How To Make Psi Disappear
Some Precognitive Dreams

Dean Radin's Psi Research List

I'm very glad to see this list of psi research articles compiled by parapsychologist Dean Radin. The articles are all downloadable, and cover a range of topics - exactly what's needed.

By way of introduction Radin says:

In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast.

So I've created a SHOW ME page with downloadable articles on psi and psi-related topics, all published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these papers were published after the year 2000. Most report experimental studies or meta-analyses of classes of experiments. I will continue to add to this page and flesh it out, including links to recent or to especially useful ebooks. This page may eventually become annotated, then multithreaded and hyperlinked, and then morph into a Wiki.

I hope to go through the full list in the months to come, and will recommend it to visitors. In the meantime, I have commented on one of the papers in a separate post, below.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is a great resource, but I am a little dissapointed that it focuses only on modern day research. I also want to see a list made for the secret forgotten history of parapsychology which almost nobody talks about anymore. For instance, take a look at the very elaborate and detailed experiments described by William Crookes testing the medium DD Home for a psychokinetic force or the research notes on Eusapia Palladino.

It seems to me that in the past scientific psi researchers made much greater claims and had much more astounding evidence of the paranormal than we have today. This history has just been wiped away and researchers are busy recording small scale effects of what we know from this past research can be much much greater.

I think parapsychology should rediscover its roots and start studying true physical mediums in the field again, record a bunch of large-scale psychokinetic effects or materializations and then push that through the science journals.

Actually, it would be really interesting to see what kind of controls they could devise today and how much more difficult of a time debunkers would have. I think the debunkers would have to resort to name calling. I don't think they would have any other option if the experiments were well designed.

If only more people knew about his history, more people would try it.

for god sake the dd home experiments were not scientific

Problems with the experiments

1. The experiments took place in Crookes's self built laboratory at the back of his house (no description of this lab has survived) but the room was described by Crookes as "large".

2. Home was not personally searched before the experiments took place but was watched as he changed clothing according to Crookes' report but as Frank Podmore and others have suggested, Home could have easily placed fraudulent devices or materials in his pockets.

3. In the experiments Home refused for Crookes to sit near him - According to the reports Crookes was quite a bit of distance away from Home. Is this normal for a scientific experiment?

4. Contrary to what spiritualists have written the experiments with Home were not conducted in light conditions, report has it that only "dim light" occurred in part of the room. So most of the room was in darkness.

5. Crookes' report deliberately left out who was present in the room, it was only revealed later that six men were present during the Crookes-Home experiments and four women. As Ruth Brandon suggested Home could have easily had an accomplice. We know according to other séances that Home had a female accomplice.

6. According to reports of the experiment Home would draw attention to something on the other side of the room, or make conversation for diversionary signals with those who were in the room and Crookes was occupied most of the time with writing notes.

7. Crookes admitted that Home and himself had "tested" similar devices to the ones used in the experiments beforehand on other occasions. Home could have easily known how to cheat on the experimental apparatus before the experiments had even taken place.

8. Crookes was convinced that Home had proven the existence of a "psychic force" but as others have suggested the experiments had poor scientific controls and the movement observed on a piece of the apparatus could easily be explained by the vibrations of the trains (the lab was built under a train track at the back of Crookes house) but other things have been suggested such as home using a piece of resin on his finger etc.

9. Home largely directed the proceedings of the experiments, even giving those in the room instructions, of course this was not mentioned in Crookes' report but this is what happened.

10. The experiments were never repeated.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=258077

As my old grandmother used to say: Evil thinkers, evil doers.

Debunkers are happy to dismiss the work of leading scientists based on the opinions of others. Perhaps some might actually like to look at the information themselves.
Here is an account from Crookes
https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/CrookesPsychic.pdf

Really debunker? You're using Randi as your source? [Insert hysterical laughter] Randi is a known liar. Literally, he's been caught making blatant lies about psychical research. But ok, since I have the book "Crookes and the Spirit World" in my possession, I will debunk the debunker. If you don't know, this book is a collection of Crookes' actual writings and correspondences about his experiments.

Point 1: Yes, the experiments were conducted in Crookes' own laboratory and that consisted of a room with his scientific apparatuses in it. The exact dimensions of the room don't really matter and don't really have any bearing on the experiments.

Point 2: Crookes states: "I called for Mr. Home at his apartments, and when there he suggested that, as he had to change his dress, perhaps I should not object to continue our conversation in his bedroom. I am, therefore, enabled to state positively, that no machinery, apparatus, or contrivance of any sort was secreted about his person." (24) In other words, Crookes carefully watched Mr. Home as he dressed and saw no evidence of him placing any device about his person.

Point 3: Crookes never said he was forced to sit far away from Home. He states: "Mr. Home placed the tips of his fingers lightly on the extreme end of the mahogany board which was resting on the support, whilst Dr. A. B. and myself sat, one on each side of it, watching for any effect which might be produced." (28) He makes no mention of sitting far away. In fact he says, "his feet as well as his hands were closely guarded by all in the room" (28)

Point 4: Crookes states that the room was lit by gas when the experiments with the board and balance were conducted. He further states in another section of his writing that: "Indeed, except on two occasions, when, for some particular experiments of my own, light was excluded, everything which I have witnessed with him [Home] has taken place in the light." (111)

Point 5: Crookes considered the individuals present "irreproachable witnesses". They included Dr. Huggins, F.R.S., Mr. Serjeant Cox, Mr. Crookes, Mrs. Crookes, Mr. W. Crookes, Mrs. W. Crookes, Mrs. Humphrey, Miss Crookes, and Mr. Gimingham. (172) They did not assist Home. Besides, the way the experiment was set up I'm pretty sure Crookes or someone present would have caught the person trying to aid Home by passing him an apparatus or by trying to effect a pressure on the board.

Point 6: Where is this in the reports? Give me a specific reference. From what I can see there is no evidence that Home was trying to divert attention to the other side of the room. I suspect this is just a deliberate lie (as Randi is known to do).

Point 7: As far as cheating, Crookes never detected this and states that the facts he attests to "have all taken place in my own house, at times appointed by myself, and under circumstances which absolutely precluded the employment of the very simplest instrumental aids." (110)

Point 8: Crookes states that a passing train could not produce the effects and invites witnesses to verify the fact. He calls this assertion "utterly baseless" (72)

Point 9: Crookes states: "I have chosen my own circle of friends, have introduced any hard-headed unbeliever whom I pleased, and have generally imposed my own terms, which have been carefully chosen to prevent the possibility of fraud" (110)

Point 10: Crookes performed numerous experiments with not only Home but other mediums as well. These experiments with Home were, in fact, repeated many times with many different apparatuses. I endeavor you to do some actual research so you can read about them.

The page references I provide are from: Medhurst, R.G. (1972) Crookes and the Spirit World, London: Souvenir Press.

"But ok, since I have the book "Crookes and the Spirit World" in my possession".

All your points are wrong and useless Daniel. The book "Crookes and the Spirit World" was written many years AFTER the experiments had taken place. Complete untrustable source written by a self-confessed spiritualist.

Please see the official reports by Crookes in the Quarterly Journal of Science.

1. Crookes did not provide the names of who were present in the room in his QJS report.

2. Crookes in his own words admits the experiments regarding the board and balance were not repeatable, in fact 3 times they failed. See his original report. Only two experiments took place so they did not occur "with many different apparatuses".

3. Crookes experiments took place in his self built lab, it was not shock proof, his lab was so poorly built it even flooded (see Crookes notes). No documentation has survived of this lab and Crookes in his report does not even begin to describe it.

You haven't debunked anything Daniel, if you want to debunk something read Crookes original reports, not spiritualist nonsense written many years after they occurred.

