Talk:Dean Radin

Not a biography

I wanted to gain an impression of Dean Radin's life and work to date but, as it now is, this bio appears to be little more than a chance to put forward criticism of Radin and his career.

Criticism has its place but this page does seem to be unable to state anything positive at all and is therefore rendered one-sided, inadequate and, regrettably, unworthy of publication by Wikipedia.

BarryNL1 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article is unbalanced in the negative direction. NPOV? ---Dagme (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to use the reliable sources that exist. If they are uniformly critical, what do you suggest we should do? Sweep the criticism under the carpet? Use unreliable sources praising him? Invent fake sources praising him?

Your understanding of NPOV is faulty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The Impartiality Of This Page is Extremely Questionable

It is like this page has been written by some angry "skeptics", to undermine scientific facts. Another hopeless attempt to bury the truth. Welcome to old world. Take a look at it. It won't last. People are creating organizations and helping the law enforcements by using psychic abilities even though so called skeptics (they are more like cynics) ignore. Wikipedia allows angry and radical editors occupy this website. The history will be a witness that Wikipedia has been vandalized by cynics who made an oath to bury the truth. I wish them good luck. They will be the ones who'll be forgetten. 159.146.121.8 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so. Just look at the way these people have been blocking links to the valuable information source Psi Encyclopedia. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is supposed to write what you consider true, but to echo reliable sources. Usually, reliable sources do not believe in magic, so Wikipedia embraces that position too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia at it again

This article exemplifies how dogmatic Wikipedia is about dismissing all contributions from scientists who have provided experimental evidence for the paranormal. This man has done experimental research suggesting that there is such a thing as presentiment - i.e. having feelings about what's going to happen in the future. He has done experiments where participants have their arousal assessed, through measurements of electrodermal responses, before presentation of pictures selected at random by a computer. The data he obtained do suggest that their arousal is greater before presentation of arousing pictures then relaxing ones, even by as long as fifteen seconds. I did not see any record of these data in the article. YTKJ (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Have those results been received positively outside the psi-believer subculture? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This needs a separate "Controversy/Criticism" section

The section entitled "Parapsychology" barely describes or cites any of Radin's actual work or his many studies. The majority of the section consists of a long list of poorly summarized criticism of Radin and his work without reference to what the source is specifically criticizing. His work needs to be included in one section, and responses to his work need to be separated into a section entitled either "Controversies" or "Criticism." In its current state, this page is too similar to Radin's page on RationalWiki. JimiR2 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRITS would be bad. Bon courage (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This subject is controversial per se, and "Criticism" sections are discouraged because they make the content seem biased. But this article is already too far gone in that regard and it essentially already has two "Criticism" sections. His work and ideas are not represented almost at all.

Nine of the 12 sentences in the "Parapsychology" section (which should be renamed "Career") are critical quotes from detractors. The "Books" section lists two works: the subsection about the first book includes criticism only - the book is not even summarized. The subsection about the second book is 20 sentences long, 16 of which discuss one critic's negative response to the book at length. The book itself is summarized in one sentence. JimiR2 (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Would normally summarise fringe books, except as done so by good sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If you think this article shouldn't exist vis a vis Wikipedia:Fringe theories then just say that, rather than make bad faith arguments about stylistic rules as if this poorly-written article doesn't already even have punctuation errors. JimiR2 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BIGMISTAKE. This article should exist, I think as there are sufficient sources to ensure its WP:FRINGESUBJECTS are dealt with appropriately. Are there good sources yet to be used? Anyway given your impertinent interaction, forgive me if I now ignore you. Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine, but please just take a look at this article. Ideology aside, it needs heavy editing in all regards. It has very little information and is very difficult to read. That is all. JimiR2 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Overfocus on critical comments on the scientific research

I don’t understand why there are so much negative comments on the scientific research and no information on the marvels of these discoveries TitiPede (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Why not add some yourself! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Radin and Epstein

I'm writing this as someone added to the article the fact that Radin was listed as having had contact with Epstein, which I've reverted as inappropriate for a living person. For completeness, he has explained what these contacts were:

'My name shows up 26 times in the Epstein files.

12 of those files are emails from Deepak to Epstein. Deepak was a member of a private physics and psi online discussion group I was part of a decade ago. Unbeknownst to any of us, and without seeking anyone's permission, Deepak was forwarding our discussions to Epstein. Argh.

3 are emails from Ginu Yu, who said I should talk to a wealthy guy interested in parapsychology. I didn't suspect Gino of having any nefarious friends, and I've talked to hundreds of potential donors, so I didn't think this would be any different.

10 are emails involved in setting up a Skype call with the wealthy guy, 5 of which are emails that look like calendar reminders.'

Clearly this should have not been considered sufficiently significant even for a non-living person.

--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)