The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

1,212 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

  1. CharlieM: The effects he is measuring are not glaringly obvious but they are definitely statistically significant.

    You see, this is an assertion.”Statistically significant” would be most impressive and fascinating if supportable. How did you deduce the effects to be statistically significant?

  2. PS no rush. I need to collect a package so…

    I’m going outside now and I may be some time.

  3. Alan Fox: CharlieM: If you are interested in facts…<

    Just the facts, ma’am!

    Forget videos, biopics etc. What was the research? How was it done? What were the results? Is it repeatable? Facts!

    He gives plenty of facts about the research in the video and there is much more on his web page.

    He references “Foundations of Physics, Vol 19, No12. 1989 where he lists 597 experiments between 959 and 1987. Their results of the 2013-2014 experiments were re-analysed by Nicolas Tremblay and Wolfgang Baer independently verified the results of psychophisical interactions with a double slit interference pattern in 2015.

    This is all referenced in the video where he also explains the methods, safeguards and equipment used, provides graphs of the results and gives plenty of information about other places to look

    Its fine if you don’t want to check this out. But if that is the case then you cannot turn round and say there is no evidence to support the case..

  4. Alan Fox,

    I would guess that “the Old Testament wasn’t even written by ancient Israelites” is a marginal and obscure position amongst Biblical archeologists — the vast majority of whom, it must be said, aren’t theologians and aren’t even too concerned with defending the literal truth of the Old Testament.

    I don’t know if it represents the consensus, but I really enjoyed Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible?. He has a very suggestive twist on the Mosaic hypothesis: that some of the source documents that were combined into the Old Testament were written by court propagandists for the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judea), each of which wants to presents itself as the rightful heir of David and Solomon while slandering the other.

    I don’t know how widely regarded or respected Friedman’s view is. I only mention it because there’s a vast spectrum between literalism and denialism.

  5. CharlieM: Its fine if you don’t want to check this out.

    I’m interested in facts. Can you at least tell me the methodology.

  6. Kantian Naturalist: I would guess that “the Old Testament wasn’t even written by ancient Israelites” is a marginal and obscure position amongst Biblical archeologists…

    Written by members of the apparently large and thriving Jewish community living in Alexandria in the third century BC. Plus the text was first written in Greek and then translated into Hebrew. I admit I found it rather astonishing and it should be easy to refute. Yet I believe the oldest surviving Torah manuscripts only date back to 1,000 AD.

    Also Hittites. A people I’ve given minimal consideration to until now.

  7. Kantian Naturalist: David and Solomon

    Mythical figures also having something to do with signs of the zodiac. Apparently the Bible, OT and NT, are stuffed with astrological references. Twelve tribes, twelve disciples etc. I have no axe to grind myself and it perhaps was being oversold.

  8. Alan Fox: Written by members of the apparently large and thriving Jewish community living in Alexandria in the third century BC. Plus the text was first written in Greek and then translated into Hebrew. I admit I found it rather astonishing and it should be easy to refute.

    I would guess that if it were first written in Greek and then translated into Hebrew, the grammar would be different than if it were composed in Hebrew.

    That aside, a lot of the names of people and places in the Old Testament are puns or plays on words in Hebrew. I find it dubious that someone wrote down in Greek and then they became puns in the Hebrew translation.

    Alan Fox: Mythical figures also having something to do with signs of the zodiac. Apparently the Bible, OT and NT, are stuffed with astrological references. Twelve tribes, twelve disciples etc. I have no axe to grind myself and it perhaps was being oversold.

    I’m sure that much of Scripture has numerological symbolism, maybe because of astrology, but not necessarily. That doesn’t mean that the writers of the Bible weren’t also drawing on stories about real people as well as drawing upon numerology or whatever. Perhaps they simply weren’t interested in writing what we could call objective history.

    My best, strictly amateur-level guess is that the writers of the Old Testament were drawing on a rich oral tradition of stories when they were a semi-nomadic pastoral society, deeply suspicious of settlements and farmers, and this produced some contradictions when they themselves tried to become permanent settlement, which is why we find a periodic return to pastoralism throughout the text and a persistent critique of settlement and agriculture, especially because of the socio-economic inequalities that hierarchies tend to generate.

  9. Kantian Naturalist: Perhaps they simply weren’t interested in writing what we could call objective history.

    Pretty sure that’s true. Separated by a couple of millennia, it’s impossible, I feel, for us now to get into the heads of who the authors were, their motivations, and the nuance of intended meaning. No harm in postulating though.

  10. CharlieM: The same homeotic genes can be utilized in different organisms in the production of vastly differing organs and structures. This shows that it is the organism that is using the genes, not that the genes are controlling the organism.

    The genes are part of the organism. Also the holist club just called to tell you you’re no longer a member.

    CharlieM: In order to account for the distribution of homeotic genes among extant species there has been a lot of speculation of whole genome duplications, divergent evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution and a variety of mutations along the way.

    Every time you encounter some scientific finding you don’t like, you label it a “speculation”. Please tell us why you think the scientific consensus is mistaken.

    CharlieM: It’s all in the video if you care to watch it.

    That was a cool talk for sure. I don’t think Michael Levin said what you think he said though. I haven’t heard him mention the etheric principle even once.

    CharlieM: Turning on any homeotic gene is just one step in a complex network of genetic activities and cascades that are necessary for the building of form, but we have to understand how and why the gene was activated in the first place.

    Was it activated by the bio-electric pattern you mean? Then we also need to know how that bio-electric pattern was set up. Perhaps that has something to do with tissue-specific expression of genes encoding the gap junctions and ion channels? What do you think?

    I’ll just repeat the following mantra in the hope that one day it sticks: DNA gets transmitted to the offspring. Ion channels are not. “Formative fields” certainly not because they don’t exist. If you think they do, please explain how they set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo. Nudging the ion channels into the correct places perhaps? If you cannot explain without resorting to invisible fields and archetypes, consider the irony of you accusing professional researchers of “speculation”.

  11. CharlieM: Its fine if you don’t want to check this out. But if that is the case then you cannot turn round and say there is no evidence to support the case..

    And what do you make of the criticisms of the work via book reviews and generally?

    For my search this text is in the very first result: “Radin’s ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims”.

    And links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

    Where we find such gems as:

    Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and for ignoring clear evidence of fraud. French recounts that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and two of the Fox sisters confessed to fraud, but that Radin did not mention this fact.

    So sure, we can’t say there is no evidence to support the case. But what we can say is that the evidence that you are claiming exists is already dubious. Why should anyone spend their time on such a person and their claims when they are so demonstrably selective with the facts? When you see “fundamental errors in his calculations” it does not inspire confidence.

    According to DeBakcsy, Radin chose not to report those variations.

    Anyone can build a case by not reporting some of the data! What’s more likely, PSI exists or Radin is a poor scientist, at best?

    I mean, what is it you think is the most strongly supported thing that Radin found and where else can we look in the real world to see that effect in action?

  12. What’s the physics of a morphogenetic field?

    Is the materialist explanation for it also just ~ it is so there?

  13. phoodoo: What’s the physics of a morphogenetic field?

    A morphogenetic field, as commonly understood, is just a group of cells with a specific position and developmental fate. Its physics are the same as for any group of differentiating cells.

    The Sheldrake kind of morphogenetic fields do not exist, so no need to fret about their physics.

  14. phoodoo: Is the materialist explanation for it also just ~ it is so there?

    What’s the non-materialist explanation, i.e. yours?

    Don’t have one? Can’t think of one? Imagination not working today?

    Shame.

  15. Corneel: a specific position and developmental fate.

    Oh yea, I remember learning about fates in my first physics class.

    And I think it was Newton who proposed the law of position.

  16. phoodoo: What’s the physics of a morphogenetic field?

    Is the materialist explanation for it also just ~ it is so there?

    Here’s a good introduction; check out the references!
    What is your competing explanation, and what is the evidence to support it?

  17. DNA_Jock,

    To explain how anterior and posterior cells are kept separated, the differential adhesion hypothesis proposes that these two cell populations express different adhesion molecules, producing different affinities for each other that minimize their contact.[6][8] The selector affinity model proposes that difference in cell affinity between compartments is a result of differential selector gene expression.[14] The presence or absence of selector genes in a given compartment produces compartment-specific adhesion or recognition molecules that are different from those in its counterpart.[13] For example, engrailed expressed in the posterior, but not the anterior, cells provides the differential affinity that keeps these compartments separately. It is also possible that this difference in cell adhesion/affinity is not directly due to en expression, but rather to the ability to receive Hh signaling.[16][18] Anterior cells, capable of Hh transduction, will express given adhesive molecules that would differ from those present in posterior cells, creating differential affinity that would prevent them from intermixing.[13] This signaling-affinity model is supported by experiments that demonstrate the importance of Hh signaling.

    And

    Clones mutant for the Smoothened (smo), the gene responsible for transducing Hh signaling, retain anterior-like features, but move into the posterior compartment without any changes in the expression engrailed or invected.[13] This demonstrates that Hh signaling, rather than the absence of en, is what gives cells their compartmental identity.[16][18] Nonetheless, this signaling-affinity model is incomplete: smo mutant clones of anterior origin that migrate into the posterior compartment, do not completely associate with these cells, but rather form a smooth boundary with these posterior cells. If signaling-affinity were the only factor determining compartment identity, then these clones, which are no longer receiving Hh signaling, would have the same affinity as the other posterior cells in that compartment and be able to intermix with them.[13] These experiments indicate that although Hh signaling could be having an effect in adhesive properties, this effect is limited to the border cells rather than throughout both compartments.

    Oh, and :

    Despite many attempts to identify the adhesion molecules important for the establishment and maintenance of compartment boundaries, none have been identified.

    Opps!

    Yea, that sounds like everyday physics. Fate…. Position…

    “One Day”-the materialists scientific motto of faith.

  18. phoodoo,

    Well, I would use the term ‘biochemistry’ for this application of physics, but you are getting the idea, apparently. What is your competing explanation, and what is the evidence to support it?

  19. phoodoo: Yea, that sounds like everyday physics. Fate…. Position…

    He said after many millions of years of evolution. If you rewind the tape do you think that eventually you’ll see the hand of your god come down and do something? Does the usage of words like “fate” and “position” imply god exists? Why don’t you ask the authors of that paper if your interpretation is valid in their eyes? Because you are a cowards, that’s why.

    At what specific point did your god make the things you are pointing at here?

    These people point at something complex and say that there’s no way that that could have happened randomly. Knowledgeable people nod in agreement and phoodoo thinks he’s won!

    If only you realized how sad and little you look phoodoo. The grown ups were laughing at you, at one point. Now it’s just pity. Never got past understanding why tornado in a junkyard was invalid from the start….

    “Look at this research that somebody else did (somebody who no doubt does not believe in ID) and how complex everything is therfore god!

    Actually, have you ever thought about becoming a member of the Discovery Institute? They are looking for scholars of your caliber.

  20. phoodoo:

    Shake and bake.

    Not far off from “Let there be light!”

    It’s good to see you admitting that you actually can’t complete in the race for explanations. All you can do is point out your misunderstandings and we all then laugh.

    Do your “fitness” routine again please!

  21. Corneel:
    Me (Corneel): What exactly is the connection between quantum fields, formative fields and morphogenetic fields apart from the fact that they all have the word “field” in them?

    CharlieM: Obviously their field-like quality. They cannot be represented as being in a specific location in space. They have a peripheral quality.

    Corneel: Ah, so there is no connection, apart from the fact that they all have the word “field” in them. That’s what I suspected.

    By the way, I have a magnet here in my house. Do you see it attracting all kinds of metal objects in your house? If not, then I fear the magnetic field does have specific location pretty much centered on the magnet it is associated with. I suspect all fields have spatial coordinates that describe their area of influence.

    You cannot say that the field has coordinates. All you can say is that the field will have a specific strength at a particular coordinate. What is the field strength at the centre of your magnet?

    For physical fields such as magnetic fields the strength reduces in proportion to the square of the distance. This is not the case for the proposed etheric field. It operates outside of the known laws of space and time but its effects play into space and time.

  22. Alan Fox:
    phoodoo: So you don’t believe William Wallace fought against the British at Stirling Bridge?

    Alan Fox: The statement “William Wallace fought against the British at Stirling Bridge” is incorrect

    You are right. But what does it matter? It is true that all of documented history is full of accounts of humans trying to claim land for themselves. Eddie Izzard gives a fine example All you need is a flag!

    As the Sioux chief Red Cloud is quoted as having said, “They made us many promises, more than I can remember. But they kept but one–They promised to take our land…and they took it.”

    It’s not so much the name is given to the area being fought over, it’s the fact that we carve the land up and claim ownership over our piece. This is the main message behind the Biblical story (John 19) of the soldiers dividing Christ’s clothes among themselves. Christ becomes the spirit of the earth and so creating national borders can be thought of as dividing up what belongs to Christ. But His spirit (His coat) was a unity and could not be so divided. As separate nations we are divided but we are one in Christ.

  23. phoodoo:
    There should be asterisks after all geometric axioms that they are not to be taken seriously.

    And when you have three asterisks you have yourself a triangle. Therefore (∴) it warrants some serious thought. 🙂

  24. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: The effects he is measuring are not glaringly obvious but they are definitely statistically significant.

    Alan Fox: You see, this is an assertion. ”Statistically significant” would be most impressive and fascinating if supportable. How did you deduce the effects to be statistically significant?

    Radin deemed them statistically significant and looking at the figures and graphs, unless there has been some sneaky alterations going on, the results I have seen do seem to be of significance. He has published the results of many experiments his team performed over the years. The data are in his papers and some are shown on his youtube videos. There is a lot of info here

  25. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: Its fine if you don’t want to check this out.

    Alan Fox: I’m interested in facts. Can you at least tell me the methodology.

    I’ll answer this when I get a chance, but I’m going outside now and my wife says we may be some time. The joys of Christmas. 🙂

  26. CharlieM: You cannot say that the field has coordinates. All you can say is that the field will have a specific strength at a particular coordinate.

    LOL, what exactly does “being in a specific location in space” mean to you? Are you using your private vocabulary again?

    CharlieM: For physical fields such as magnetic fields the strength reduces in proportion to the square of the distance. This is not the case for the proposed etheric field. It operates outside of the known laws of space and time but its effects play into space and time.

    Fascinating. Please explain how you found out that the etheric field operates outside of the known laws of space and time when all of its effects play within space and time.

  27. Alan Fox: phoodoo:
    Alan Fox, Do you believe there are mysterious physics that occur in the Bermuda Triangle?

    No.

    So in this case you don’t believe in testimony. Even when there is multiple sources.

    Just like I said, you only accept evidence when it fits your narrative.

    That is why it is such a fake bluff for you to ask for evidence.

  28. phoodoo: So in this case you don’t believe in testimony.

    What testimony?

    Even when there is multiple sources.

    Sources of what?

    Just like I said, you only accept evidence when it fits your narrative.

    I think the laws of physics hold for the entire universe for its entire existence. Your challenge, should you wish to accept it, is to find a counter-example.

    That is why it is such a fake bluff for you to ask for evidence.

    Translation: phoodoo got nuttin.

  29. Alan Fox: I think the laws of physics hold for the entire universe for its entire existence.

    Right. So everytime someone says they don’t you will say the evidence doesn’t count. And when someone says they do, you say the evidence counts.

    You have studied all about parapsychology but you never heard of the most famous parapsychologist researcher. You have never heard of anyone claiming that bizarre physics occurred in the Bermuda triangle, including planes and ships being lost, but you say no such testimony exists. Then you constantly are asking people to give you evidence.

    Materialist don’t believe evidence. But they know all about what happened in the world 1000 years ago.

  30. phoodoo: You have never heard of anyone claiming that bizarre physics occurred in the Bermuda triangle, including planes and ships being lost, but you say no such testimony exists.

    What is and what people claim are separate. Some people have made money off such claims. There’s not even a consensus on where the apices of the Bermuda Triangle are. That something weird went/goes on somewhere at sea doesn’t stand up to the least scrutiny.

  31. Alan Fox,

    I thought you said you never heard any testimony about such occurrences? So how can you even comment on their veracity?

    Secondly, testimony is either evidence or it isn’t. You are a person who seems totally unaware of the times when your logical is completely hypocritical.