" Crookes considered the individuals present "irreproachable witnesses". They included Dr. Huggins, F.R.S., Mr. Serjeant Cox, Mr. Crookes, Mrs. Crookes, Mr. W. Crookes, Mrs. W. Crookes, Mrs. Humphrey, Miss Crookes, and Mr. Gimingham."

That is not the full list of names, and please note this information was only revealed many years after Crookes published his report! The names were not revealed until years later. Is this normal?

"Really debunker? You're using Randi as your source?"

No. Please see the link it is a forum not Randi's own words. You haven't read Crookes reports and like all dogmatic believers you rely on dishonest spiritualist publications, Medhurst was a convinced spiritualist and member of the SPR, if you want a more neutral secondary publication regarding Home see the official biography by the historian Peter Lamont.


@Debunker I presume that you have a copy of Ruth Brandon's book. Top tip: follow up the source references and see if she's given a balanced appraisal of the issues concerned. I see to remember that I did that sometime around 1998 and found the book to be sadly lacking in objectivity and balance - at times outrageously so. I seem to remember at least one reviewer of the book (probably the late British broadcaster Brian Inglis)came to the same conclusions.

Daniel, join the forum and we can discuss these things. I can give you the full quotes from Crookes original report. My buddy already started the thread and we are both willing to discuss this subject with any of you believers. You guys always say us sceptics are wrong and have not read the literature but it is the other way round. If you think it isn't then debate on the forum. I have no time to post on here. I am in agreement with you that Crookes did not find Home cheating, but Home did not want Crookes near him in the experiments, and most of the time Home would be talking, please note Crookes was writing notes most of the time. There is complete proof of these things. The experiments were not scientific. As for the accordion experiment it was a trick. We can discuss that in detail on the forum if you wish but not here. Oh and by the way Crookes had an affair with another medium he studied so he is not the most reliable source but I am in agreement with you I don't believe he lied in his reports he only lied about who was present in the room and left out details about the "lab" itself.

Actually Crookes was pretty dishonest his original report did not mention the word "spirit" because he wanted to keep his experiments "scientific" but years later when he wrote about the experiments he claimed Home was talking to spirits in them. So Crookes was dishonest for leaving things out of his paper but not a complete liar. Cheers.

Steve I would be willing to debate these things with you on the forum, yes I have read the Brandon book it was ok, the Frank Podmore material and work of Joseph Rinn is better in my opinion. We can discuss the flaws with Palladino and Leonora Piper as well if you are interested. I am out of here. You know where to find me if you want to chat.

@debunker I will admit that I didn't actually follow your link and just assumed because it was from Randi's website that he had written the points you listed. So, I apologize for that.

However, you are completely ignorant of the book "Crookes and the Spirit World." It was not written by Medhurst. It is a collection of Crookes' own writings that was compiled and put into a book form by Medhurst. Medhurst is simply the editor. The book reprints the original reports, so you are obviously clueless about this book.

Also, Crookes did repeat the experiments using the board as well as different instruments.

Your whole debating point though seems to be centered on the fact that I relied on a faulty source to get my facts. Once again, the book in question reprints the original reports and correspondences by Crookes. It is not "written" by Medhurst.

To be specific, the writings were collected by Medhurst. Actually, the book was edited by M.R. Barrington.

I was over on thetaobums and some denier posted a thread with the fake "show me" attitude and as people posted evidence after evidence the thread started was just "not satisified." haha. Suddenly I got an urge to check out paranormalia and presto! A link to another whole slew of evidence.

Yeah I have been posting new Qi-talk videos by the only African-American qigong master! http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.com/ Just scroll down on my blog - the past several posts are either videos of his talks or else my own renditions of the conversations I've had with him about his experience as a master healer.

In the latest vid he mentions how he healed someone he could not walk on their foot for 15 years from "club foot" and so in just a few sessions the man was walking with the foot flat on the ground - normally. I actually met this man and boy was he happy. His wife was healed of severe apnea.

