Artwork for podcast Tracking Wisdom
Examining the Skeptics Dictionary Critique of Dean Radin
Episode 46 • Bonus Episode • 15th October 2026 • Tracking Wisdom • Ears That Hear Media Corporation
00:00:00 00:40:02

Share Episode

Transcripts

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

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube