Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Jackalgirl]

I am going to demonstrate something that (according to Randi) IS pseudoscience. And note that I've always classed it as pseudoscience, rather than paranormal.

Well, I'd quibble with you there. Pseudoscience is not "science that James Randi believes to be untrue". Pseudoscience is made up of claims (usually devices or effects) that use scientific jargon and wording, but are unproven (and, in most cases, patently fly in the face of scientific evidence).

It seems to me that you're simply out to prove that James Randi's understanding of geology and underground water is incorrect. That isn't pseudoscience (but see more, below). Whereas the wine magenet thingie makes all kinds of claims that are patently impossible, according to known physical and chemical effects.

If it actually works accordinbg to some principle that scientists already know about, but Randi doesn't. That would mean that the device actually works, but isn't paranormal.

Absolutely. There's always the possibility that something works on completely new principles. That's what makes testing the something so exciting -- what if you did find something new? But the point is, it has to be testable, and tested. The Wine Magnet is (or was, at least) something that the MDC would be willing to test (if I'm not mistaken, Randi has already invited the inventors/sellers of the Wine Magnet, or like gadgets, to apply). So, in answer to your question:

...Suppose the guy sent in his application, and said <<it works, it's not paranormal, Randi is just wrong>> would that be a legitimate application?

The answer is "yes". Because the Wine Magnet's claimed operation flies in the face of known evidence.

See, the thing is, I make several claims. One of them is that underground rivers exist.

James Randi says that underground rivers do not exist, and that belief in them is a delusion.

According to Randi, merely claiming that they exist is pseudoscience. And pseudoscience is a legitimate claim.

It's important that you pick one claim (which is one of the central tenets of the MDC). So let's stick with this one: you believe that water can, and does, flow in underground rivers, and that Randi states that this does not occur, except in caves.

So it seems to me that what we're trying to get to is this:

1) Does modern geology (like James Randi) truly claim that water does not flow in underground rivers, except in caves? If not, Randi is simply wrong about geology. Nothing paranormal here.
2) If modern geology does also claim that water does not flow in underground river, then your claim is contrary to known science, and would probably be considered pseudoscientific. We'd need to make sure that your understanding of key concepts like "river" and "cave" is in line with what geologists claim.

Tricky, you've stated that water does not flow underground in rivers, unless it is in caves. Underwater "pipes" would be caves, yes? Peter, how could water flow in underground rivers if not in caves? What do you mean by "pores"? How large are these pores, and how are they oriented physically? Do the rivers run in one long pores, or through a series of connected pores? How is this different from a cave?

 

[Peter Morris]

Well, I'd quibble with you there. Pseudoscience is not "science that James Randi believes to be untrue".

But it's James Randi's challenge. He says what is eligible for his test. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't matter.

And, like it or not, he has stated that underground rivers don't exist, that anyone who believes in them is delusional. That makes it "pseudoscience" within the terms of the JREF challenge.

It seems to me that you're simply out to prove that James Randi's understanding of geology and underground water is incorrect.

No.

The thing is that James Randi is a complete fraud. He makes $$$ from selling stories of how HE beat "the woo-woos". The trouble is that many of the stories are sheer fabrication.

One of the lies he told is that he has challenged dowsers to "find a dry spot" and they refused. This never really happened.

Earlier in the thread it was agreed by many people that if a so-called sceptic is caught lying, then he should be condemned for it. And what better way than to actually hold him to the challenge that HE issued, under the exact terms that HE dictated?

What I'm trying to do is use Randi's own lies against him.

Absolutely. There's always the possibility that something works on completely new principles. That's what makes testing the something so exciting -- what if you did find something new?

Once again, you avoid the central part of the question.

What if Randi is just simply mistaken?

What if it works on a principle that is NOT "completely new", but instead on a principle that is completely OLD? What if the principle is known already to scientists, but not to Randi?

So, the guy takes the test, openly admits that his device isn't paranormal, and succeeds in the test.

Under this scenario, he hasn't done anything paranormal, he's merely demonstrated Randi to be wrong. Does he deserve the prize?

(if I'm not mistaken, Randi has already invited the inventors/sellers of the Wine Magnet, or like gadgets, to apply).

He ALSO invited dowsers to "find a dry spot." And by issuing the invitation, he has put finding dry spots into the same category

The answer is "yes". Because the Wine Magnet's claimed operation flies in the face of known evidence.

According to Randi it does. But what if he is mistaken about this? Could someone claim the prize simply by demonstrating his mistake?

Peter, how could water flow in underground rivers if not in caves?

Just to be clear about this, I never claimed that it does. That is Tricky's distortion of what I'm saying.

 

[Czarcasm]

Mr. Morris, read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

 

[robinson]

Gosh darn. Can you feel the excitement?

 

[Jackalgirl]

But it's James Randi's challenge. He says what is eligible for his test. You may not agree with him, but that doesn't matter.

And, like it or not, he has stated that underground rivers don't exist, that anyone who believes in them is delusional. That makes it "pseudoscience" within the terms of the JREF challenge.

No, it does not. Pseudoscience is, as I understand it, pretty well defined by the list of subjects given as acceptable in the Challenge rules. However, of course, there's no point to me saying what it is, and what's acceptable to the Challenge -- and there is also no point to you saying what it is, and what's acceptable to the Challenge. It is up to JREF to either accept your claim or not -- THEY will tell you whether it is covered by what they mean. Did they accept your claim?

The thing is that James Randi is a complete fraud. He makes $$$ from selling stories of how HE beat "the woo-woos". The trouble is that many of the stories are sheer fabrication.

Okay, I stand corrected. The real problem is that you have a major beef with James Randi. I think I said so much before in another post, but I probably got off track, so thanks for setting me straight.

One of the lies he told is that he has challenged dowsers to "find a dry spot" and they refused. This never really happened.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to wade through your site to find the specific source for this claim. Since you are more on top of things than I, please post a link to your evidence for this. I am looking specifically for a video or website in which James Randi lays down this challenge, and makes the claim that the dowsers refused -- or a video of dowsers accepting this.

Earlier in the thread it was agreed by many people that if a so-called sceptic is caught lying, then he should be condemned for it. And what better way than to actually hold him to the challenge that HE issued, under the exact terms that HE dictated?

That's not what you're doing. Perhaps you're trying to do it, but you're not. Remember: to apply for the Challenge, pick ONE CLAIM (not several). Find out from JREF (challenge@randi.org) whether this claim fulfills the requirements. I believe that the Challenge is about the paranormal and about pseudoscience -- in other words, testing claims that run contrary to known science, but Jeff will correct me if I'm wrong. If your claim fits JREF's rules regarding the Challenge, fine. Go for it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Once again, you avoid the central part of the question.

What if Randi is just simply mistaken?

What if it works on a principle that is NOT "completely new", but instead on a principle that is completely OLD? What if the principle is known already to scientists, but not to Randi?

So, the guy takes the test, openly admits that his device isn't paranormal, and succeeds in the test.

Under this scenario, he hasn't done anything paranormal, he's merely demonstrated Randi to be wrong. Does he deserve the prize?

I see where you're going with this; sorry it took me so long to pick up on this.

Randi and Jeff are smart enough to check to make sure that the claim is paranormal before they accept it, so I think it's highly unlikely that they'll fall for something that is scientific (i.e., something that science knows and they don't). Plus, they have a highly educated and extremely motivated group of supporters, both in and out of this Forum.

But...could it happen? Conceivably so. Would they, or should they, be held to paying out the bucks if this happens? Yes, I think so (though I warn you, I'm no lawyer). And they will. Because by accepting a claim and its attendant protocol (once that protocol has been mutually agreed to), they are subjecting themselves to a contract.

However, I imagine that if JREF can prove, in a court of law, that someone entered into the Challenge with the intent to defraud, they'd have a form of defense.

...Could someone claim the prize simply by demonstrating his mistake?

No. That's not what the Challenge is about, according to its own set of rules. The rules and the application are what makes the contract (with both parties' signature, which happens after the protocol is settled).

I've noticed that you're mixing "he's made a mistake" with "he's lying". If you want to prove that Randi is lying, you have to make the case that he willingly, with intent, stated a falsehood.

So what is it: does Randi know that underground rivers exist in some other medium than caves and he's purposefully lying about it to insult dowsers (or for whatever reason)? Or is he simply mistaken?

He ALSO invited dowsers to "find a dry spot." And by issuing the invitation, he has put finding dry spots into the same category

I don't follow how challenging dowsers to find a dry spot has anything to do with pseudoscientific gadgets. His point about the dry spot was made, as has been pointed out to you before many times, in the context of dowsers claiming that they have special powers because they can find water. If you want to prove him wrong IN THIS CONTEXT, you need to find a dry spot USING DOWSING. I don't believe that Randi ever said that it was impossible to find a dry spot by any means. He was talking about dowsing.

About underground rivers:

Just to be clear about this, I never claimed that it does. That is Tricky's distortion of what I'm saying.

Ummmm, what? Here's a quote from your website:

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." ...

To demonstrate his claim successfully, Applicant merely has to show ONE example of water naturally flowing underground, that isn’t in a cave.

So...you're now not claiming that there are underground rivers that are not in caves?

 

[Dancing David]

From the American Heritage Dictionary

Hmm, the rate of movement of water through some aquiferes, and they can be sandy and gravelly and just pores in rock would not be "run" or "pour" It can take thousands of years to go thousands of miles.

So in common parlance that would not be flow, but more creep.

Still irrelevant to the Challenge Application.


I don't think you can base an application on the basis of Randi's use of the word 'flow'. How does that fit in the Challenge application? Could you recite the verse in the Challenge rules upon which that claim would be part of the Challenge?

Hmm?

 

[Peter Morris]

No, it does not. Pseudoscience is, as I understand it, pretty well defined by the list of subjects given as acceptable in the Challenge rules. However, of course, there's no point to me saying what it is, and what's acceptable to the Challenge -- and there is also no point to you saying what it is, and what's acceptable to the Challenge. It is up to JREF to either accept your claim or not -- THEY will tell you whether it is covered by what they mean. Did they accept your claim?

The point is that Randi has stated that my claim is pseudoscience. Not just once, but repeatedly over 25 years or more. And he has issued a challenge to prove my claims. The point is, that Randi has said repeatedly that my claim IS challenge eligible. You, or Tricky may disagree, but it's Randi's test. He gets to say what's eligible, and this is eligible according to him.

Of course, now that I've actually applied, they are reluctant to discuss it, and are trying to find a way to back out of it. That's just him trying to break his own rules. But it is him that's breaking them, not me.

Okay, I stand corrected. The real problem is that you have a major beef with James Randi.

As a sceptic I've got a beef with ANYONE that uses pseudoscience to make a profit for themself at the expense of mugs. You ought to, as well.

please post a link to your evidence for this. I am looking specifically for a video or website in which James Randi lays down this challenge, and makes the claim that the dowsers refused -- or a video of dowsers accepting this.

Look here : http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm

This is James Randi's words. << I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>

So there you are, there's Randi issuing the challenge, making the claim that the dowsers refused.

I have applied for the challenge that he set, exactly under his terms. And my application is legitimate because he issued the challenge.

I see where you're going with this; sorry it took me so long to pick up on this.

Randi and Jeff are smart enough to check to make sure that the claim is paranormal before they accept it

That's the trouble. I really don't think they are particularly smart. Randi has no judgment of his own whether things are rational or not. Sometimes he endorses things that are false. Sometimes he attacks things that are true. Mostly he just copies what other people have said, without showing much sign of actually understanding it.

so I think it's highly unlikely that they'll fall for something that is scientific (i.e., something that science knows and they don't)... But...could it happen? Conceivably so. Would they, or should they, be held to paying out the bucks if this happens? Yes, I think so

Thank you. That is EXACTLY what my claim is all about. It's something that science knows, and they don't. And in their ignorance they have issued a challenge on it. And they should be held to paying out the bucks.

I've noticed that you're mixing "he's made a mistake" with "he's lying". If you want to prove that Randi is lying, you have to make the case that he willingly, with intent, stated a falsehood.

Easy.

1) he boasted in his lectures << I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. ... my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. >>

2) He admitted in correspondence with me that his story was a fabrication. It never really happened.
<< I have never suggested, to any individual dowser, that he/she find a dry spot. That was a general figure of speech. >>
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/preliminary.aspx

But for the rest, well Randi just tells stories designed to make himself look clever and heroic. He usually just says any old thing, and doesn't care at all whether they are true or not.

For instance, he wants to make dowsers look foolish, so he tells people that dowsers believe in underground rivers, aren't they stupid because there's no such thing, let's all laugh at the woo-woos for their delusion that underground rivers exist.

He has never bothered to do a stroke of research on the matter. He doesn't know or care whether underground rivers exist. Before I applied for his challenge I attempted to point out to him that he is wrong about this. He just seethed with rage, called me a grubby, and went right on saying the same things.

About underground rivers: Here's a quote from your website:

<<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." ...>>

So...you're now not claiming that there are underground rivers that are not in caves?

No that is NOT what I'm claiming. That is a strawman invented by Tricky. The word is CHANNELS not rivers. There are various types of CHANNEL. Some of them are rivers. Some of them aren't. And I have been careful to make the distinction.

I'm claiming that there are underground CHANNELS that aren't in caves. Water flows through these CHANNELS. These CHANNELS are not rivers, and I never claimed they were. They are river-like in some ways, but they aren't rivers.

 

[Peter Morris]

Hmm?

If you disagree with my claim, that's just fine. Kindly write to Randi, telling him that you don't believe me, and that he should perform the test and prove that I'm wrong.

Hmm?

 

[Moochie]

If you disagree with my claim, that's just fine. Kindly write to Randi, telling him that you don't believe me, and that he should perform the test and prove that I'm wrong.

Hmm?

Suggest you get back on your meds, pronto.

M.

 

[Jackalgirl]

The point is that Randi has stated that my claim is pseudoscience. Not just once, but repeatedly over 25 years or more. And he has issued a challenge to prove my claims. The point is, that Randi has said repeatedly that my claim IS challenge eligible. You, or Tricky may disagree, but it's Randi's test. He gets to say what's eligible, and this is eligible according to him.

Okay, so Randi said to you, Peter Morris, that your claim is pseudoscience? Your claim is "James Randi is wrong about geology, and I'm going to prove it with this series of geologically-related statements." When did he say that that particular claim is pseudoscience? Do you have a link?

As a sceptic I've got a beef with ANYONE that uses pseudoscience to make a profit for themself at the expense of mugs. You ought to, as well.

I have never come to understand that James Randi has done such a thing. Your arguments have not convinced me, because they are not particularly well thought-out and involve the same kind of slippery definition of terms that I find so frustrating in the arguments of many applicants.

Look here : http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm

This is James Randi's words. << I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>

So there you are, there's Randi issuing the challenge, making the claim that the dowsers refused.

Thank you for the link. Where is the evidence that dowsers have accepted his challenge, and that he is being deliberately deceitful in claiming that they have not? You are not a dowser, nor are you proposing using dowsing, so you do not count.

Again, if you are simply here to prove that Randi's geological statements are incorrect -- if it's not 94%, for example -- that's another thing entirely. Is that what you are saying? What is the actual percentage?

I have applied for the challenge that he set, exactly under his terms. And my application is legitimate because he issued the challenge.

