• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I seek your help once again

Dominus

New Blood
D
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
19
Hi,

I need some help defending the rules of the challenge, big surprise I'm sure. A bit about me:

I am a prominent part of a large internet community, whose name I won't mention here only because it's considered "an adult community" and I don't wish to exert that onto people. But it's a community of many thousands with a bustling multi-topical forum.

As such, many paranormal and supernatural claims are made there unchallenged. I took it upon myself to make sure all these witches and sorcerers and psychics and the like know about the million dollar challenge and as many of you know, one must do so ready to face the heat of many angry and irrational flames.

Currently I'm faced with this thing that seems to get copied and pasted verbatim throughout the web. (I cannot post the URL due to an automated restriction on this forum). The link is to altenativescience but it's posted all over, just google "preamble where it says" +randi +challenge.

Is there a thread on the forum or a commentary by Randi that attacks these accusations point by point? If not can you guys help me connect these dots?

I spent all last night asking dowsers to corroborate claims of mountains of positive tests, and much of this evening composing an evaluation of Michael Prescott's criticism of a chapter from one of Randi's books in response to another attack on Randi, and if I can avoid spending yet another day of free time answering that alternativescience.com attack I'll be grateful as I continue my quest to ask all these potential claimants if they'll accept James Randi's challenge.
 
Last edited:
Reading the rules and FAQ should make it clear that this oft reported webpage is talking nonsense.

.
 
Hi Dominus.

First of all, your guts standing up to the nuts(ocritical thinkers) shall be rewarded. At least you got my respect.

This page http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm pops up regularly around here. What can one say about it that has not been said dozens of times?

Perhaps this: The article features one link that doesn't lead to the JREF.
Surprise, it's to another article on alternativescience.com. If you follow the link, scroll down to the second-to-last paragraph, third sentence:
"It runs entirely counter to intuitive expectation produced by the received wisdom of physics;..."
This is the ballpark of Mr. Richard Milton.

If this, or any of the other subjects on the page, or the fact that the links that still work lead to other websites with "alternative" viewpoints, or the bad grammar, doesn't warn readers that Mr. Milton might just be bluffing - they might just like to reaffirm beliefs and not learn about reality.

From what I know, Mr. Randi did not do a rebuttal. Oops, he kinda did: http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

A serious inquirer will:

1. Read both their versions
2. Imagine what will happen to oneself after three (five, ten, thirty) days if you stop eating - then transfer this to a living being with the same genetic structure
3. Consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian Please scroll to Jasmuheen.

Then he will make up his mind.



From the Jasmuheen link, I quote Mrs. Ellen Greve verbatim: “I asked for fresh air. Seventy percent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breathe."

Oh yes, I will quote this again: "Seventy percent of my nutrients come from fresh air."



If T.C. Boyle would have used this in the rough draft of "Welcome to Wellville", his editor would probably have said: "Don't you think this is just a little too far out there, just a wee bit, a smidgeon?!?"
 
I appreciate the posts so far and Gruzkryst especially for giving me a link, and a very thoughtful post of his own that addresses the issue at hand.

I fear I've sidetracked this however. I'm currently composing a response to this alternativescience article. I'm well aware of the body of work that is dismissive of dowsing, I was merely commenting that I had spent a great deal of time, upon being told by other posters that there was a mountain of evidence that shows dowsing really works, to put up or shut up. BTW, they predictably shut up. But I thank you both for giving me information on dowsing nonetheless.
 
Dominus said:
I appreciate the posts so far and Gruzkryst especially for giving me a link, and a very thoughtful post of his own that addresses the issue at hand.

