I disagree that these "fads" fade away due to lack of corroborating evidence and results. Has anything in the nonmaterial realm been conclusively disproved that you connect to the decline in popular interest? Academia has a built-in "knowledge filter" (confirmation bias, if you will), and ideas that run contrary to existing mainstream beliefs don't get funding, and indeed get labeled as pseudoscience or explained away (as you have done here, respectfully), until there is a smoking gun. Which, of course, is difficult to find without funding.
For example, the Chicxulub hypothesis was ridiculed until they found the crater. A more modern example is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which is even starting to sway previously-outspoken "skeptics" like Michael Shermer. These are geology examples, but the principle applies to all fields.
I don't think we have found the nonmaterial crater yet. But I do think that Radin and those before him have found something that warrants taking a serious look at. Not to mention that in the past, we didn't have access to the technology that powers the potential and scale of these studies. Scientific progress is nonlinear, and I think it's worth shaking the snowglobe even if (especially if?) positive results would constitute a paradigm shift.
Fringe theories generally can't be conclusively disproven, so if that's your bar, it's an unachievable one. E.g., are infectious diseases really all caused by evil spirits? Maybe! Might it also be miasmas? [1] Could be! But now that we have ideas like "bacterium" and "virus", we we don't need those models to explain and treat diseases. So the "evil spirits" has mostly (but not entirely!) faded, and I think miasma theory is wholly dead.
Another thing that has faded away is the 1970s notion of ESP. E.g,, consider the history of Zener cards, which had at least two waves of popularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_cards
In the 1970s ESP got a lot of attention. As did things like remote viewing. There was a definite fad for those concepts, and there was significant academic interest and funding. But nobody had any replicable results, so it all faded away, just like the UFO craze did.
And sorry, but as I said, I have no interest in Radin's work. As I said, you haven't grappled at all with the long history of fringe-science failure and the many commonalities between the failures. If you can't do that, you can't say why Radin might be different from all the similar guys I wasted time on in the past.
Perfect, a bad faith argument from authority. Thank you.
>In the 1970s ESP got a lot of attention. As did things like remote viewing. There was a definite fad for those concepts, and there was significant academic interest and funding. But nobody had any replicable results, so it all faded away
I don't think so. Here's a list of peer-reviewed journal articles from 1964 onwards, including some replication studies: http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm. It's fine though, you're clearly not interested in changing your mind.
It's definitely not bad faith. But I get to choose how to spend my time. I've looked into a bunch of fringe stuff over the years. I've got better things to do now. I am interested in changing my mind, but I have reasonable confidence that slight variations on old shticks aren't going to do it. There are more interesting things for me to explore.
I'm sure the same is true for you. Are you busily looking into each of the latest QAnon theories? Are you carefully investigating every alternative remedy somebody is selling? Have you carefully listened to somebody from every sect of every religion? Nah. It's not even possible to be as open-minded to everything as you want me to be to your personal pet thing.
I'll note that you aren't willing to put in any work learning enough about past paranormal fads to explain why your personal fave is any different than previous ones. It seems odd that you expect me to do a bunch more work than you're willing to do yourself.
For example, the Chicxulub hypothesis was ridiculed until they found the crater. A more modern example is the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which is even starting to sway previously-outspoken "skeptics" like Michael Shermer. These are geology examples, but the principle applies to all fields.
I don't think we have found the nonmaterial crater yet. But I do think that Radin and those before him have found something that warrants taking a serious look at. Not to mention that in the past, we didn't have access to the technology that powers the potential and scale of these studies. Scientific progress is nonlinear, and I think it's worth shaking the snowglobe even if (especially if?) positive results would constitute a paradigm shift.
It's clear you've thought about this a lot too. If you feel so inclined, I'd urge you to check out a Dean Radin talk. Here are a couple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sc0vlDmris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-9BxI0zk-M