  32. phoodoo,

    Cut the crap, phoodoo. I say Bermuda Triangle stories are hype and nothing needs explaining by reverting to “weird physics” (as if “weird physics could be any sort of explanation). Fun fact, people are known to make stuff up, people are known to be mistaken, people are known to jump to spooky explanations.

    What do you have on the Bermuda Triangle that indicates anything violating the laws of the Universe?

  33. phoodoo: Is the materialist explanation for it also just ~ it is so there?

    Ahh no, that’s the explanation for God. God “just is, that’s all.”

  34. phoodoo: Secondly, testimony is either evidence or it isn’t. You are a person who seems totally unaware of the times when your logical is completely hypocritical.

    True enough, testimony can be a form of evidence. One of the weakest forms there is, and in some cases it isn’t even evidence. It depends on the larger context and additional factors. Partly it depends on the nature of the claim being testified to(how extraordinary is the claim), the circumstances under which the claim is being made(a simple example is “testifying under duress”), the reliability/biases(physical, sensory, conscious, volitional, or otherwise) of the witness, and so on. ALL these factors have to be considered when assessing the strength of evidence offered by testimony.

    Extraordinary things happened because it says so in my really old book isn’t good evidence at all.

  35. Rumraket: Ahh no, that’s the explanation for God. God “just is, that’s all.”

    Rummy, is there teleology in biology or not?

    Alan wants to know.

  36. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: Its fine if you don’t want to check this out.

    Alan Fox: I’m interested in facts. Can you at least tell me the methodology.

    As well as carrying out meta analyses he has performed many experiments involving double slit apparatus. For instance the interference pattern obtained gives a measure of the intensity of the peaks. They have done various experiments to determine if people can alter this intensity remotely by concentration alone. There were different levels of success depending on various factors. The collection of data involved hundreds of studies. And there have been independent replications of these experiments.

    Links to his and other publications and articles can be found here

  37. velikovskys: Are you asking for his testimony ?

    Well, call an answer what you will, but he suddenly has stage fright when it comes to answering this question.

    Kind of surprising (not really) since he usually has so much to say about teleology. He refuses to answer if it even exists.

  38. CharlieM,

    Alan has zero interest in evidence. It wouldn’t matter what was presented to him, he will attempt his word redefining hand-waving.

  39. Corneel:
    CharlieM: The same homeotic genes can be utilized in different organisms in the production of vastly differing organs and structures. This shows that it is the organism that is using the genes, not that the genes are controlling the organism.

    Corneel: The genes are part of the organism. Also the holist club just called to tell you you’re no longer a member.

    Why? I use my legs for walking and my hands to grasp things. Does this reduce my body a set of separate components? A holistic understanding does not mean that everything becomes an undifferentiated whole.

    CharlieM: In order to account for the distribution of homeotic genes among extant species there has been a lot of speculation of whole genome duplications, divergent evolution, convergent evolution, parallel evolution and a variety of mutations along the way.

    Corneel: Every time you encounter some scientific finding you don’t like, you label it a “speculation”. Please tell us why you think the scientific consensus is mistaken.

    What do you mean, “don’t like”? I love the idea of the arrangement of homeotic genes matching the gross body plan. The whole reflected in the parts. 🙂

    CharlieM: It’s all in the video if you care to watch it.

    Corneel: That was a cool talk for sure. I don’t think Michael Levin said what you think he said though. I haven’t heard him mention the etheric principle even once.

    I don’t think you understand my thinking on what he is saying. At no point did I believe that Levin is advocating an etheric archetype. What he does advocate is that genes are under the control of bioelectric fields. But I do not equate bioelectric fields with etheric fields.

    CharlieM: Turning on any homeotic gene is just one step in a complex network of genetic activities and cascades that are necessary for the building of form, but we have to understand how and why the gene was activated in the first place.

    Corneel: Was it activated by the bio-electric pattern you mean? Then we also need to know how that bio-electric pattern was set up. Perhaps that has something to do with tissue-specific expression of genes encoding the gap junctions and ion channels? What do you think?

    What specific genes are you talking about and what instigates their expression?

    Context matters and gene expression is highly coordinated.

    Corneel: I’ll just repeat the following mantra in the hope that one day it sticks: DNA gets transmitted to the offspring. Ion channels are not. “Formative fields” certainly not because they don’t exist. If you think they do, please explain how they set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo. Nudging the ion channels into the correct places perhaps? If you cannot explain without resorting to invisible fields and archetypes, consider the irony of you accusing professional researchers of “speculation”

    Ion channels are surely transmitted. An egg does not suddenly lose its membrane if it becomes fertilized by a sperm. In fact the barrier between mother and offspring may not be as impermeable as you might think.

    Fetal cells can enter maternal blood during pregnancy but whether they can also cross the blood-brain barrier to enter the maternal brain remains poorly understood. Previous results suggest that fetal cells are summoned to repair damage to the mother’s brain

    And the latest “Moms: You shaped your children, but the reverse is true, too — down to your very cells”

    What will the study of fetal microchimerism turn up next?

  40. OMagain:
    CharlieM: Its fine if you don’t want to check this out. But if that is the case then you cannot turn round and say there is no evidence to support the case..

    OMagain: And what do you make of the criticisms of the work via book reviews and generally?

    For my search this text is in the very first result: “Radin’s ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims”.

    And links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin

    Where we find such gems as:

    Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and for ignoring clear evidence of fraud. French recounts that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and two of the Fox sisters confessed to fraud, but that Radin did not mention this fact.

    So sure, we can’t say there is no evidence to support the case. But what we can say is that the evidence that you are claiming exists is already dubious. Why should anyone spend their time on such a person and their claims when they are so demonstrably selective with the facts? When you see “fundamental errors in his calculations” it does not inspire confidence.

    According to DeBakcsy, Radin chose not to report those variations.

    Anyone can build a case by not reporting some of the data! What’s more likely, PSI exists or Radin is a poor scientist, at best?

    I mean, what is it you think is the most strongly supported thing that Radin found and where else can we look in the real world to see that effect in action?

    I don’t know how Florence Cook or the Fox sisters relate to Radin’s work, do you? I would be more suspicious if there were no criticisms of his work. Should we ignore the work of scientists just because they have their critics?

    Here is an article which deals with some of the criticisms of Radins double slit experiments.

    Several responses to previously reported studies have been published. Sassoli de Bianchi15 and Pradhan16 did not question our empirical results, but they offered different theoretical interpretations. Baer reanalyzed data from one of our published online double-slit studies using a simpler method he devised, and after a statistical adjustment his analysis confirmed our results. In another reanalysis, Tremblay examined data from our two-year online double-slit experiment. He confirmed that our reported results were correct, but then decided to analyze each of the two years of data separately. Considering those datasets as independent experiments resulted in reduced statistical power to detect an effect, and thus the results of his two analyses were not significant. Later, in a personal correspondence, Tremblay brought to our attention that a data trimming procedure we used to reject outliers in that study had inflated the statistical results. His comment was correct, but fortunately we had also reported results with no trimming, and that showed a 4 sigma effect in the predicted direction, so the trimming error did not nullify our reported results.

    Do you believe he is doing legitimate science by researching this area? And do you have any criticisms of the sigma values he has obtained from the data?

  41. CharlieM: Why? I use my legs for walking and my hands to grasp things. Does this reduce my body a set of separate components? A holistic understanding does not mean that everything becomes an undifferentiated whole.

    But legs still carry your body, hands still pick up stuff and morphological variation is still largely determined by genes.

    CharlieM: What do you mean, “don’t like”? I love the idea of the arrangement of homeotic genes matching the gross body plan. The whole reflected in the parts.

    Wonderful, now please tell us why you think the scientific consensus is mistaken.

    CharlieM: What he does advocate is that genes are under the control of bioelectric fields.

    Do you think he meant all genes?

    CharlieM: What specific genes are you talking about and what instigates their expression?

    What?!? Didn’t you watch the video? The bio-electric pattern is under the control of proteins that regulate ion gradients across the cell membrane. Interfering with those proteins and the genes that encode them is how Michael Levin and co-workers are able to manipulate the bio-electric field.

    CharlieM: Ion channels are surely transmitted.

    Let me remind you again of the Hershey-Chase experiment and the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment.

    CharlieM: What will the study of fetal microchimerism turn up next?

    No clue, now will you please explain how the formative fields set up the correct species-specific bio-electric pattern in an embryo? Thanks!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.