I fear I've sidetracked this however. I'm currently composing a response to this alternativescience article. I'm well aware of the body of work that is dismissive of dowsing, I was merely commenting that I had spent a great deal of time, upon being told by other posters that there was a mountain of evidence that shows dowsing really works, to put up or shut up. BTW, they predictably shut up. But I thank you both for giving me information on dowsing nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Point by point:

The first such ambiguity is contained in the preamble where it says, "Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant."
This means, quite reasonably, that the rules for any particular attempt cannot be finalised until a claimant steps forward and announces what he or she is going to do -- bend spoons, read minds or walk on fire. But it also means that Randi will fomulate the rules for each individual attempt at his challenge on an ad hoc basis. And, of course, the claimant has to agree to these ad hoc rules. If he or she does not agree, the contest will not take place at all.
Click to expand...
The individual rules for each claimant - including the circumstances, what constitutes success, physical and other requirements for a successful test, etc. - are proposed by the claimant and accepted - or not - by JREF. Modifications are required by Randi in order to preclude the possiblity of fraud and deception. Plenty of examples of that in the Challenges section; excerpts supporting this should be easy to find.

The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules, agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails.

Not only will Randi be the sole judge of whether the claimant is successful, but even if a claimant appeals on scientific grounds that he has met the agreed terms of the challenge, Randi will be the sole arbiter of any appeal as well. Randi says there will be "no judging". In reality, he is both judge and jury -- not only of the claimant's cause but of his own cause as well.
Click to expand...

A classical strawman argument.

The criteria for success is proposed and accepted by both parties prior to the test. Regarding Randi being the sole judge - that's utter nonsense. Randi isn't even present for the vast majority of the preliminaries - although I have no doubt he'd be present for a finalist, if one ever shows up.

However, Randi and the JREF utilize independent professional-level people - often from local skeptical organizations, sometimes not - to act as witnesses and "judges" as to whether success or failure based on the terms happened. Tests are frequently recorded as well.

The writer is attempting to cite Randi's involvement as a reason for failure; if Randi retained a trained group of professionals from scientific organizations, the citation would be that they were merely fronting for Randi.

Of course Randi - as custodian of the million dollars - obviously reserves the right to make a decision about whether or not the prize has been won. But if he publicly dismissed an apparent win based on mutually negotiated rules, JREF's credibility would disappear overnight.

The alternative to this would be... what? No objective observation at all? :)

First that the terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable -- and hence that no claimant would agree to -- and then enable him to claim that "no-one has won the prize".
Click to expand...
There are pages of challenge negotiations in the Challenges section - ask for people to produce one whose terms make it impossible for the challenger to succeed. Just one. :D

The rest of the article is merely ad hominem attacks, not worthy of comment.

Regarding Kolodzey - JREF has a long-standing policy of not testing claims that can result in the harm or death of the claimant. Breatharian(sp?)-type claims (such as this guy) come under that heading because - if properly monitored and enforced - result in self-starvation, which can cause permanent damage to the human body if carried too far.

Personally, I find such claims utterly offensive. I find what they say to be utterly shameless in the face of what was found at Auschwitz & Birkenau type sites post WWII... many died from starvation, and those that survived suffered for life from the ill effects. Then there was the great Irish famine, among other famines in history. More recently the Biafrans suffering was well documented to the world.

If there were a way to live off of nothing but water or air, these desparate people would have found it.

Breatharians and their ilk are either disturbed or disgusting - or both.
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much, GzuzKryzt, (sp?) for posting this link. Just watched the whole thing. I'm convinced Randi is right, of course. Also a good documentary.

But does anyone around here argue that using the dowsing technique puts the dowser into some form of relaxed awareness that makes him/her more sensitive to environmental cues than he/she would be otherwise? A form of self-hypnosis, or whatever you choose to call it, that could aid people in finding things when there are cues that they would otherwise miss?

Just as meditation causes a relaxation response and maybe more, whether or not you believe all the woo about it?

Maybe Dr. Arpad Vass's sense of smell is somehow improved (because he concentrates in a different way) when he dowses for dead bodies?

I'm not exactly soft on woo, just wondering what can be learned--if anything--from these traditions.

 
Last edited:
calebprime said:
But does anyone around here argue that using the dowsing technique puts the dowser into some form of relaxed awareness that makes him/her more sensitive to environmental cues than he/she would be otherwise?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would anyone argue that?

Certainly, if dowsing worked, that would be a possible explanation (worthy of further investigation).

But until and unless there's some evidence that "using the dowsing technique" does anything at all, there's no basis for speculation about what exactly it does.

To use a rather silly metaphor : "Does anyone around here argue that exposure to Kryptonite puts Superman into some form of relaxed awareness that makes him weaker and more vulnerable than he would be otherwise?"

