Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Peter Morris]

BS at it's lowest. You quoted and responded directly to my post ... They "you" could only be me,.

okey-dokey, then, Mr Doubt. I'll address you and you alone. Your words, and nobody else's.

<< Interesting that you abuse others and then complain about being abused. >>

Prey tell me how I have abused others, hmm? Give an example in THIS THREAD of how I have abused others.

That is an example of YOUR strawman. You and you alone are responsible for that one.

 

[Doubt]

okey-dokey, then, Mr Doubt. I'll address you and you alone. Your words, and nobody else's.

<< Interesting that you abuse others and then complain about being abused. >>

Prey tell me how I have abused others, hmm? Give an example in THIS THREAD of how I have abused others.

That is an example of YOUR strawman. You and you alone are responsible for that one.

Wrong. That is an accusation. You did complain about being abused, so I have not mis characterized your statement. I accused you of abusing others. Really, if you want to have an argument you may wish to at least attack me for something I did, rather that that which I have not done. But you have not let being wrong change your mind yet as near as I can remember.

Try again. This time try looking up the definitions of terms like straw man before getting started instead of the usual "ready, shoot, aim" approach.

 

[Peter Morris]

I haven't seen your actual application. Depending on how it was worded, I might support it.

Well then, you have no right to criticise. I've posted the link to my website enough times. If you've never bothered to actually read my application,that's down to you.

Please read my application before you comment further : www.proverandiwrong.net.

You do realize, of course, that the test expenses are up to the claimant, including the cost of drilling to "prove" there is no water within drillable distance.

Yes, I know that.

These wells can be very expensive, and you'd have to drill several to have a statistically significant sample. That is why it is simpler to have a prepared area where one person knows where the water is or isn't.

I propose using such in my suggested protocol. Much cheaper than actually drilling.

LOL. You think Randi is making a pile of money? You obviously don't know how hard the JREF has been working to raise a relatively small amount of money.

And you obviously don't know Randi's salary as a proportion of JREF spending.

You can get information about non-profit orgsanisations at www.guidestar.org. Registration is required, but it's free. (paid membership will give you access to more detailed information)

With free membership you can see JREF's IRS form 990 which gives you all sorts of interesting information.

For 2006 :

Randi's basic salary : $141,083
Contribution to pension plan : $37,917
Other salaries : $76,375
other employee benefits : $13,068
payroll taxes : $13,068

total expenses : $503,379.

I don't know who received the "other salaries." Randi is the only named person in the organisation who is paid. There are other employees listed, but their salary is $0. It might be paid to Randi ... or it might not. I can't say for sure.

Either way, the amount paid to JREF staff is an enormous proportion of total spending. More than half, actually, with Randi getting the largest amount of that.

So, when they beg for $10,000 to pay for a new server, more than $5,000 of that went into their own pockets. The major expense of the JREF is paying JREF members, especially Randi. That's the facts for you.

Randi could make a lot more money by running scams, which he is quite qualified to do, as he has done many of the tricks that the scammers use and shown how they were done.

No. He's a mediocre magician who simply doesn't have the talent to succeed as a phony psychic. His attempts to replicate what others do are lame. But that's a long discussion in itself, which I don't want to get into right now.

But I've already given you my little speech about lying, and unless you can show me that you have never lied in your life, then your moral outrage must be taken with a grain of salt.

I've lied a few times in my life. The difference is that I don't present myself as an expert, charge several thousand dollars to listen to a lecture, and fill that lecture with false stories.

Think about what Randi said. He said that water was available within drillable depth on about 94% of the earth. Do you understand what that means?

sir, I refer you to a recent article in Randi's commentary :

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html#i3

<< After two days, 500 feet of well, and $10,000, he still hadn't found water. >>

Now, it is possible that if they had continued to 1,500 feet at an expense of $50,000 then they might have found water. But frankly would it have been worth it?

I put it to you, Sir, that what they found is a pretty good definition of "dry spot" and what is more, such spots are exceedingly common. It is my belief, Sir, that random selection without expert advice is likely to hit such a spot.

