finding the limit- limitations of the work, and then evaluating what remains.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

But, unfortunately the functional context of science, and

Peter:

its funding by governments, and it's it's embedding in capitalism.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Just you…

Peter:

That's the way it's gonna be.

Peter:

Which is I would say overall What we're hoping for in terms of

Peter:

consciousness and awakening, right?

Peter:

It's like it doesn't have to be this way.

Peter:

Like humans don't have to be this way.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

It is the way we are right now.

Peter:

It is the way our society is right now But what we're learning from

Peter:

our experience and explorations is that it doesn't have to be.

Peter:

And so if we could change the context where these things are

Peter:

happening, then people would be able to hold more openness and

Peter:

more, even more contradiction.

Peter:

Rather than saying that's a contradiction, therefore you're a liar."

Peter:

"And everything that you say is a lie."

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Cause that's kinda where we land.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

That's kind of the shape of things as they are.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Whereas, oh, I found something that is untrue, and I have to do

Peter:

some work in finding where the truth is in what you're saying.

Peter:

Is there something true there?

Peter:

But it's just much more obviously convenient and emotionally

Peter:

satisfying to to be black and white.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

Yeah, so it's a tough- it's tough.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

It's a tough world.

Peter:

no, I think there's definitely a lot of good criticism in this piece-

Ryan:

Yeah

Ryan:

… Peter: of Radin, and not just of his methods, but of his rhetoric, You

Ryan:

know, his writing, things that he said that are misrepresentations of

Ryan:

things that other people have said.

Ryan:

And that's pretty important, and difficult, for a casual reader to detect.

Ryan:

So it's very helpful to have a critic like this go through and

Ryan:

pull some of those things out.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Peter:

And then at the same time, this is like a circle-

Ryan:

Finding the limitations on that.

Peter:

Yeah, exactly.

Peter:

Exactly.

Peter:

It doesn't prove that he's just a liar.

Peter:

So yeah.

Ryan:

Cool.

Ryan:

Yeah.

Ryan:

So we will, of course, link this.

Ryan:

It it definitely had some good stuff in it, and I think it's

Ryan:

worthwhile to explore counterpoints and positions to our own beliefs.

Ryan:

So love to hear what you think if you read this, and then until

Ryan:

next time, talk to you later.

Peter:

Bye now.

Peter:

Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom podcast.

Peter:

Join us next time as we continue the discussion.

Peter:

Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube,

Peter:

and visit www.eth-studio.com

Peter:

for more information and content

All Episodes Previous Episode

About the Podcast

Show artwork for Tracking Wisdom
Tracking Wisdom
Listen. Discover. Grow.

Listen for free

Support Tracking Wisdom

A huge thank you to our supporters, it means a lot that you support our podcast.

If you like the podcast and want to support it, too, you can leave us a tip using the button below. We really appreciate it and it only takes a moment!
Support Tracking Wisdom
A
We haven’t had any Tips yet :( Maybe you could be the first!