Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Doubt]

Actually, what always happens is that I point out facts and truth about Randi, get a load of abuse from his worshipers, eventually get tired and leave.

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

You have never pointed out evidence of me being wrong. What you have done is invent opinions for me, attack your own strawmen, and claim victory in the teeth of the evidence.

Show me one straw man that I have made for you. Show me an opinion I have invented for you. Put up or shut up. Or this post of yours will get used against you too.

The best evidence of you being wrong is that you keep trying to turn a general statement of a challenge into an MDC challenge. I wonder if Randi challenged you to a spelling bee would you demand the million if you won?

I have no doubt that you are going to tell lie after lie after lie through the remainder of this thread. It's what you always do.

Quote one lie I have told about you.

 

[Doubt]

Yeah, as predicted, too scared.

Now, how about actually answering the questions for real?

[sound of crickets]

I defer to Tricky's answers. Not to easy to argue with a geologist on this sort of subject.

 

[Jackalgirl]

...So, I submitted a formal application for the challenge, following all the rules to the letter. The application form properly filled in, accompanied by a notarised affidavit. A two paragraph description of what I can do, and all the other things he wants as well. I gave a description of what would constitute a success and what would be a failure. I gave a detailed description of the protocol. Essentially the same protocol that Randi himself had proposed.

You know what? He has refused to even discuss it. He will not even speak about it. I am trying to negotiate a test with him, my letters aren't answered. They are simply ignored.He will not discuss performing the very test that he proposed....

Hi, Peter, and welcome to the Forum --

I have a couple of questions about your Challenge application. First off, could you let us know when you sent it in (the date)? Was this when the Challenge was being administrated by Kramer, or after Jeff had taken over?

Did you submit it under the name "Peter Morris"? I can't find anything in the Challenge Application Forum with that name, so if you submitted it under a different name and the application was posted, would you please link to it (or let me know under what name you applied, and I'll be glad to find it and link to it)?

You mentioned that you sent a notarized affidavit -- I'm assuming that you also notarized the application; is that a correct assumption?

If the Application was never posted, would you please be so kind as to post it, here, in full? If you do not have it in electronic form, and don't relish the thought of typing it in, please consider sending me a PM to find out how to email a scanned image of it to me. I would be more than happy to type it in for you (I type pretty quickly).

The reason why I'm asking this is that you describe an Application which seems to fit the bill; however -- and please don't take this personally, it's not a slam on you! -- there are many, many, many Applications (as seen by the Challenge Application thread) that don't even come close. By posting your Application here, you'd be providing direct evidence that you posted a coherent Application that conformed to the rules. It would help us judge -- on its own merits -- your claim that you were handled fradulently by JREF in regards to your Application.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Darat]

And now a quiz.

Please answer the following questions. It's easy. It's even multiple choice.

Go on, Darat, I DARE you to answer these. I bet you won't, though.

...snip...

I tell you what I DARE you provide the evidence for your many lies on this Forum as I've been asking you to do for years now and I'll happily answer your questions.

I bet you won't, though.

 

[petre]

Yeah, as predicted, too scared.

Now, how about actually answering the questions for real?

[sound of crickets]

How about you post real questions rather than a list of strawmen?

 

[Moochie]

No, I'm here FIGHTING lies again.

Please try to follow the point. Randi's tales are often untrue. That makes him a liar and a fraud, and every sceptic ought to oppose him.

And you have never found any lies in my posts.

M.

 

[Doubt]

Still waiting for evidence.

Peter, are you there?

Hello! hello! Is this thing on? Do I hear crickets?

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

At first, I wasn't going to comment here. But after slogging through Peter Morris's comments (and checking his site), I feel I must.

Peter - What is your problem? No offense, but you really seem like a pedantic jerk. As I saw from your site; you applied for the challenge, Randi rejected your proposal (as is his right - it's HIS challenge) and you blustered for a bit, and are now "awaiting response". In my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), yours is not a paranormal claim. It seems like you're challenging Randi on his "find me a dry spot" statement - which is quite different from the Million Dollar Challenge. But, you're doing it via the MDC. Are you "challenging the challenger"? It seems like you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[Moochie]

At first, I wasn't going to comment here. But after slogging through Peter Morris's comments (and checking his site), I feel I must.

Peter - What is your problem? No offense, but you really seem like a pedantic jerk. As I saw from your site; you applied for the challenge, Randi rejected your proposal (as is his right - it's HIS challenge) and you blustered for a bit, and are now "awaiting response". In my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), yours is not a paranormal claim. It seems like you're challenging Randi on his "find me a dry spot" statement - which is quite different from the Million Dollar Challenge. But, you're doing it via the MDC. Are you "challenging the challenger"? It seems like you're trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes, he comes across like a "woman scorned," but he's not a woman, is he?

M.

 

[Peter Morris]

Q2) Randi says that there is water available under 94% of the Earth's surface. Has he given accurate information ?
a) Yes, the information is accurate.

I had no idea, so I did a Google search for 'water earth'. The first website, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/mearth.html, while I did not see any figure given for the exact percentage of surface area of the Earth under which groundwater can be found, continually said things like "No matter where on Earth you are standing, chances are that, at some depth, the ground below you is saturated with water." The site appears legit, but who knows... give me evidence otherwise?


Q3) Randi says that a "better test" would be to "find a DRY spot." Do you think that Randi's test proposal makes sense?
b) No, Randi's test proposal is a stupid way to test paranormal powers.

I don't think Randi made a MDC Proposal, so be careful, but since dowsers claim to find water, that's what they should be tested on (normal protocol negotiations notwithstanding).


Q4) Randi claims that he has issued the challenge to dowsers and "they don't want to." Is he telling the truth? Has this event ever actually taken place, or is he making up a false story?
a) This is a truthful account of a challenge he issued.

He has issued the challenge, sure. The "they don't want to" is inferred from their apparent inability to agree on and test a protocol acceptable to both parties. This inference is not deductive logic, but nothing in real life actually is.

Thank you for your honest answer.

So, you believe Randi's statement that the chance of hiiting a dry spot is 6%.

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

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.

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.

q5) If a prominent skeptic is caught lying and giving false information, what should be done about it?
a) He should be treated exactly the same as any other fraud.

Clearly.

Here's the thing. I think that James Randi is a fraud. He lies all the time. He represents himself as a hero, fighting against fraud and misinformation. In fact many of the the stories he tells about himself are either total fiction, or else heavily slanted in his own favour.

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.

Randi claims that he issued the this challenge to dowsers, and they turned him down. It is my belief that this is also a fabrication. It's something that he has never actually done.

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.

 

[Peter Morris]

[SNIP FOR LENGTH]

I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but the numbers Randi gives are probably quite close to being right. The vast majority of the earth's surface has some sort of aquifer in it within drillable distance. ... All in all, though, I'd say that Randi is accurate enough for such discussions...

But if we were to make this a hypothetical test, yes it would be harder to find a dry area than a wet one... yes it would take fewer tries to get a statistically significant result. ... I don't doubt he has said this to dowsers from time to time, but I'm not going to chase down specific examples. Suffice it to say that if he said that in an accurate article, then he is making that challenge right there.

If that's what you believe, then you should support my application. If it is harder to find a dry area than a wet one, as you say, then a repeated demonstration of finding dry areas is a legitimate display of paranormal powers, right?

And since you agreethat Randi has made the challenge right there, then it it open to me to accept the challenge that he made.

Giving false information is only lying if it is intentional. . What is important is the importance and the intention of the lie. I don't think, in regard to this matter, that Randi has lied in any significant way. But if someone, skeptic or paranormal believer, is caught deliberately cheating, yes they should be exposed for that (A).

I think that James Randi is lying. I think that the intention of the lie is to grab glory and praise that he didn't actually earn and make himself a pile of money.

You can disagree if you want. If you think he's telling the truth, then please do write to him and encourage him to conduct the test. If he's telling the truth then I will fail in the formal test, won't I? If he's telling the truth, then testing me will give him another amusing anecdote that he can put on his weekly commentary. Or on the other hand, if I succeed, then that's a demonstration of something unknown to science, which would win the prize anyway.

 

[Peter Morris]

I think if you are honest, and quote the entire statement you attribute to him:then yes, I do think it is a sensible proposal of a test of a person who claims the ability to dowse for water. ... After making a recommendation of where to dig, they should make a recommendation of where not to dig. If water is found at their recommended site, and not at the other site, their credibility would be greatly enhanced in my eyes.

Righto, then, you ought to support my application. Since you think this is a sensible way of testing people, and that is what I want to do.

Please write to Randi, and tell him to actually conduct the test, exactly as specified.

Show me a well found by any method, either by a dowser, or by a geologist applying scientific principles. I will find a dry spot within 100 metres of that well. And that's in my original application. Check it out on my website.

You think this is a sensible way of testing paranormal ability, you should support Randi conducting the test. Please write to him and tell him so.

 

[Peter Morris]

Show me one straw man that I have made for you. Show me an opinion I have invented for you. Put up or shut up. Or this post of yours will get used against you too.

That was you (pl) referring collectively to Randi supporters on this forum. Not you (sing) meaning Doubt specifically.

Two examples of strawmen given upthread in my response to Gr8White.

 

[Peter Morris]

Hi, Peter, and welcome to the Forum --

Thank you. (Although I have actually been here, on and off, for years.)

I have a couple of questions about your Challenge application. First off, could you let us know when you sent it in (the date)? Was this when the Challenge was being administrated by Kramer, or after Jeff had taken over?

Formal application sent 11 September 2006. This was post-Kramer.

Did you submit it under the name "Peter Morris"? I can't find anything in the Challenge Application Forum with that name, so if you submitted it under a different name and the application was posted, would you please link to it (or let me know under what name you applied, and I'll be glad to find it and link to it)?

Yes, I submitted it under the name Peter Morris. It doesn't appear in the challenge section because the section hasn't been maintained since Kramer left.

You mentioned that you sent a notarized affidavit -- I'm assuming that you also notarized the application; is that a correct assumption?

Yes, it was the application form, notarized, and accompanied by an affidavit.

If the Application was never posted, would you please be so kind as to post it, here, in full? If you do not have it in electronic form, and don't relish the thought of typing it in, please consider sending me a PM to find out how to email a scanned image of it to me. I would be more than happy to type it in for you (I type pretty quickly).

Full details of my application available online.
See my website: www.proverandiwrong.net

The reason why I'm asking this is that you describe an Application which seems to fit the bill; however -- and please don't take this personally, it's not a slam on you! -- there are many, many, many Applications (as seen by the Challenge Application thread) that don't even come close. By posting your Application here, you'd be providing direct evidence that you posted a coherent Application that conformed to the rules. It would help us judge -- on its own merits -- your claim that you were handled fradulently by JREF in regards to your Application.

Thanks in advance!

I've put all correspondence on my website. (actually, I need to update it. Theres a bit of correspondence that I haven't put on, yet. But not much)

People can read it and judge for themselves. But to summarize:

1) Randi issued a challenge in public.

2) I accepted the challenge he issued on the terms that he set.

3) He has failed to progress the application. He is currently refusing even to acknowledge emails.

I present the facts. People can draW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

 

[Peter Morris]

In my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), yours is not a paranormal claim.

Sir, I refer you to the description of the challenge as given earlier in the thread:

Cuddles : << Randi very specifically does not claim to be quantitatively testing anything. As Robinson says, it is a challenge. He says "I don't believe you can do what you say, prove that you can". That is it. He does not try to measure psi, he simply asks people to prove that they can do something. Even if someone passes the challenge it will not be evidence for psi, it will simply show that someone actually could do what they claimed, no matter what the mechanism. Randi is debunking, plain and simple. No research is involved at any point.>>

And that is pretty much what Randi has always said.

Randi has said in respect to finding dry spots "I don't believe you can do what you say, prove that you can". He is debunking the notion that water is hard to find. Proving that I can do so does not prove psi, it just shows that I can do what I say.

Under his own rules I am free to accept his challenge. It's a challenge, not research. I accept the challenge, making no claim that it proves anything new or unknown. It doesn't need to.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

 

[robinson]

I always wondered what would happen if someone challenged Randi. You know, like he does to people he thinks are liars or deluded. How interesting.

 

[Doubt]

That was you (pl) referring collectively to Randi supporters on this forum. Not you (sing) meaning Doubt specifically.

Two examples of strawmen given upthread in my response to Gr8White.

BS at it's lowest. You quoted and responded directly to my post. Review post 112 of this thead, which is your post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2484937&postcount=112
Me:

Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
Of course, this will end the way every appearance of Peter does. Lots of bluster from him while simultaneously ignoring that his claims about Randi are wrong when the evidence is pointed out to him followed by a sudden disappearance.

You:

Actually, what always happens is that I point out facts and truth about Randi, get a load of abuse from his worshipers, eventually get tired and leave.

You have never pointed out evidence of me being wrong. What you have done is invent opinions for me, attack your own strawmen, and claim victory in the teeth of the evidence.

I have no doubt that you are going to tell lie after lie after lie through the remainder of this thread. It's what you always do.

They "you" could only be me, unless you were meaning to respond to somebody else and hit the wrong quote button. But since you did not claim that you quoted the wrong post I will leave it to the readers to evaluate your honesty.

There is nothing indicating more than one person in that post. Just a direct response to what I wrote.

 

[Tricky]

If that's what you believe, then you should support my application. If it is harder to find a dry area than a wet one, as you say, then a repeated demonstration of finding dry areas is a legitimate display of paranormal powers, right?

I haven't seen your actual application. Depending on how it was worded, I might support it. 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. 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. But let me see your protocol and I'll give you an honest assessment of whether or not I think it is workable.

And since you agreethat Randi has made the challenge right there, then it it open to me to accept the challenge that he made.

I can't speak for Randi. My feeling is that if you claim to be able to "dowse for dry" in an area where aquifers are known to exist, then you could have a legitimate challenge. But again, let me see your protocol.

I think that James Randi is lying. I think that the intention of the lie is to grab glory and praise that he didn't actually earn and make himself a pile of money.

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. 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. Sylvia Browne makes much more money than him and doesn't have to work nearly as hard.

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.

You can disagree if you want. If you think he's telling the truth, then please do write to him and encourage him to conduct the test.

Perhaps I will. Show me the protocol. Only an idiot would support something without any knowledge of it. I'm not an idiot.

If he's telling the truth then I will fail in the formal test, won't I? If he's telling the truth, then testing me will give him another amusing anecdote that he can put on his weekly commentary. Or on the other hand, if I succeed, then that's a demonstration of something unknown to science, which would win the prize anyway.

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? 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. Are you willing to go for that? Are you willing to pay for that? It is little pesky details like this which require that you show your protocol. If you don't have a protocol in mind, then you are being dishonest about your willingness to take the test. Some people call that lying.

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

 

[articulett]

woo lives in a world of it's own and always seems to be having a different conversation than everyone else.