Talk:Dean Radin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dean Radin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (no consensus).
Archive
Archives


[edit] Criticism section reference

The first line in this section: "Skeptics have argued that Radin's work is pseudoscience" does not appear to be supported by the reference. Only one skeptic, the author, criticizes him in the article cited and the word "pseudoscience" does not appear in the article. Perhaps the link should go to the folder index page and not the article. The second line "Radin's work has been criticized by skeptics such as Morten Monrad Pedersen" uses the same article reference. Can you please point out where that name appears in the article? Did I miss it? And again, the ref does not seem to support the use of skeptics, plural, though I'm sure other refs could be found. 5Q5 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one day later and no corrective action has been taken. I am removing the Criticism section because its current content violates WP:Biographies of living persons. See also the warning banner about poorly sourced material at the top of this talk page. The reference "http://skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radin2002.htm An Evening with Dean Radin by Claus Larsen, a critical examination of Radin's research methodology" does not support the statements to which it is being used as a source. 1. only one skeptic is involved, not plural. 2. the article does not use the word pseuodscience. A URL or index page that does use the word pseudoscience (my earlier suggestion above) would not be acceptable as a high quality source. 3. the name "Morten Monrad Pedersen" does not even appear in the article. Therefore, the reference is, well, fraudulent as a source for that line. 4. there is a large photo of Dean Radin above the article that appears to have been taken from his website, possibly without his permission. This is not a relevant or high quality source for the Dean Radin article. I'm not against a criticism section. Someone is welcome to try again. 5Q5 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Update, It seems that whoever did the referencing fouled up the source code so that it resulted in the article appearing to be sourced by both references when actually the second line had a different reference, but not visible in the article. See the page here in the history log. The second reference for the name "Morten Monrad Pedersen" is for a book review written by him. Since it was published on a biased website and not a neutral third party, I am moving that book review to the external links section and still deleting the Crtiticism section as being nonneutral poorly sourced. 5Q5 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tags

While this is a biography of living persons, there are clearly issues here as the article is a paen without any mention of the criticism this guy's received. We need to include that lest we mislead the reader. I've notified WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Radin has often responded to his critics. I'll make sure that his arguments are fairly represented. Those arguments will be in sufficient detail to make his basic counterpoints, which will generally make the critics seem stupid. Maybe I'll also include some of the nice scientific quotes from his critics, like the "woo-woo" one from Randi. Edit as you wish, but please do not put it throughout the article. That's because we need to keep it in one place and work with it to contextualize properly, and the entire article should not be a discussion of parapsychology, but rather focus on Radin himself. If no material is inserted, I'll remove the tag pretty soon. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This oughta be rich. I'll let someone else handle your madcap devotion to Radin's ability to make his critics appear "stupid". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want it to be a debate about Radin's published works, then don't list them, as listing them would require criticism in order for the article to be neutral and encyclopedic, at least if the rest of the research is as godawful as the random number stuff, which I've looked at carefully. I haven't seen Radin's response, if he has any, to the very convincing published critiques of this random number "research" (I mean specific published critiques of the research itself, not the general overall rejection by skeptics) but I've seen the response of one of the other researchers; it's a lot of smoke and bluster that doesn't even bother to confront the real serious issues with this research, whose conclusions are apparently based in a complete and utter failure to understand the concept of randomness. If you really don't want the research debated here, then don't put it in, but just describe the general areas that it covers. But still, in order to present a neutral picture of the subject, there must be some acknowledgement of how little respected he and his work are, as a result of the lack of intellectual and scientific rigor thereof. Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It will certainly be fun, and will certainly be deleted in the end, as no one will want to turn this into a debate page about parapsychology. That's why there isn't crit now. See talk page previous. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Does he do this on Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell at the helm? ;) Antelantalk 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's George Noory now. Art Bell retired and only does guest spots. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny you mention Coast to Coast. I used to listen to it 15 years ago or so, for pure entertainment, but hadn't heard it for a long time. The other night I came across it while cruising the dial, listened for a while and thought, OMG, it's just like reading Wikipedia!Woonpton (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Living like I do, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. (-: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "trivia" section, and some tidbits about his childhood. This guy is notable as a parapsychologist, and I fail to see the interest in reporting that he played in a bluegrass band at some point. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Current state of editing looks fine to me. In fact, people have been making good changes. The phrasing of some of that is better. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Radin's work and responses by Radin to his critics, if added, will need to come from reviewed journals and academic textbooks, not the "Skeptical Enquirer" nor "USA Today", which are basically worthless in scientific terms. --70.55.183.87 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't make those decisions, whoever you are (a new account telling editors what they can do? Or?). The Skeptical Enquirer qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Doug Weller (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That is untrue. It is a RS for skeptical opinion, but only for that. This is due to the fact that it is admittedly biased. So there is no chance it is an RS for bald statements of fact. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worthless Review of "Conscious Universe"

This review of Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" is absolutely and utterly worthless because it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal or book:

Please removed it from the article. --70.55.183.87 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARITY. This review is perfectly fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources has nothing to do with it at all. However, the link could stay in if we also link to a review by a parapsychologsit or "pro" organization for balance. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The link can stay in period. It gives balance, your suggestion just unbalances it again.Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
How is it you believe SkepticReport is balanced? From the sound of the title, it isn't balanced. Or is it like the Christian Science Monitor? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
'Balance' referring to the whole article, which right now if full of Dean Radin's viewpoint, his blog, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Could be. I have no objection to keeping the link. I would also support other highly relevant links. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Dean Radin has published plenty of peer-reviewed articles on parapsychology. There is no parity at all between his work and the book review of The Conscious Universe on the SkepticReport.com website. --70.55.176.56 (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there isn't any parity for one reason or another that is certain. Why not just go get some other links, like a book review which has a more balanced view? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This review is published in the Journal of Parapsychology. --70.55.176.56 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like just the thing. Peer reviewed journal. I think there is a prohibition against using online sources you have to pay to view? Is it anywhere else, or is there something similar? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for a review of this nonsensical book. The Review in SkepticReport is much better in terms of actual verifiability. WP:REDFLAG applies. We eschew fake "peer reviewed" journals like the Journal of Parapsychology because they are plainly unreliable fantasy reads and not real journals. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)