Anyway so it's all "external qi" healing - I posted the randomized controlled research on Dean Radin's blog and he cleared it for his comments - yep it's been scientifically proven and it's in the SAME STATE as P.Z. Myers. haha. He just tries to ignore Spring Forest Qigong - he blogged on it once when it was covered on the local news about a young boy doing healing on his friends. Myers ignored the peer-reviewed research by the Mayo Clinic doctors. Of course Myers - the great "skeptic" -- has yet to go personally "investigate" these qigong masters. haha.

@Debunker!
Strange how don't mention the amount the occurs in mainstream science and that direct replication is rare!

Here's a snippet for you!
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Continued from previous post:
I meant to say, "strange how pseudo sceptics like you aren't as critical of the amount of fraud that occurs in mainstream science and that direct replication is rare"?

From debunker,"You haven't read Crookes reports and like all dogmatic believers you rely on dishonest spiritualist publications".

This coming from a dishonest pseudo-sceptic is rich.

This is exactly what boils my blood. These pseudo-sceptics come in here making all these false accusations about past research and then we have to go through the research and call them out on it. Just stop lying already. Check your facts.

I also like how he harps on the fact that we don't know the exact dimensions of Crookes' laboratory and no blueprints survive. What, is this supposed to invalidate the results? I mean, what a joke. Why don't we bring this into the scientific debate. Ok, so you did this experiment and got this result. I need exact blueprints of this laboratory by tomorrow. Every window frame and spec of dust in that laboratory better be accounted for. I want to know the position of every chair and every device within 1 centimeter. Oh what, some chairs have been moved since the experiment? Well, we can't print these results then. I just can't accept results like these without knowing the specifics of the laboratory.

One final thing is I don't see any point in joining this JREF forum and getting gangbanged by a bunch of psuedo-skeptics who are going to throw all these false accusations at me. That gives me the sole job of tracking down all of the errors. Although I would love to take this up in the future, right now I am too busy working on a writing project that involves other research. Also, I have a job so I simply can't do that right now.

I called you out on Home and you can post my rebuttal to that forum if you wish. There's really nothing else to say.

I appreciate the trouble Dean Radin went to in putting together this list. It's a very handy list of recent and very relevant articles. Makes life easier when someone on a message board repeats the "there is no peer-reviewed literature on psi research" mantra.

I've added it to my own list of handy links to researchers, organizations and articles pertaining to parapsychology:

http://psisigh.blogspot.ca/p/parapsychology-links.html

Daniel said,"One final thing is I don't see any point in joining this JREF forum"!

As if JREF forum is reliable source!

I was pleased to come across this book which can be read online for free. It's "The Phenomena of Spiritualism" by William Crookes. http://www.slideshare.net/cienciaspsiquicas/researches-the-phenomena-of-spiritualism-william-crookes

There you can read for yourself about the experiments. The quarterly journal articles are reprinted there, just as they are in the book I have.

You can see for yourself that he performed many different experiments with Home using mutliple devices. Refer to: "Experimental Investigation of a New Force" (Quarterly Journal July 1, 1871), "Some Further Experiments on Psychic Force" (Quarterly Journal October 1, 1871), and "Notes of an Enquiry into the Phenomena Called Spiritual" (Quarterly Journal January 1874)

If you read this stuff, you will see for yourself all the lies which this debunker has posted here.

@Daniel: Thanks for the free online book; I've bookmarked the site!

During the accordion experiment, a new accordion was placed into a wooden and copper wire cage that, at one point, had an electric current running through it. During that time, 9 witnesses say that the accordion continued to play even though, at that point, Home wasn't touching it. I'd love to know how that trick is done so that I can do it for friends....

Braude's review of Hall's book on Home:

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/ftp/pages/pdfs_pubd/braude--Review%20of%20Trevor%20Hall%20on%20Home.pdf

The comments to this entry are closed.