Incorrect. He issued the challenge to dowsers. You will not be dowsing. Therefore, your application is not a direct answer to his challenge.

Thank you. That is EXACTLY what my claim is all about. It's something that science knows, and they don't. And in their ignorance they have issued a challenge on it. And they should be held to paying out the bucks.

I'm in complete agreement with you here, in that it is entirely possible for JREF to mistakenly claim something as pseudoscientific when it is not. So far, though, I have not seen anything like this ever happen. Dowsing is pseudoscientific. Wine magnets are pseudoscientific. Finding evidence of water using established scientific procedure (i.e., geological surveys) is not. Finding evidence of science using dowsing rods is. Proving that James Randi is wrong, in terms of his understanding of the fine details of geology, is not a big deal and is not the point of the Challenge. Proving James Randi wrong, in terms of his understanding of the failure of dowsing to work, is.

2) He admitted in correspondence with me that his story was a fabrication. It never really happened.
<< I have never suggested, to any individual dowser, that he/she find a dry spot. That was a general figure of speech. >>

Once again, you take things out of context. In the Caltech speech, he was speaking to dowsers in general. It probably would have been better for him to say "they won't want to do it" rather than "they don't want to do it", IMHO, because the latter presumes to speak for all dowsers, whereas the former is simply a prediction. But I see this as no evidence of perfidity on his part.

No that is NOT what I'm claiming. That is a strawman invented by Tricky. The word is CHANNELS not rivers. There are various types of CHANNEL. Some of them are rivers. Some of them aren't. And I have been careful to make the distinction.

I'm claiming that there are underground CHANNELS that aren't in caves. Water flows through these CHANNELS. These CHANNELS are not rivers, and I never claimed they were. They are river-like in some ways, but they aren't rivers.

Your application clearly states that you are talking about underground rivers ("There are several different types of channel, some of which can be correctly classified as "underground rivers"), in the context of proving Randi wrong about his statement that water does not flow underground in rivers except in caves. Hence, you must only be talking about rivers that are flowing through "channels". What, exactly, constitutes a channel that a river flows through? What are its physical properties? Is it, for example, a cave? And, just to make things clear, we're not talking about trickles, or streams, or steady seepage, we're talking about significant coherent flows of water, yes? And are all of the definitions that you use (for "river", "channel", and "cave") consistent with those used by geologists?

 

[maatorc]

....... But doesn't the fact that Randi is risking the loss of his appointed organizational funds (and possibly, his reputation), place him in a position of non-neutrality and bias in scientifically or objectively determining what or who (de facto) is or isn't paranormal?........

Mr. Randi is not in question here: The JREF MDC and the claimant agree what they mutually accept as a 'paranormal' power or event.

This power or event does not actually have to be a proven 'paranormal' power or event. In fact there are no known scientifically proven 'paranormal' powers or events, and there are currently no known scientific methods to prove or disprove whether such powers exist or such events occur.

It is important to note that the JREF MDC is not an undertaking to prove that something is 'paranormal' but is a challenge for someone to do something that both parties agree to accept and describe as 'paranormal' even though there is no proof that it is 'paranormal'.

If the claimant agrees to and satisfies the protocol then $1MD is won. The JREF Forum site arguments about a winner being paid are all nonsense, and can be ignored.

 

[Peter Morris]

Okay, so Randi said to you, Peter Morris, that your claim is pseudoscience? Your claim is "James Randi is wrong about geology, and I'm going to prove it with this series of geologically-related statements." When did he say that that particular claim is pseudoscience? Do you have a link?

You've had the link already, and you know it.

No matter how many times I present the evidence you WILL ignore it.

I have never come to understand that James Randi has done such a thing.

The evidence is pretty plain. You have just convinced yourself otherwise, and WONT see it.

If you try thinking critically about Randi instead of believing, then its obvious.

Thank you for the link. Where is the evidence that dowsers have accepted his challenge, and that he is being deliberately deceitful in claiming that they have not?

The deceit on Randi's part is claiming that :

1) he OFFERED the test to dowsers.
2) they turned him down.

The truth, by his own admission, is that he never made the offer in the first place.

Randi's statement <<I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way... my challenge is to find a dry spot! >> Is a lie. He has never really given dowsers that challenge.

Randi's statement << They don't want to do it.>> is a lie. He has never given them ther opportunity to do it.

You are not a dowser, nor are you proposing using dowsing, so you do not count.

wrong. Of course I count.

Incorrect. He issued the challenge to dowsers. You will not be dowsing. Therefore, your application is not a direct answer to his challenge.

wrong. Please look at what Randi ACTUALLY said. Take a look at the challenge he actually issued, rather than what you imagine he said.

Randi has issued various challenges on different occasions. One of them goes like this: I don't believe dowsing works, prove me wrong.

I have not applied for that one. I'm not a dowser and don't pretend to be.

A different challenge he has issued goes like this: <<Find me a dry spot, because it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough. >>
http://www.bestfilmfests.com/review-divining-mom.htm

He has claimed that dry spots are very rare. He asserts that as a certain fact. The challenge is to "find a dry spot" which will prove his statements about geology to be wrong.

Once again, this claim is in the same category as the wine magnet. He has said that the wine magnets don't work, and issued a challenge to prove him wrong. He has said that dry spots are very rare, and has issued a challenge to prove him wrong. It's the same thing.

And I accept his challenge.

I'm in complete agreement with you here, in that it is entirely possible for JREF to mistakenly claim something as pseudoscientific when it is not. So far, though, I have not seen anything like this ever happen. Dowsing is pseudoscientific. Wine magnets are pseudoscientific.

And - according to Randi, underground rivers don't exist, so talking about them is pseudoscientific.

Once again, you take things out of context.

On the contrary. I'm putting them into perspective. I've shown exactly what Randi said, and your attempts to make excuses for him will not change that.

Your application clearly states that you are talking about underground rivers ("There are several different types of channel, some of which can be correctly classified as "underground rivers"),

Read carefully.

My application clearly states that I am talking about underground rivers AND OTHER STRUCTURES.

I make it very plain that I am talking about OTHER STRUCTURES as well as rivers.

I don't know how it could be any more plain.

Tricky has totally distorted my words. You seem content to believe his straw man. I did not say what he claims I said.

 

[Czarcasm]

Mr. Morris, read the application protocols, fill out an application as set forth by the protocols, and wait for a response.

 

[Cuddles]

Randi's statement <<I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way... my challenge is to find a dry spot! >> Is a lie. He has never really given dowsers that challenge.

Randi's statement << They don't want to do it.>> is a lie. He has never given them ther opportunity to do it.wrong. Please look at what Randi ACTUALLY said. Take a look at the challenge he actually issued, rather than what you imagine he said.

Why don't you try looking at what he actually said? Your first quote cannot possibly be a lie, since that sentance is a challenge. He is not saying that at some time in the past he issued this challenge, he saying that right there he is challenging them. How can he not have issued them this challenge when the very quote you are saying is a lie is in fact issuing it?

The second quote could be a lie, but where is your evidence? He has never given them an opportunity? Are you really claiming the Million Dollar Challenge doesn't exist? Or that Randi will exclude all dowsers from it? If a dowser applies for the challenge, whether they want to find dry spots or not, then it will be accepted, as long as they comply with the rules, and actually have been in the past. The fact is that very few of them have applied, and none have tried to find dry spots. What else can Randi assume other than they don't want to do it? It really is very simple logic. Dowsers don't apply for the challenge, therefore they don't want to apply for the challenge? How is it a lie to state this?

All this aside, you have had it explained several times why your challenge is not acceptable. Firstly, you did not follow the very simple instructions for the application. You made more than one claim and stated very clearly that you are not making a paranormal claim. Both of these things make it perfectly acceptable for the JREF to reject your application out of hand. Secondly, your protocol does not even attempt to test anything. The specific statement that you are making your claim about is that Randi has said that if you drill deep enough almost anywhere you will find some water. In order to test this you would actually have to drill, yet all you propose doing is looking at some old survey charts. To put it very simply, you have have failed to make a claim that is elligible for the challenge, you have failed to follow the application procedure and you have failed to provide a valid test protocol.

A final thing worth noting is that it is Randi's challenge, and he can accept or reject whoever he likes. Even if you had not failed quite so miserably at making an application, where even severely mentaly disturbed people have managed, you have made it quite clear that you have no intent of following the spirit of the challenge. That is, finding evidence for the paranormal and exposing frauds and dellusions. Even if you made a valid claim I doubt you would ever be accepted because you have proven yourself such a nasty, mean spirited person and Randi has no obligation to test people like you.

 

[Peter Morris]

Why don't you try looking at what he actually said?

I've done so.

You want to pretend he said something else. All your pretense won't change what he said.

All this aside, you have had it explained several times why your challenge is not acceptable.

No, I've not been given ONE valid reason.

Take for instance the fact that my ability isn't paranormal. I state openly that I have no paranormal ability, that what I can do is fully known to science already. This is NOT a barrier to entry. Most of the people that Randi challenges say their claim isn't paranormal. Randi doesn't want to hear it.

All they have to do is prove their claim. It doesn't matter how it works, all that matters is that you can show that it does work. Paranormal or not, succeed in Randi's challenge and you win.

Of course, many of his supporters ignore what Randi says. They chose to rewrite the challenge rules in their own minds.


Fact is, I studied the rules very carefully before applying, and followed them to the letter. The real trouble, the thing that you just don't want to face is that Randi's rules are extremely stupid.

It was Randi who issued the demand << find me a dry spot. >> I have agreed to do that. Now, the challenge that Randi set is really really stupid. He doesn't know how to run a test. The protocol that he set is deeply flawed in principle. And that is totally Randi's fault.

Instead of yelling at ME about the flaws in the protocol, you should be yelling at Randi instead. Why did he come up with such a stupid test in the first place? Why did he lie about issuing it to dowsers? All your anger should be directed at him, because it's his test, his rules, his conditions. All I have done is accept them as he set them. It's not my fault that his rules are stupid.

A final thing worth noting is that it is Randi's challenge, and he can accept or reject whoever he likes.

Oh yes, of course he can. That's why his challenge isn't remotely credible as an argument against the paranormal.

Basically he is saying << I will pay $1M to anyone that succeeds in my challenge. Oh, by the way, I reserve the right to refuse to test anyone that I think might win. And after I've issued a challenge, I am under no obligation to actually honour it >>

It's for this reason that most people just laugh when Randi is cited.

I can't make Randi honour his promise. All I can do is make the fact public. He issued the challenge, I accepted, and he chickened out.

 

[Moochie]

I can't make Randi honour his promise. All I can do is make the fact public. He issued the challenge, I accepted, and he chickened out.

All you've "proven" is that you are delusional and in need of help. I suggest you seek such help before continuing your Quixotic crusade, as much as your doing so might amuse us.

M.

 

[Jackalgirl]

You've had the link already, and you know it.

I've been through your site. I don't see any place on there where James Randi specifically accepts your claim, or states that your claim is paranormal or otherwise acceptable in regards to the Challenge. I'm talking about James Randi talking specifically to you.

I will point out that yes, I am lazy, and no, I did not follow all of the links in your site to fully exhaust all of the information to its lowest level. However, in my own defense, I don't think I have to. You came here with these claims; it would behoove you to produce decent quotations in this thread. Expecting us wade through your entire site to find one or two examples of statements is, frankly, pretty arrogant, considering that you came here and presented this accustation here. It's your claim, you present the supporting evidence, here, to support it, rather than just brushing us off with "go read my website".

No matter how many times I present the evidence you WILL ignore it.

I think I've already established that this is not the case; in point of fact, it took me several tries to grok the essential point you were trying to make (asking whether it would in fact be possible for JREF to think that something not paranormal is). But, once I realized that was the thrust of your question, I admitted I was wrong. I am, despite what you may think of me, open to argument. I just don't see you presenting any evidence. Oh, it could be evidence, if you were committed to seeing it just so and interpreting it just so, but I've already pointed out that, and why, I don't think a reasonable person would come to that conclusion.

Yes, I fully admit that I am a Randi fan and support him. However, when he says stuff I don't agree with, I actually do and will disagree, as can be seen in this post in which I express dismay at what appeared to be, for all intents and purposes, an example of plagerism on his part. So could you please stop inventing a position and viewpoint for me and simply address what my points?

The evidence is pretty plain. You have just convinced yourself otherwise, and WONT see it.

Incorrect. I have rebutted your points, with what I think are fairly solid arguments. You have not addressed my rebuttals with anything other than an ad hominem attack at my supposed inability to see evidence.

The deceit on Randi's part is claiming that :

1) he OFFERED the test to dowsers.
2) they turned him down.

The truth, by his own admission, is that he never made the offer in the first place.

Okay, I'll buy this. He made a general statement about "them", without defining who "they" were, and in truth hadn't actually been turned down by dowsers who were challenged to find a dry spot. I'll agree that this is a bit disingenuous, but I don't see it as deceit. I see it as exaggeration. But at that point, we're just quibbling semantics in regards to his intent, which neither of us can really know.

However, how many dowsers have since said, "oh yeah? Well, I accept your challenge!" The closest example I can find to this is edge, who dowsed for "gold coins" (actually Sacagwea (sp?) dollars), instead of a "dry spot".

Randi's statement <<I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way... my challenge is to find a dry spot! >> Is a lie. He has never really given dowsers that challenge.

Incorrect. The tense he was using is present tense, which means that he was, at that moment, issuing the challenge.

Randi's statement << They don't want to do it.>> is a lie. He has never given them ther opportunity to do it.

Incorrect. The MDC is their opportunity to do it. It has been there all along. So far -- to the best of my knowledge, and I could be wrong -- no dowser has applied with the extent purpose of finding a dry spot.

wrong. Of course I count.

Oh, so you'll be dowsing? When did you change your mind about this?

wrong. Please look at what Randi ACTUALLY said. Take a look at the challenge he actually issued, rather than what you imagine he said.

Randi has issued various challenges on different occasions. One of them goes like this: I don't believe dowsing works, prove me wrong.

I have been reading everything he said. Over and over. Trying to understand where you're coming from. I cannot, reading his statements in their context, understand how what he is saying is applying to anything other than dowsing. He is talking about dowsing, and why it doesn't work, to dowsers. The challenge is to dowsers. How can you possibly think that what he said doesn't have to do with dowsing? I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read that into what he said without taking it completely out of context. The main thrust of his argument, and his challenge, is that dowsing does not work.

A different challenge he has issued goes like this: <<Find me a dry spot, because it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough. >>

Your URL, to a review of a moving called "Divining Mom", is a review of a movie about dowsing. The quotes in that movie from James Randi are about dowsing. He is talking about double-blinded tests, which have shown that dowsing does not work, and explaining why dowsing does not work. Again, it's all in the context of dowsing.

He has claimed that dry spots are very rare. He asserts that as a certain fact. The challenge is to "find a dry spot" which will prove his statements about geology to be wrong.

Once again, this claim is in the same category as the wine magnet. He has said that the wine magnets don't work, and issued a challenge to prove him wrong. He has said that dry spots are very rare, and has issued a challenge to prove him wrong. It's the same thing.

Once again, you are wrong. The difference between you and the wine magnet people is that their claim is pseudoscientific. They SAY that it isn't, but it IS. The functioning of their gadget is scientifically impossible according to what we presently know about science. It's not an issue of science simply not knowing how wine magents work. The claimed functioning of their product is in direct contradition to what we know about physics and chemistry. It doesn't matter what they say, because their claim is patently unscientific.

This is really important. Do you understand that something can be pseudoscientific as all get out, and that people can claim that it's not, and that claiming that it's not doesn't somehow "make" it scientific?

YOUR claim, on the other hand, is that Randi is wrong about geology -- in short, you're seeking to prove that he's a blowhard who's talking out his behind when it comes to geology. That is completely different from the nature of his challenge to dowsers, which is not to prove him wrong about geology but to prove him wrong about dowsing.

And - according to Randi, underground rivers don't exist, so talking about them is pseudoscientific.

EXCEPT IN CAVES. Which is actually part of his statement, as quoted by you on your own web page:

<< There are no streams of water flowing underground. There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers. >>

This is your own page I'm quoting from, Peter.

My application clearly states that I am talking about underground rivers AND OTHER STRUCTURES.

I make it very plain that I am talking about OTHER STRUCTURES as well as rivers.

This particular point of Randi's, which you seek to disprove, states that there are no naturally flowing streams of underground water except in caves. What are these OTHER STRUCTURES that you're talking about? Are you talking about things other than "rivers" or "naturally flowing streams"? If so, they don't apply to disproving this particular statement of Randi's. Are you talking about structures other than caves? If so, what are they?

Mind you, I realize you have all kinds of other points that you want to disprove. I'm just wanting to stick with one at a time (which you will be required to do in any application for the Challenge): in what cases do flowing streams of underground water, aka rivers, occur when NOT in caves?

Please, please, please address my points. My specific points. Please don't just keep telling me over and over again that I'm blind or stupid or wrong. Tell me HOW my specific points are incorrect, rather than simply repeating over and over again that they are incorrect. Provide quotes to prove your points, as I have.

 

[chillzero]

Fact is, I studied the rules very carefully before applying, and followed them to the letter. The real trouble, the thing that you just don't want to face is that Randi's rules are extremely stupid.

It was Randi who issued the demand << find me a dry spot. >> I have agreed to do that. Now, the challenge that Randi set is really really stupid. He doesn't know how to run a test. The protocol that he set is deeply flawed in principle. And that is totally Randi's fault.

So, your claim actually is that you will find a dry spot using dowsing? That's not what I thought you had been saying so far.

 

[Cuddles]

No, I've not been given ONE valid reason.

I gave three valid reasons in my previous post, although since you apparently ignored all the parts that proved you wrong I suppose I'd better say them again.

Firstly, you say you do not have a paranormal claim. No matter how much you whine about it, this means Randi has no reason to test you. Yes, lots of people say their claims aren't paranormal, but that does not somehow mean that Randi must test everyone who says they don't have a paranormal claim. In many cases, Randi disagree with their assessment and tests them anyway. However, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to reject everyone who says this, since he wants to test paranormal claims. In your case, he agrees that your claim is not paranormal and therefore has no reason to test you.

The second reason is that you did not follow the application rules, no matter how much you whine that you did. The rules say very clearly that only one claim can be made per application. You made more than one claim, therefore your application is invalid. In many cases the JREF will work with the applicant to narrow it down to one claim, but the fact remains that this is perfectly valid reason to reject your claim.

Finally, you have not proposed a valid test protocol. You claim that you can find a dry spot, but propose looking at old maps to confirm it. This is not acceptable, to confirm that no water can be found by drilling you would atually have to drill. This is not necessarily a barrier to your application being accepted, but once accepted you have a year to negotiate a test and you have made no attempt to do so. Since it has been over a year since you applied and you have not submitted an acceptable test protocol the JREF are well withing their rights to reject your application.

 

[Peter Morris]

I've been through your site. I don't see any place on there where James Randi specifically accepts your claim, or states that your claim is paranormal or otherwise acceptable in regards to the Challenge.

It was James Randi who issued the challenge. He set the terms of the challenge, and I accepted the terms he set.

He doesn't have to "accept" my application. The challenge is right there, made by him. Acceptance is up to me, not him.

I'm talking about James Randi talking specifically to you.

Irrelevant. Randi's challenge was made in public. Anyone out there is entitled to accept. It was an offer made to all the world, that includes me, and everyone else.

Incorrect. I have rebutted your points, with what I think are fairly solid arguments. You have not addressed my rebuttals with anything other than an ad hominem attack at my supposed inability to see evidence.

You may think you have, but I disagree. Care to run them by me again? What are your solid arguments, exactly?

The only argument I see is that it's not paranormal. And you have admitted that it doesn't have to be so. You have agreed that IF Randi issues a challenge for eg the wine magnet, and someone proves that it works, then Randi should pay up, even if it doesn't work by paranormal means. You have agreed that proving Randi wrong on something like that is enough.

I put it to you that saying <<Find me a dry spot >> is exactly the same as that. And you have not given any reasonable argument why not.

Okay, I'll buy this. He made a general statement about "them", without defining who "they" were, and in truth hadn't actually been turned down by dowsers who were challenged to find a dry spot. I'll agree that this is a bit disingenuous, but I don't see it as deceit. I see it as exaggeration. But at that point, we're just quibbling semantics in regards to his intent, which neither of us can really know.

The fact is that he does this ALL THE FREAKING TIME. A lot, if not all of his stories are twisted iand distorted in his favour.

Its just that on this particular occasion he shot himself in the foot with his lies.

Claiming that he issued the challenge and was turned down is a lie. But it counts as issuing the challenge. And, having issued the challenge, I am free to accept.

However, how many dowsers have since said, "oh yeah? Well, I accept your challenge!"

Well, I have at least. I'd bet that there have been dozens of others, but Randi will never tell you about those.

The fact that I'm not a dowser doesn't matter.

Incorrect. The tense he was using is present tense, which means that he was, at that moment, issuing the challenge.

He'd been saying the same thing for years before that occasion.

Incorrect. The MDC is their opportunity to do it. It has been there all along. So far -- to the best of my knowledge, and I could be wrong -- no dowser has applied with the extent purpose of finding a dry spot.

Why would they? It simply wouldn't occur to them to do so. If someone claims ther ability to find water, why would they demonstrate this by NOT finding water? Only Randi says that this is an appropriate demonstration of skill. Everyone else thinks that hitting dry spots is normal.

But I'll say this. If someone applies as a dowser, and Randi tells the applicant << instead of finding water, find a dry spot instead>> then you can bet he'd accept that test.

I have been reading everything he said. Over and over. Trying to understand where you're coming from. I cannot, reading his statements in their context, understand how what he is saying is applying to anything other than dowsing. He is talking about dowsing, and why it doesn't work, to dowsers. The challenge is to dowsers.

Makes no difference.

How can you possibly think that what he said doesn't have to do with dowsing? I honestly do not understand how you could possibly read that into what he said without taking it completely out of context.

I don't think that at all.

The main thrust of his argument, and his challenge, is that dowsing does not work.

That's only PART of what he says. There's a lot more to it than that. There are TWO challenges that he has issued to dowsers.

First of all, he states that dowsing does not work, and dares anyone to prove him wrong on this. Anyone is entitled to demonstrate dowsing, and win a million dollars.

A second challenge he has made is this: he states that dowsers' claims about geology are delusions. He says that underground rivers don't exist, and that dowsers are delusional for believing in them. He says that water does not flow underground except in caves. He says that water is NOT hard to find, contrary to what dowsers claim. He says that water does NOT vary from spot to spot, that a well in this spot, or 100 metres away makes no difference, you'd get the same amount of water.And having said all this, he makes his dare to dowsers: prove himwrong to win the prize. Show that dowsers' notions of geology are true and win. Randi says there are no dry spots to find, so find a dry spot and win. Any dry spot will do. Prove that they exist, when Randi says they are a delusion. That's the challenge he made.

Once again, you are wrong. The difference between you and the wine magnet people is that their claim is pseudoscientific. They SAY that it isn't, but it IS. The functioning of their gadget is scientifically impossible according to what we presently know about science.

According to Randi, that is true about my claim too. If you believe Randi, the existence of underground rivers is scientifically impossible according to what we presently know about geology. If you believe Randi, then dry spots are very rare, and finding them is scientifically impossible according to what we presently know about geology.

This is really important. Do you understand that something can be pseudoscientific as all get out, and that people can claim that it's not, and that claiming that it's not doesn't somehow "make" it scientific?

This is really important. James Randi has been saying for 25 years or more that my claims ARE pseudoscientific as all get out. James Randi says my claims about geology are in the same category as the wine magnet, therefore I am entitled to apply.

YOUR claim, on the other hand, is that Randi is wrong about geology

My claim is that I am able to do something that Randi specifically said was impossible.

This particular point of Randi's, which you seek to disprove, states that there are no naturally flowing streams of underground water except in caves.

Wrong. That is an invention by Tricky which distorts my statements totally. Tricky is a liar. I have told you this several times, and I am fed up of repeating it.


Randi made two statements.
1) Underground rivers do not exist
2) water underground ONLY flows in caves and nowhere else.

Tricky has cut and pated bits from that and made Randi say << underground rivers only exist in caves and nowhere else >>

Then he pretends that I disagree with that. He has distorted Randi's words totally. Randi did not say that in any essay I've read. And if he did, I would not disagree with it.

I disagree with Randi's actual words, and state in response :

1) Underground rivers DO exist.
2) Water flows in structures outside of caves.


There are all sorts of structures outside of caves where water flows underground. They are not rivers And I have ALWAYS made that point clear.

As an example, there are beds of gravel and sand underground. Water flows through the beds, around the grains. There you have water flowing underground. It's not in a cave, and nobody would describe it as a river. I have always been clear on this point that these structures are NOT rivers.

in what cases do flowing streams of underground water, aka rivers, occur when NOT in caves?

They don't, and I have never claimed they do.

Tricky' claims that I said this, but I didn't. He is a liar. I've told you several times not to believe him.

Please, please, please address my points. My specific points. Please don't just keep telling me over and over again that I'm blind or stupid or wrong. Tell me HOW my specific points are incorrect, rather than simply repeating over and over again that they are incorrect. Provide quotes to prove your points, as I have.

Done at great length already. Several times. In fact, the reason that I set up my website was to answer questions like yours. Everything you ask is addressed there, with quotes and references to support it. If you don't want to read it, that's not my fault.