Post by lionking on Jun 13, 2011 3:12:37 GMT -4
Jun 12, 2011 15:22:01 GMT -4 @lionking said:
download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1550-8307/PIIS1550830706003272.pdfthis is a double-blind study that confirms what he said. methods are explained.
and this is a tripple - blind one
www.deanradin.com/papers/emotoIIproof.pdf
lionking, I'm curious... Do you understand the concept of peer review, and what journals are 'respected' authorities? What 'Impact Factor' means? Have those articles ever been cited or reviewed elsewhere? You did notice they were both done by the exact same people?
(And there is an interesting Apollo link here - can anyone see where this road leads back to dear old Edgar Mitchell?)
And can you spot any problems with the methodology? I don't have time right now to go into detail, but even at first glance, I can see issues with those...
Hint - 'subjective' versus 'objective'.
Added... BTW, the fact that mr radin named the second file ...'PROOF' speaks volumes about the UNscientific approach being used by these people.
dear chrlz
I will reply only to you,not to trollers who have nothing tha thas substance to say.
Enfant Terrible said...
Mr. Radin,
one of the comments says: "Science is not up for discussion, publish your findings in Nature, or shut up. We don't need anymore witchdoctors pushing nonsense."
My question is: Why the parapsychologists don't try more to publish their articles in journals with high impact factor, like Nature? If the article will be rejected, it would be very interesting to see the reasons of this.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dean Radin said...
To Enfant Terrible:
Nature, Science et al publish a tiny fraction of the output of mainstream science, and the competition to get in those journals is intense. Based on a simple numbers game, when you have millions of scientists in the mainstream, and perhaps 50 on the fringe, the likelihood that those journals will publish a psi-related paper is exceedingly small. There just aren't enough psi experiments being published to compete against hundreds of thousands of other studies.
When Nature did publish a psi paper in the 1970s, it was accompanied by an unprecedented editorial apology, and followed up by enough letters from outraged scientists to cause the big journals to not want to do that again.
This well known bias is a principle reason that the Society for Scientific Exploration was formed. Many academics, in many different disciplines, find it difficult to publish views that challenge mainstream ideas. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is one of a very few number of peer-reviewed academic journals providing a scholarly forum for discussion of unpopular ideas.
My comments about the very high impact general journals do not hold for high-impact discipline-specific journals. Psi studies with positive outcomes have been and continue to be published in top-ranked journals within disciplines.
Mr. Radin,
one of the comments says: "Science is not up for discussion, publish your findings in Nature, or shut up. We don't need anymore witchdoctors pushing nonsense."
My question is: Why the parapsychologists don't try more to publish their articles in journals with high impact factor, like Nature? If the article will be rejected, it would be very interesting to see the reasons of this.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dean Radin said...
To Enfant Terrible:
Nature, Science et al publish a tiny fraction of the output of mainstream science, and the competition to get in those journals is intense. Based on a simple numbers game, when you have millions of scientists in the mainstream, and perhaps 50 on the fringe, the likelihood that those journals will publish a psi-related paper is exceedingly small. There just aren't enough psi experiments being published to compete against hundreds of thousands of other studies.
When Nature did publish a psi paper in the 1970s, it was accompanied by an unprecedented editorial apology, and followed up by enough letters from outraged scientists to cause the big journals to not want to do that again.
This well known bias is a principle reason that the Society for Scientific Exploration was formed. Many academics, in many different disciplines, find it difficult to publish views that challenge mainstream ideas. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is one of a very few number of peer-reviewed academic journals providing a scholarly forum for discussion of unpopular ideas.
My comments about the very high impact general journals do not hold for high-impact discipline-specific journals. Psi studies with positive outcomes have been and continue to be published in top-ranked journals within disciplines.
Enfant Terrible said... I prefer a few articles published in mainstream than a lot which no one knows.
"Mainstream" is discipline-specific. If you ask a physicist to name the highest impact journal in psychology, and vice versa, most won't be able to. This goes for all academic disciplines. Psi-oriented papers have been published in high impact journals in psychology, conventional medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine.
"Mainstream" is discipline-specific. If you ask a physicist to name the highest impact journal in psychology, and vice versa, most won't be able to. This goes for all academic disciplines. Psi-oriented papers have been published in high impact journals in psychology, conventional medicine, and complementary and alternative medicine.
deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/02/sf-chronicle-interview.html
this is what I found regarding the journal and the scientist reply. You asked for double-blindness and otehr scietnists examinign Masarus work, and there were other scientists doing that. The methodology is also explained. The scientists, I guess, are not all in a conspiracy with him to cover up and cheat in favor of him