Do you, Sir, with your knowledge of geology, disagree with this statement?

If you are trying to test that statement, then you don't get to choose the location. It would have to be chosen randomly from a map of the earth.

In my suggested protocol, I want to use a map of the whole continental USA (excluding Alaska and Hawaii)

. Show us your protocol and I'll happily discuss it with you and help you refine it, if I can.

Sure, my protocol is available at www.proverandiwrong.net.

 

[Peter Morris]

Wrong. That is an accusation.

Your question has been answered. Not that you will ever admit it.

 

[Tricky]

I put it to you, Sir, that what they found is a pretty good definition of "dry spot" and what is more, such spots are exceedingly common. It is my belief, Sir, that random selection without expert advice is likely to hit such a spot.

Do you, Sir, with your knowledge of geology, disagree with this statement?

Yes sir, I do disagree strongly. I think what you have tried to define as "dry" is actually saying "no usable water within distances of the surface that are commercially viable." I put it to you sir, that Randi made no such claim that any given percentage of the earth fits that description. If I have time, I'll go point-by-point on your protocol explaining where you have made what I consider incorrect assumptions.

However, since you put nothing that could be called "paranormal" forward to be tested, it is safe to say that this is not an acceptable application for the JREF challenge. Even though you are right, in some minute aspects, that James Randi has made some statements that are not 100% correct, even proving so would not qualify under the Randi Challenge as I understand it. Neither have you shown that Randi has made any statements that are wrong in any meaningful way.

 

[Doubt]

Your question has been answered. Not that you will ever admit it.

Which question? The spelling bee one?

 

[Peter Morris]

Yes sir, I do disagree strongly.

Fine. Suits me. I'm not going to argue about the definition of "dry."

So, sir, you are under the belief that dry spots are rare, and that I'm unlikely to find any.

Go write to Randi and tell him that you agree with him. Say that you think he's right about dry spots being rare.

And encourage him to test my claim.

Because, if dry spots are so rare, then showing an ability to repeatedly hit them would be inexplicable, wouldn't it?

However, since you put nothing that could be called "paranormal" forward to be tested it is safe to say that this is not an acceptable application for the JREF challenge.

Oh, but you fail to understand the nature of the challenge. As has been pointed out time after time by many people Randi included, it's not a matter of research. It isn't a reward for someone making a new discovery. It's a challenge. It's a dare. It's a man who says "I don't believe your claim," and dares you to prove it true.

By the challenge rules, it doesn't have to be paranormal. You only have to accept the dare set by Randi and succeed at it. That's all.

 

[Tricky]

Fine. Suits me. I'm not going to argue about the definition of "dry."

That is the crux of the question. If we cannot agree on the definition of "dry" then there can be no test. These things have to be agreed about in advance.

So, sir, you are under the belief that dry spots are rare, and that I'm unlikely to find any.

I believe, sir, that you are unlikely to find spots where there is no subsurface water of any kind within depths that we are technologically capable of reaching. I invite you to prove me wrong. But I won't pay for it.

Go write to Randi and tell him that you agree with him. Say that you think he's right about dry spots being rare.

And encourage him to test my claim.

I don't agree with the protocol of your claim. I would not encourage him to test that. Would you agree to either drill much deeper, or possible change the odds to reflect the liklihood of usable/potable water within 500' of the surface? I don't know offhand what those odds are, but I feel certain that it is much less than 94%. But of course, you don't plan to do any testing at all. You plan to do a literature search. That is not a test in any sense of the word.

Oh, but you fail to understand the nature of the challenge. As has been pointed out time after time by many people Randi included, it's not a matter of research. It isn't a reward for someone making a new discovery. It's a challenge. It's a dare. It's a man who says "I don't believe your claim," and dares you to prove it true.

Yet what you propose is nothing more than research. From your site:

We can then consult existing geological surveys of the area to determine if each spot selected is “wet” or “dry.”

I hate to tell you this, Peter, but hydrologic surveys are not particularly detailed. They are modified as more data is gathered and as conditions change. In any case, a literature search is not a test. Redefining the word "dry" to make it easier for you is unacceptable for proving Randi wrong. What you have proposed is not a test of the paranormal, which is what the Randi Challenge is. They were correct to reject it.

Now if you actually want to drill wells to test your claim, I might support it, with modifications of what you call "dry".

By the challenge rules, it doesn't have to be paranormal. You only have to accept the dare set by Randi and succeed at it. That's all.

LOL. Did you read the opening sentence of the rules?

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

Now you can continue to make the claim that the challenge is only a dare, but with the evidence against that staring you in the face, you know what that makes you, right? It's one of your favorite words.

 

[Peter Morris]

Now you can continue to make the claim that the challenge is only a dare, but with the evidence against that staring you in the face, you know what that makes you, right? It's one of your favorite words.

You have failed to produce any evidence. All you have is faith. And you are choosing to ignore the evidence that it is, in fact, a dare.

Lets see Randi's own FAQ about the challenge :

http://tinyurl.com/3xyblg

<< It all comes down to the very nature of a challenge. It's not a contest; there are not two parties competing for the same prize. It's a challenge. It's someone who, as a result of extensive experience, doesn't believe you can do what you say you can do, daring you to do what you say you can do. It's a dare. It's not at all a friendly agreement. It's an adversarial arrangement, and because of that, the JREF sees no reason to change the rules for its adversaries. >>

There you are, it's a dare. Randi himself says so.

And I am willing to accept the dare that he made, exactly under the terms that he described.

 

[Peter Morris]

Anyway, the point is that James Randi believes it to be paranormal. He's been saying "find me a dry spot" for at least 25 years, in the belief that this would be a display of paranormal powers.

Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with him does not matter. The fact that HE thinks it paranormal makes it legitimate.

 

[Czarcasm]

Mr. Morris, here is the only response you need or deserve from now on:
Read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

All others, feel free to cut and paste this as a response to any further ramblings from Mr. Morris.

 

[Tricky]

Anyway, the point is that James Randi believes it to be paranormal. He's been saying "find me a dry spot" for at least 25 years, in the belief that this would be a display of paranormal powers.

Whether you or I or anyone else agrees with him does not matter. The fact that HE thinks it paranormal makes it legitimate.

If you dowsed for dry, that would be paranormal. Researching for dry is not. I don't believe for one second that what you propose would qualify for the challenge. The fact that your application was rejected indicates that the JREF agrees. You will claim it is because Randi lies, yet you ignore the very first line of the challenge and appear to believe that you know better what Randi is thinking than he does.

Yes, it is a dare. It is a very specific dare. He dares you to do something paranormal. Your protocol in no way addresses that dare. Instead you whine because he won't change the dare to suit your preferences and definitions. Oh, the injustice of reality.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Mr. Morris, here is the only response you need or deserve from now on:
Read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

 

[Tricky]

Mr. Morris, here is the only response you need or deserve from now on:
Read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

Actually, he has done the filling out the application part, but he apparently never got around to the reading part, because his application was not recommending a paranormal test. He still seems to be laboring under the delusion that all he has to do is prove Randi incorrect in some minor regard as to some statement Randi has made, and that will qualify as winning the challenge.

 

[Czarcasm]

Actually, he has done the filling out the application part, but he apparently never got around to the reading part, because his application was not recommending a paranormal test. He still seems to be laboring under the delusion that all he has to do is prove Randi incorrect in some minor regard as to some statement Randi has made, and that will qualify as winning the challenge.

Then my response stands as written, doesn't it?

 

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, Peter --

Urgh, sorry about calling you "new". I'm not sure why I got it into my head that you were new.

Thanks for the link. I did go over your application and I'm in the same boat as Tricky, I'm afraid: this doesn't seem to be a paranormal claim (of course, you explicitly state that it is not so), and there isn't really a test there. As Tricky has stated, this seems to be simply an attempt to point out that James Randi has been wrong in some of his statements.

And it looks like there are actually two protocols in there: in the first, you make four statements, demonstrate how James Randi has disagreed with them, and then propose to present those statements to qualified geologists to have them decide on the truth or falsity of those statements. You state, as your measure of success, that "Success in the test shall be demonstrating any ONE or more of the applicant's statements to be correct. Failure shall be if all four of the applicant’s statements are proved wrong."

Then, you go onto a protocol that describes randomly selecting places on Earth (known watery places such as rivers, lakes, etc to be excluded), then consulting geological surveys to determine whether the selected areas contain water that is (I'm paraphrasing here) "practically accessable".

I think that the problem lies in the fact that Randi uses his statements to rebuff/refute statements specifically made by dowsers, not by people actually engaged in a scientific pursuit of water. In fact, one of the points about dowsing in particular is that there are scientific ways to locate water, and that dowsers often are (sometimes unconsciously) using these methods to find water, instead of it being the results of dowsing.

I'm no geologist, but I would agree with the statement that it's quite possible to dig a well that is dry. It depends on where you dig it, and how deep you go. If I dig ten feet down through the top of a hill, I imagine I will not find water. If I dig 50 feet down through a low-lying area that's lush and green, I imagine I will probably find something.

I think that the major point made behind the claims of there being water under 94% percent of the Earth's surface comes from the excuses often meted out by dowsers who fail, that something was "interfering", or that the water is there but too deep, etc etc etc. Or from dowsers who claim a hit when they've found any water, even if it isn't an amount that you or I would think of as "practical" (i.e., a good well capable of supporting an average household). The "find me a dry spot" was a blithe, sarcastic retort to these kinds of claims.

I realize that you don't like James Randi, but the Million Dollar Challenge isn't about proving him wrong about anything he says. It's about providing testable evidence that paranormal -- or pseudoscientific -- claims have a basis in reality. So you have to be doing something that's paranormal, or pseudoscientific enough to be considered paranormal.

I say the latter because you have an update on your website about Randi accepting non-paranormal claims. You must understand that these "non-paranormal claims" are actually paranormal. For example, the wine-magnet bit: although the workings of the wine magnet are described in decidedly non-paranormal ways, and are claimed to be perfectly in keeping with the laws of physics, they are not. They are, in fact, so wildly not in keeping with known electromagnetic theory that they fall into the ream of paranormal despite their claims.

This would apply to you, too, if you were claiming to use some process that flies wildly in the fact of known scientific means & methods and yet still calling it "not paranormal". But your means & methods are not paranormal either (consulting known scientific surveys is not paranormal). So again, it boils down to something like this: "Randi has made some statements about geology that are wrong. I can prove him wrong." Which is fine, but not applicable for the MDC, since that's not what it's about.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Then my response stands as written, doesn't it?

Understanding the Challenge Rules is a reading comprehension skill we'd expect from an average eighth grader.

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

You believe his story that he issued this challenge to dowsers, and they rejected his offer.

I specifically said I was answering that way because the other way was uninteresting. I make no claims regarding this question as I did absolutely zero research, I just took it as an axiom and checked the results.

So, here's the thing. I have submitted a formal application to be tested according to the protocol James Randi suggested. I think that I can hit dry spots at a rate FAR above 6%. And I am willing to demonstrate it under properly controlled conditions.

Can you provide a link to this application? I read your website but you had no such application there. You have what appears to be a sarcastic attack on Randi, which is fine, but is certainly not a proper challenge application.

Since you believe him, please write to him and tell him so. Tell him that you believe the story he has told, and that you think he should actually conduct the test, once someone has agreed to the conditions that he set.

He set no conditions. The MDC does not mean "let's say Randi says 'you can't do X!', then if you do X, you win!". Read the protocol. Please. Either you've never read it or your reading comprehension skills are very, very bad. I'd like to believe the former.

James Randi says that "there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface." I think that he is just making that up. I think that actually water is very hard to find, it requires a very specialized knowledge of geology, and a detailed survey. That's what I think.

Um, those are not mutually exclusive. Available does not mean 'easy to find'. The problem is that the science says yes, there's probably water there, and the dowser says no, there's not. Neither says "and it is exactly K meters down in such and such type of rock, here are the pictures to prove it".

James Randi is a confidence trickster. He makes a fortune from selling stuff like this. Much of the information he presents is simply wrong. Many of the tales he tells are falsehoods. His lectures, his books, his website are full of misleading information and direct lies. And he persuades people to send him money for this.

In short, he is a grubby little conman who should be opposed by every decent sceptic.

Perfectly willing to entertain the notion. Everyone needs oversight. Can you provide examples that aren't obviously flawed?

For the record: your current example of dry spots is obviously flawed. It's apparent to anyone watching (or should be) that all of your arguments so far rely heavily on equivocation, changing the meaning of "dry spot" and "challenge" to taste.

 

[Tricky]

Peter has indeed filed an application. It is on his website here. I'll comment on it with my remarks addressed to Peter in red.

***

A "pseudoscientific"claim

I, Peter Morris, The Applicant, make the following statement:

Applicant does not have any magic powers to demonstrate. Applicant does not claim the ability to read minds, see the future, heal the sick, bend metal, talk to the dead, conjure spirits or dowse. Applicant particularly emphasizes that he cannot dowse. This is not a dowsing claim

This is not an application for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. The challenge specifically states.

, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions.

Unless you can resolve this issue, then your application has no basis whatsoever.

Instead, this is a “pseudoscientific” claim: it falls into the same category of paranormal as the Plug-in Magnetizing Dispenser, Water Memory or the Tice Clock. Applicant has certain scientific theories that he is willing to demonstrate. James Randi does not believe those theories to be true.

If your "scientific theories" involved the paranormal or violations of well-established physical laws, like the items mentioned above, you might have a claim, but they do not.

Applicant declares that there is nothing supernatural or paranormal about his claim. Applicant states that the claim is perfectly “normal” and already known to science. The only unusual thing about the claim is the fact that James Randi has repeatedly expressed disbelief, has called it a "delusion" and has issued a challenge to prove it true.

A successful demonstration will not show any "paranormal" abilities. It will only demonstrate that James Randi is mistaken in his disbelief. However, James Randi describes his challenge as "prove me wrong and win a million dollars." (Swift, June 9th, 2006) Applicant's only claimed ability is the power to prove Randi wrong.

See above. Proving Randi wrong about something is not what The Challenge is about. Yes, he has made some incorrect or partially incorrect statements in the past. So what? Randi didn't say "prove me wrong about anything I've ever said". As any reasonable person would recognize, The Challenge is about "proving him wrong" about the paranormal, as stated in the first line of the challenge rules.


1. Brief statement of claim (in two paragraphs)

Every claim requires a two paragraph description. This is mine.Applicant will do the following:

• Applicant will make four statements about geology.
• Applicant will show various comments by James Randi, in which Mr Randi describes applicant’s statements as “fiction” and "delusion".
• Applicant will present data to a panel of suitably qualified geologists, which demonstrates the truth of applicant’s statements.

This is not a demonstration of any kind. I am a "qualified geologist" and I say your statements are incorrect. Other geologists might be found who disagree. Heck, you can find "scientists" who agree with creationism. The difference between your application and a challenge like "water memory" is that water memory can be demonstrated by simply asking the applicant to pick the water that has the "memory". Your challenge could be demonstrated by picking well locations in areas where aquifers are known to exist, and drilling them, but it would require a lot of money, and you'd probably lose.

2. Success and failure defined

Success in the test shall be demonstrating any ONE or more of the applicant's statements to be correct. Failure shall be if all four of the applicant’s statements are proved wrong.

But you aren't "demonstrating" anything. You aren't "proving" anything. More on this later.

i) Some underground water exists in channels that run many metres under the surface. There are several different types of channel, some of which can be correctly classified as "underground rivers."

This is a correct statement. Anyone with geological knowledge knows it. Caves and karst regions occasionally have underground streams. They are so rare, as compared to the bulk of subsurface water occurrance, that they are negligible. A person who says "ground water is not found in streams" is mostly right, with a few exceptions. I don't believe for one instant that Randi would deny this. I certainly don't think he believes underground streams to be paranormal. You are taking his offhand comments completely out of context.

ii) Water flows underground through various different structures.

Duh. Subsurface hydrology is a very complex science. I don't think it is possible, no matter how you try, to twist Randi's words to indicate that he has said that subsurface water occurs in only one setting.

iii) Underground water is hard to find. Locating a suitable spot for a well requires someone with an expert understanding of geology after making a detailed study of the area. Random drilling by someone without proper expertise is highly likely to hit a dry spot.

It depends on where you are. In some places, finding subsurface water is as simple as drilling a shallow well down to the water table. In other places, it requires much more research.

iv) Water supply is extremely variable over a short distance. It is perfectly possible to locate a well that produces several hundred gallons per minute (GPM) while another well just a few metres away can produce very little or nothing at all.

If you're talking about hitting a specific aquifer, you're right, again, depending on the location. In areas of the relatively flat coastal plain, you can't drill anywhere without hitting water. In complexly folded beds, finding a specific aquifer can be tricky, but if you drill deeply enough, you are very likely to find some aquifer. Again, I don't think you will find that Randi has indicated otherwise unless you try to extrapolate his general statement into a specific statement about specific levels of water.

4. James Randi’s disagreement

Comments made by James Randi show that he disagrees with each of Applicant’s statements: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm Applicant states that water flows along narrow underground channels.
James Randi says these are “sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.”

This is a gross misrepresentation of Randi's statements. In the area he was investigating, he is almost certainly correct. He did not say that there were no underground streams anywhere on earth. You will note that most of the dowsers in that test agreed with him that there were no underground streams in the area of their test.

Applicant says that water supply is extremely variable over a short distance, and the exact spot for a well must be carefully selected.
James Randi mocks the idea of wells that are dug with “great precision” on exact spots.

Again, this is a general statement. In areas where aquifers are known to exist, it is extremely likely to encounter water wherever you drill (within that area). There are exceptions. But this is a general statement, not a specific one.

Applicant states that underground water is hard to find, and dry areas are common.
James Randi states that “more than 90% of the world’s land mass [is] above reachable supplies of water,” and states that an ability to locate dry spots would be a “better test.”

Note that Randi does not say "potable" water. Neither does he say what "reachable" means. In general, his statement is correct.

These disagreements are the basis of the Applicant’s claim. The mere existence of these geological phenomena is paranormal, within Mr. Randi’s definition. In the 25 years since the article was written, James Randi has made similar comments many times. On numerous occasions he has issued the challenge to “find me a dry spot” or described belief in underground rivers as a “delusion.”

The belief that some (but not all) dowsers seem to have that most underground water is in rivers is in fact delusional. If you could find one by dowsing, I think that would indeed qualify as paranormal. But pay attention to the two words "find me". He does not say, "show me books".

5. Suggested test protocol

Applicant’s first and second claim is that water flows in narrow channels underground. James Randi disputes this and says that there are no underground streams and that water does not flow underground except in caves. To demonstrate his claim successfully, Applicant merely has to show ONE example of water naturally flowing underground, that isn’t in a cave.

LOL. That is a challenge that it is impossible for you to win because of the definition of a river. Rivers are subareal features. The only way it can be called a river is if it is a large space with some air above the water. Those large spaces are called "caves". So by definition, the only place an underground river can exist is in a cave, otherwise it is just water in large pore spaces. Already, Randi has shown that is statment about "underground rivers" was a general statement, not a specific one. He is quite aware that there are rare exceptions.

Applicant’s third and fourth claim is that water is fairly rare and hard to find. James Randi disagrees and says that there is a great deal of water almost everywhere. Mr Randi himself has suggested an appropriate protocol to test this claim: “find me a dry spot.” Applicant will therefore find dry spots for Mr Randi, under the following protocol:

See above. You don't get to redefine "find" or "water".

Applicant will use a totally random selection process to select spots within the test area. James Randi has stated that there is a 6% chance* of hitting a dry spot. Applicant states that purely random selection will hit dry spots with a minimum 24% success rate. That is FOUR TIMES the rate Mr Randi expects. Applicant will select 200 spots at random, of which at least 48 will be dry.
* http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/randipt.htm

Check out the "Groundwater Basics" brochure from The Groundwater foundation.

Groundwater is available, at least in small amounts, nearly everywhere, though the quantity available varies from one region to another based on geologic materials and other conditions.

Randi was making a statement supported by groundwater hydrologists.

The area for the test will be a map of the continental United States of America, excluding Hawaii, Alaska and outlying islands. Only locations without surface water will be in the test. Any spot which is a lake, river, pond, marsh, swamp, glacier or any other type of surface water feature will be excluded from the test area.

LOL. Yeah. Exclude places likely to have water? Okay, but then it should be allowed for Randi to exclude areas which aren't likely to have water.

The randomization process will be as follows. A map of the test area will be divided into a grid of 10,000 squares. The squares will be numbered from 00000 to 99999. Applicant will generate 5-digit random numbers by means of a set of random number tables as in statistical research. These tables should be supplied by an independent third party, and unseen by either the applicant or the JREF prior to the test. The spot selected will be at the exact centre of the square whose number matches the random number generated.

You are not "finding" anything, in direct opposition to Randi's very general statement. Picking a random location is not in any sense paranormal. But apart from that, your randomization seems fine, but you might not be able to access these places, however that point is moot because...

We can then consult existing geological surveys of the area to determine if each spot selected is “wet” or “dry.”

...you have no intention of testing them. This in no sense would satisfy the terms of the challenge. You haven't found anything. You haven't tested anything. I cannot fathom why you think this should qualify as a test.

6. Definition of a dry spot

James Randi issued a challenge to “find me a dry spot.” It is therefore necessary to define precisely what the term “dry spot” means.

Applicant has previously corresponded with Mr Randi attempting to establish what Mr Randi meant by “dry spot.” Mr Randi did offer a few comments including: “A dry spot would be a spot at which water is not to be found in a practical sense, in an area where water might otherwise be expected to be found.” That is therefore the definition we shall use

Could you provide a link to that statement by Randi? Oh yeah. Pay attention to the part where he says "where water might otherwise be expected to be found". That eliminates deserts, cratons and the like.

Where there is water found in only minute quantities. A well that yields less than one half of a gallon per minute (0.5 GPM) would be insufficient for any domestic, industrial or agricultural purpose. If the yield is too small to be of any use, then it would not be water “in a practical sense.”

Absolutely incorrect. Many wells in dry regions have recharge rates much slower than this. In dry areas, 360 gallons per day is more than just usable, it is a motherlode. Perhaps you're speaking of usage in large, modern households, not primative dwellings. There is a well on my grandfather's land that has a recharge rate far less than this, and it was their primary source of water. They managed to survive.

Where there is a large amount of water, but tightly bound to the particles of the soil. If the water is tightly bound to the ground, and cannot be extracted, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”


You're fine here. Groundwater, by definition, is not bound.

Where the water has been contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants, or has a too high mineral content, or is seawater. If a well produces seawater, or toxic sludge that is too badly contaminated to be of any use, then it is not water “in a practical sense.”

Partially correct, but requires a lot of quantification. All groundwater contains some contaminants. Most groundwater that we use goes through water treatment plants to make it potable or usable. Yet, it is still groundwater. If a dowser identified a spot that had contaminated water, I'm sure he'd count it as a hit because, after all, he only promised to find water.

Where the water is underneath a deep layer of very solid rock. Drilling through this layer to reach the water would be very expensive, if not impossible. If watercannot be reached, or can only be reached at great expense, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”

Again, you'd better provide some major quantification. Deep groundwater is easily economic depending on how much of it there is. As a geologist, I do not agree at all with your definition of "dry". We might be able to adjust for this by substantially changing the odds you have quoted, but you'd still have to A) locate the dry spot by paranormal means, and B) Test your location by drilling (or digging). I cannot see where your protocol has satisfied any aspect of the Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Nice work, Tricky.

However, I have little doubt that Peter Morris will continue to misunderstand the JREF Challenge because of his humongous beef with its founder. It is all over his "claim".