"Does anyone around here argue that wearing a lucky hat puts a poker player into some form of relaxed awareness that makes him/her more sensitive to environmental tells than he/she would be otherwise?"

.... of course not. Because neither Kryptonite. lucky hats, nor Superman exist..
 
calebprime said:
But does anyone around here argue that using the dowsing technique puts the dowser into some form of relaxed awareness that makes him/her more sensitive to environmental cues than he/she would be otherwise? A form of self-hypnosis, or whatever you choose to call it, that could aid people in finding things when there are cues that they would otherwise miss?
Click to expand...

Welcome and thanks calebprime.

Sure, being sensitive to environmental cues could help one to find water.

But if the claim is just about being sensitive to environmental cues then it is not a paranormal claim.

If there is a paranormal claim, eg,
'I can dowse water under controlled conditions (I have magic powers)',
then from the debunking perspective it does not really matter how the magic is done, just whether it can be done.

If it can be done, then and only then would we get all excited and start looking at how it is done.
 
silk underwear

thanks for good responses.

I didn't/don't think anything paranormal is involved either.

And yes, what I have in mind is exactly like lucky hats. An anecdote from The Untouchables:

"Robert De Niro insisted on wearing the same style of silk underwear that Al Capone wore, even though it would never be seen on camera. The producers, knowing DeNiro's reputation as a "Method" actor, gave in."

Granted, this forum is about debunking the paranormal, but there's a lot of stuff here that is just funny. Being new to forums in general, I'm still learning what is germane and what isn't.

Performing artists often employ little rituals to relax themselves so they can concentrate.

And, in point of fact, I DID wonder whether dowsers could be effective at finding things--other than water--under uncontrolled circumstances. That is, more effective than the average joe. I wondered this because, in the documentary I just saw, there's one scene where a dowser finds some metal buried by the film-makers. I assume he was responding, unconsciously, to the appearance of the ground where they buried it--slightly disturbed earth. And/or it was luck enhanced by selective editing.

Until I hear otherwise, I'll believe that dowsers are no more effective than the average joe who's wearing his lucky hat and his silk underwear.

Why would someone argue this? Because, like Tyler Durden, someone want to pick a fight he will lose?

:D
 
calebprime said:
...
Until I hear otherwise, I'll believe that dowsers are no more effective than the average joe who's wearing his lucky hat and his silk underwear.
...
Click to expand...

[nitpick]
It has very little to do with belief or believing, calebprime. The pudding's in the proof.
[\nitpick]
 
calebprime said:
Performing artists often employ little rituals to relax themselves so they can concentrate.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it:

"Robert De Niro insisted on wearing the same style of silk underwear that Al Capone wore, even though it would never be seen on camera. The producers, knowing DeNiro's reputation as a "Method" actor, gave in."
Click to expand...

Performing actors perform. Robert De Niro is demonstrably a brilliant actor; he can do things that others (like myself) cannot.

If anyone seriously doubted that such a thing as acting talent existed, Robert De Niro is a good piece of evidence to examine.

And since we know that some actors are better than other actors, it's reasonable to ask "why"?

However, we don't know that some dowsers are better than other dowsers. As far as the evidence goes, there is no such thing as dowsing. Which means offering explanations for dowsing is offering explanatios for a non-existent event.

Why do unicorns have a thing for virgins?
Why does Santa wear red?

Does anyone here argue that the reason leprechauns only work on left shoes is because fairies only have left feet?
 
drkitten said:
You're still not getting it:

(snip)

As far as the evidence goes, there is no such thing as dowsing. Which means offering explanations for dowsing is offering explanatios for a non-existent event.

Why do unicorns have a thing for virgins?
Why does Santa wear red?

Does anyone here argue that the reason leprechauns only work on left shoes is because fairies only have left feet?
Click to expand...

My bad. I will never, ever employ dodgy phrasing like this again.

First, I didn't intend to "offer an explanation" of dowsing. I sought to compare it to a ritual--like a baseball player crossing himself. Or to the posture assumed by a musician before she plays. I was unclear.

To my too-literal way of thinking, dowsing "exists". Dowsing exists anytime a self-deluded person wanders around with a wand and when an ideomotor response causes the wand to move, the dowser looks in that spot. If the dowser doesn't find anything, he/she blames sunspots or residual energy, or something.

If this is being too cute because people here rightfully frown on woo, I apologize.

In my ignorance, what I *don't* know is whether these people are any better than the average joe at finding *anything* under *informal* circumstances, whether or not their reasons are bogus.

You could enlighten me by pointing me to a link with a study that addresses this. Probably scientists have better things to do than to conduct such a study.

Say, something that tests whether 20 dowsers are better at finding *poorly-hidden* Easter-eggs than 20 randomly-chosen people, or something. But now I'm starting to sound like Monty Python.

If one dowser egg-hunter was much better than anybody else, wouldn't she be the Roberta D. of egg-hunters?

Until then, I simply believe you. I trust you because you have thought about this longer than I have and I don't have time to test it myself. Also, you seem to be intelligent. (Speaking to the collective "you".)

What the Randi documentary showed me was that under controlled conditions, dowsers perform no better than chance. And, far more depressing, none seemed to learn from being shown otherwise. Like this poster, perhaps.

Not to be a troll. This is just the ghastly spectacle of someone trying to learn from his mistakes. Next lesson: brevity.
 
calebprime said:
My bad. I will never, ever employ dodgy phrasing like this again.

...

Not to be a troll. This is just the ghastly spectacle of someone trying to learn from his mistakes. Next lesson: brevity.
Click to expand...
You're getting there.. :)

As for informal test with poorly hidden objects? I really don't know of such a test being conducted, and I don't see any good reasons to do so. It could be fun, but rather pointless. Would it be better than plain old "intuition" in an informal setting with poorly hidden objects? I really don't care that much. My guess is that you would have a hard time getting a result better than chance comparing the two. Setting up the experiment would be a nightmare, however, (how poorly would you hide things?) and the results would be highly questionable. Not really a rewarding activity, unless you have some motive to skew the results to favour your cash flow situation...
 
I think I see what calebprime is saying, and it makes sense. Dowsing could be comparable to a placebo effect. If the dowser thinks the magic stick is doing the work, he does better if he's holding it, as long as he's working where there are subtle clues to what he's looking for. He wouldn't do better than equally skilled non-dowsers, but he'd do better than he could do without it. Just like someone else might do better with their lucky rabbit's foot in their pocket, because of the confidence it gives them.

Problem is, there's no simple way to test for the placebo effect of dowsing with two groups, dowsers and non-dowsers, because it's obvious when a person is holding a stick.

One test would be to ask dowsers to look for water (or whatever) without their stick, and then with, in a situation where environmental clues were possible, like natural terrain rather than identical containers. Even if they gave an honest attempt both times, they'd probably do better with the stick, for the reasons mentioned above--they'd be more confident, more relaxed, and more focused. Though they still wouldn't do better than an equally skilled person who was confident, relaxed and focussed naturally.

So the result of the test would only illustrate the obvious: rituals which help people be calm and focussed make them perform better, just as placebo pills make them feel better. But it would probably illustrate that.
 
Last edited:
I agree, Pup. I have some experience of talking to people who are convinced that they can dowse, patiently trying to explain how ideomotor action and confirmation bias create the illusion of an effective process where in fact none exists.

In the course of this endeavour, I've heard anecdotes from dowsers about how they found stuff (lost personal effects and the like, rather than water) which they couldn't locate at all without their trusty crystal (or whatever prop presses their personal buttons).

This leads me to suspect that the whole mystic malarkey of dowsing actually acts as some kind of a focus for these people. It helps them concentrate, and as a result they sometimes dredge up memories which they couldn't previously recall or spot nuances which they wouldn't ordinarily notice. As a result, their performance appears to improve and Hey Presto! they think they have 'paranormal' ability.

Of course, such cues are of no help under controlled conditions, and so the apparent ability will cease to exist when properly tested. I have even gone so far as to draw up a protocol, recruit skeptical observers and offer to experiment with dowsers' claimed abilites. Funnily enough, they all run a mile at the mere suggestion :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom