You're totally right. And I wish people would be more interested in failure, because it's only by overcoming failure that we can find success. Wishful thinking while ignorant of failure doesn't accomplish much. I didn't realize I needed to look at an author's blog to find scientific papers. (The first thing he posts is books). But I've started looking through the papers. Publishing in a peer review by itself is not science, it is the review and reproduction of results that matter...
The book Entangled Minds actually demonstrates that some of science's most cherished beliefs and principles came from psi research. In chapter 2, for instance, Radin reports the history of how Hans Berger, German father of the EEG, developed this tool and created the discipline of neuroscience to understand a telepathic communication between him and his sister. Here's a quote form that chapter which should intrigue any true scientist: 'Most medical scientists don’t realize that the gold standard “randomized controlled trial” design used in clinical research was initially developed to investigate psychic phenomena. The same can be said for key developments in clinical psychology, mind/body medicine, psychophysiology, and experimental psychology. Even the discovery of isotopes, an advancement that helped pave the way to the atomic bomb, can be traced to a case of clairvoyance.'
Shame on TED for not making this one of their featured talks. More people need to see this. The only crazy thing about it is that the majority of people don’t accept it or even know about it
Think what you will about the probable outcome of the science but I say she is right, "there are no unscientific topics, only unscientific methods". So I encourage SCIENTIFIC investigation into these and all topics, and not just because a great man (Tesla) predicted great things would come of it.
my immediate skepticism as well. the best random methods are radiation counters, but then there could be radiation influences which aren't necessarily noetic.
I remember reading in a science magazine that the Earth's magnetic field is constantly being monitored and when 9/11 happened the magnetic field became much stronger and in relationship to the speed that the news had travelled.
That's kind of my point. Find the actual mechanism and that's what matters. Or if you're going to find some really strange causation that we don't understand, then make sure your science is solid - use double-blind, explain your steps, publish, peer review, etc.. Don't go out in the world with half-done science and try to convince people of things that are in the realm of "magic"
Fail. You make extraordinary claims and then mention valid scientific methods but don't actually demonstrate what your methods are! What does it mean to "deviate from random" exactly? What statistical analysis are you using? And are you doing it double-blind, as you would expect a valid scientific method to be? What are your random number generators? I was interested (though skeptical) on the initial claims presented, but then you totally failed to demonstrate that your methods are valid
These sorts of things used to bother me, and I’d ask myself if I was the crazy one, but when I build something it works and my naysayers have nothing to show for themselves. I suppose it’s a lot like how lawyers and politicians that are used to outmaneuvering each other socially get into an airplane and end up dead.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
You're totally right. And I wish people would be more interested in failure, because it's only by overcoming failure that we can find success. Wishful thinking while ignorant of failure doesn't accomplish much.
I didn't realize I needed to look at an author's blog to find scientific papers. (The first thing he posts is books). But I've started looking through the papers. Publishing in a peer review by itself is not science, it is the review and reproduction of results that matter...
The book Entangled Minds actually demonstrates that some of science's most cherished beliefs and principles came from psi research. In chapter 2, for instance, Radin reports the history of how Hans Berger, German father of the EEG, developed this tool and created the discipline of neuroscience to understand a telepathic communication between him and his sister. Here's a quote form that chapter which should intrigue any true scientist: 'Most medical scientists don’t realize that the gold standard “randomized controlled trial” design used in clinical research was initially developed to investigate psychic phenomena. The same can be said for key developments in clinical psychology, mind/body medicine, psychophysiology, and experimental psychology. Even the discovery of isotopes, an advancement that helped pave the way to the atomic bomb, can be traced to a case of clairvoyance.'
Shame on TED for not making this one of their featured talks. More people need to see this. The only crazy thing about it is that the majority of people don’t accept it or even know about it
Think what you will about the probable outcome of the science but I say she is right, "there are no unscientific topics, only unscientific methods". So I encourage SCIENTIFIC investigation into these and all topics, and not just because a great man (Tesla) predicted great things would come of it.
No kidding to her opening statement, lsd. That’s the only time where 5 of us felt this way.
Competent presenter. Fantastic speech.
my immediate skepticism as well. the best random methods are radiation counters, but then there could be radiation influences which aren't necessarily noetic.
I remember reading in a science magazine that the Earth's magnetic field is constantly being monitored and when 9/11 happened the magnetic field became much stronger and in relationship to the speed that the news had travelled.
Absolutely love this
Wonder why there's only 8k views for 7 years?
Being suppressed much
it is group psychology. and quackery. And a big dose of Barnumism.
That's kind of my point. Find the actual mechanism and that's what matters. Or if you're going to find some really strange causation that we don't understand, then make sure your science is solid - use double-blind, explain your steps, publish, peer review, etc.. Don't go out in the world with half-done science and try to convince people of things that are in the realm of "magic"
Bravo! Anyone who posts a response video of the laser doing its thing gets +1 internets. :D
5 people are too narrow minded to consider thinking outside the box
Fail. You make extraordinary claims and then mention valid scientific methods but don't actually demonstrate what your methods are! What does it mean to "deviate from random" exactly? What statistical analysis are you using? And are you doing it double-blind, as you would expect a valid scientific method to be? What are your random number generators?
I was interested (though skeptical) on the initial claims presented, but then you totally failed to demonstrate that your methods are valid
Maybe because she's talking to lay people, not scientists?
I totally agree with your criticisms. You are absolutely right
These sorts of things used to bother me, and I’d ask myself if I was the crazy one, but when I build something it works and my naysayers have nothing to show for themselves. I suppose it’s a lot like how lawyers and politicians that are used to outmaneuvering each other socially get into an airplane and end up dead.
👹
Pseudoscience ❤️