Bias in Challenge Protocol?

[Tricky]

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".

I expect you are right, GzuzKryst (how the hell do you pronounce that, anyway?) but I don't want Mr. Morris to be say that nobody has taken a serious look at his claim.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I expect you are right, GzuzKryst (how the hell do you pronounce that, anyway?) but I don't want Mr. Morris to be say that nobody has taken a serious look at his claim.

If I could have assumed that Mr. Morris indeed intended to prove some paranormal claim, I'd put in my usual time to bring it along and move it towards the preliminary test. (How could this "claim" ever be proven by a layperson who has to spring for considerable costs up front?)

However, his behaviour along with his deliberate misunderstanding suggests that he has some other agenda. Take a peek at the name of his website. He seems obviously miffed beyond belief.



(For the pronunciation, think about the fairy tale of this guy who allegedly resurrected.)

 

[Tricky]

If I could have assumed that Mr. Morris indeed intended to prove some paranormal claim, I'd put in my usual time to bring it along and move it towards the preliminary test. (How could this "claim" ever be proven by a layperson who has to spring for considerable costs up front?)

He could, of course, prepare a dowsing test like the one in Australia relatively cheaply, but simply dowse for the misses (dry spots) rather than the hits. But then, Peter doesn't dowse, he only complains about how Randi's dowsing tests are unfair.

However, his behaviour along with his deliberate misunderstanding suggests that he has some other agenda. Take a peek at the name of his website. He seems obviously miffed beyond belief.

Yeah I saw that. I haven't been following his career here, but it seems he came in four years ago griping about Randi and has done nothing else since. You gotta wonder about a guy who spends that much time and effort feeding his anger. I wonder what the fees for permanent dockside space at Grudge Harbor are?

(For the pronunciation, think about the fairy tale of this guy who allegedly resurrected.)

LOL. Damn! I should have picked up on that. I thought it was something Eastern European.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Tricky - Great work! But I don't think it will have any effect on him.

Peter - Have you updated your site recently? As I recall, the last time I checked it, in the "Correspondence" section, I could have sworn I saw something along the lines of Randi rejecting your claim. Am I mistaken? Because I think that would make all discussion moot.

 

[Peter Morris]

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.

Mr, Czarcasm, as has been pointed out time after time, my application followed Randi's own rules TO THE LETTER. Despite your utter desperation, and your frantic searching, you have not found one tiny thing wrong.

YOU ought to go read the challenge protocols, since you don't seem to understand this point.

 

[Peter Morris]

Actually, he has done the filling out the application part,

He knows this already, but he chose to lie about it.

but he apparently never got around to the reading part, because his application was not recommending a paranormal test.

James Randi himself says that non-paranormal claims can win.
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Updates.aspx

The nature of the challenge is this: Randi says that he doesn't believe you and dares you to prove that his disbelief is wrong. To win, all you have to do is prove that you CAN do the things you say. It doesn't matter if the thing you do "isn't paranormal"

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.

It's hardly minor. It's demonstrating that Randi has been telling massive lies for decades.

As for proving him wrong, that is the whole nature of the challenge.

 

[Peter Morris]

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

Shame that so many of Randi's supporters fail it, isn't it?

 

[Czarcasm]

Mr, Czarcasm, as has been pointed out time after time, my application followed Randi's own rules TO THE LETTER. Despite your utter desperation, and your frantic searching, you have not found one tiny thing wrong.

YOU ought to go read the challenge protocols, since you don't seem to understand this point.

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

Oh, and try to find something more suited to your needs, like a "Million Dollar Challenge To Prove The Normal"

 

[Tricky]

Mr, Czarcasm, as has been pointed out time after time, my application followed Randi's own rules TO THE LETTER. Despite your utter desperation, and your frantic searching, you have not found one tiny thing wrong.

I pointed out several things wrong, the primary one being that by your own admission, you are not testing anything paranormal. I've shown you the line several times, but just so you can have your memory refreshed.

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 I'm quite sure you wish it didn't say that, but it does, right there for you to see.
Now let's look at your website:

I openly state that it isn't paranormal.

(I'm pretty sure you're not saying it is psychic or supernatural either.)

Neither has Randi or the JREF ever said that your protocol was a test for the paranormal. He doesn't say it you don't say it. How much more clear can this possibly be? You go around claiming to know what is and isn't eligible, but the one absolute source for this tells you that you are wrong. Your application is not "one tiny thing wrong". It is the biggest possible thing wrong.

Just for grins, why don't you show it to a lawyer. See what the lawyer says about the legitimacy of your claim. Bring eye and face protection for when he laughs so hard that the snot flies out of his nose in rivulets, spackling you and your application with a delicate shade of moist green. It would be as if you were a defense lawyer and the judge said, "what is the evidence that your client is not guilty?", and you replied with, "Instead of showing that, I'd like to show that the wombat is actually a kind of tomato."

I'm sorry that you've wasted all this time and effort in impotent rage, but you have no one to blame but yourself. Really, you need to get another hobby.

 

[Peter Morris]

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.

Too long to address every single item. A couple of examples will show how Tricky refuses to accept the facts that are right there under his nose.

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.

You misunderstand. It is not the "various different structures" that upsets Randi. He attacks the notion of water flowing underground.

<<"There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "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.">>

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html

According to Randi, there are NO underground streams. He doesn't claim that they are rare, or that there are none in a particular area. He says they don't exist, period. And that water does not flow underground except in caves. According to him, every single instance of water flowing underground is a cave.

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.

On the contrary, he has been making the same statement for decades. He has said quite explicitly and on numerous occasions that underground rivers do not exist anywhere on the planet.

I doubt that you will understand this. You so desperately want Randi to be right, you twist his words around so that blatent errors are removed. You just cannot accept that he may be talking complete rubbish. No matter how many times Randi's words are presented to you, you will not accept that he said the things that are down there in black and white.

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.

Here's a log of my correspondence with Randi, in which he gives that particular definition.
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/preliminary.aspx

Oh, and according to Randi, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH is a place where you would expect to find water, desserts included.

Absolutely incorrect. Many wells in dry regions have recharge rates much slower than this.

The exact definition of "dry spot" is negotiable. I have given a suggested one, but I'm willing to talk. I'm flexible.

This also applies to the method of determining whether a spot is "wet" or "dry." I have suggested consulting existing surveys as a cheap alternative to drilling. But that's not written in stone. If you can suggest another way, I'm all ears.


This is in the rules. Applicant and Randi discuss the protocol to find a testing method acceptable to both parties. This is what Randi promises, and I'm completely ready to negotiate.

Randi, however, refuses even to discuss the matter. Against all his promises

As a geologist, I do not agree at all with your definition of "dry".

I think you disagree because you idolise Randi and don't want him to be wrong. If you agreed with my definition, then that would make Randi wrong, and you really don't want to admit that to yourself.

I think that about 99% of ordinary people that AREN'T Randi supporters would agree with my definition.

 

[Peter Morris]

I pointed out several things wrong, the primary one being that by your own admission, you are not testing anything paranormal. I've shown you the line several times, but just so you can have your memory refreshed.

The fact is, that you refuse to see the basic idea of the challenge.

Please think about this very carefully.

Look at a challenge that Randi issued and think about what it means.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4


So, there's a guy that says that his magnets will improve the taste of wine. Randi says to him: I, James Randi, do not believe you. Prove me wrong and win a million dollars. That's the situation as described by Randi.

Please think carefully, and answer the following questions.

What if the guy actually applies? If he sends in his application form, properly notarized accompanied by an affidavit, following all the rules.

Suppose he states on the application that his device ISN'T paranormal, that it works on known scientific principles. He says that Randi is merely ignorant of the effects of magnetism on tannins in wine. He states that he intends to prove Randi wrong about that, and that he doesn't make any paranormal claim at all.

Now, is that a valid application?

Further, let us imagine for a moment, if he successfully demonstrates that Randi is wrong, but that his device works on known scientific principles, exactly as he said all along. Will he have earned the prize? Would he deserve a million for proving Randi wrong about this?


And my claim is in EXACTLY the same category as that.

 

[Czarcasm]

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

 

[Peter Morris]

I've already sent in an application form following Randi's own rules to the letter.

Oh, and I notice that you avoided answering my questions.

Scared, huh?

 

[Czarcasm]

You've been told multiple times what is wrong with your "application", so...

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

 

[Tricky]

Too long to address every single item. A couple of examples will show how Tricky refuses to accept the facts that are right there under his nose.

LOL. I think I'll take the chance that people can recognize fact for themselves. I see one of the parts you excised was where I explained that if it is an underground stream, then it is by definition in a cave.

You misunderstand. It is not the "various different structures" that upsets Randi. He attacks the notion of water flowing underground.

<<"There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "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.">>

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology of geology. Water moving through the pores in rock is not a stream. It doesn't matter how large those pores are. But just FYI, extremely large pores in the rock are called "caves". Occasionally, streams do flow through caves. Just as often as not, the caves are filled with sediment and that is what the water is moving through, but there are some caves with streams in them. I'm afraid it's Catch 22, Peter.

According to Randi, there are NO underground streams. He doesn't claim that they are rare, or that there are none in a particular area. He says they don't exist, period.

As an excercise in geology, why don't you point out one of those "non-cave streams" to me. No, it won't count as the challenge, but maybe you can get over this particular hang-up.

On the contrary, he has been making the same statement for decades. He has said quite explicitly and on numerous occasions that underground rivers do not exist anywhere on the planet.

No he doesn't. He says "except in caves". You said so yourself. Pick one story and stick to it.

Oh, and according to Randi, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH is a place where you would expect to find water, desserts included.

No he doesn't, he says "more than 90%". Again, your credibility is damaged by your inability to keep your story straight. And for the record, there are some very wet desserts. Ice cream is one.

I doubt that you will understand this. You so desperately want Randi to be right, you twist his words around so that blatent errors are removed. You just cannot accept that he may be talking complete rubbish. No matter how many times Randi's words are presented to you, you will not accept that he said the things that are down there in black and white.

I understand quite well what you are saying, I simply disagree with it. I've already said that Randi has made some misstatements in his time. Who do you know that hasn't? But what is down in black-and-white is that the Challenge is for paranormal things. That is not what you are proposing to do. What Randi or JREF may or may not have said in interviews or letters or articles don't make any legal difference whatsoever. The legal definition of the challenge is right here. It's the only one that counts.

The exact definition of "dry spot" is negotiable. I have given a suggested one, but I'm willing to talk. I'm flexible.

Okay, how about any unbound water whatsoever within 4,000' of the surface? Sound unreasonable? The waiki'i water well on the slopes of Mauna Kea is more than 4,000' deep.

This also applies to the method of determining whether a spot is "wet" or "dry." I have suggested consulting existing surveys as a cheap alternative to drilling. But that's not written in stone. If you can suggest another way, I'm all ears.

There is no other way to verify the existence of naturally occurring subsurface water other than to dig or drill for it. You could, however, set up a test spot in a desert where could set up a test to "find a dry spot". Simply bury ten containers, nine with water and one empty and locate that container via paranormal means. That is the kind of thing the Challenge is designed for. It has to be a test you can verify. That's in rule 1.

This is in the rules. Applicant and Randi discuss the protocol to find a testing method acceptable to both parties. This is what Randi promises, and I'm completely ready to negotiate.

You don't appear to negotiate the part about doing something paranormal. If you can't agree to do something paranormal on a test for the paranormal, then you are at an impasse.

Randi, however, refuses even to discuss the matter. Against all his promises.

He never promised to allow you to do a research project to claim the prize. Of this, I am reasonably sure.

I think you disagree because you idolise Randi and don't want him to be wrong. If you agreed with my definition, then that would make Randi wrong, and you really don't want to admit that to yourself.

Actually, I have some problems with Randi. Although I can understand why, I still don't like his brusque attitude and I feel he could be more careful about making scientifically incorrect statements. Still, there is much I respect about him. It's hardly idolization.

But if I agreed with your definitions, I wouldn't be a geologist.

I think that about 99% of ordinary people that AREN'T Randi supporters would agree with my definition.

99% of "ordinary people" have, at best, little knowledge of geology or hydrology. I can assure you that only a miniscule number of geoscientists would agree with your definitions.

 

[Tricky]

The fact is, that you refuse to see the basic idea of the challenge.

The fact is that the JREF determines the basic idea of the challenge, not you, and they have told you that your application does not satisfy the specifics of the challenge, i.e. it is not paranormal.

Please think about this very carefully.

Look at a challenge that Randi issued and think about what it means.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/060906just.html#i4

Now think very carefully that the challenge rules as set out in the links you've seen numerous times. Offhand comments, especially those taken out of context by you, do not constitute the challenge. Only the rules, which you seem to be determined to ignore.

So, there's a guy that says that his magnets will improve the taste of wine. Randi says to him: I, James Randi, do not believe you. Prove me wrong and win a million dollars. That's the situation as described by Randi.

Please think carefully, and answer the following questions.

What if the guy actually applies? If he sends in his application form, properly notarized accompanied by an affidavit, following all the rules.

Suppose he states on the application that his device ISN'T paranormal, that it works on known scientific principles. He says that Randi is merely ignorant of the effects of magnetism on tannins in wine. He states that he intends to prove Randi wrong about that, and that he doesn't make any paranormal claim at all.

Further, let us imagine for a moment, if he successfully demonstrates that Randi is wrong, but that his device works on known scientific principles, exactly as he said all along. Will he have earned the prize? Would he deserve a million for proving Randi wrong about this?

I am quite sure Randi will contact scientists who can give expert opinions on whether or not this is a paranormal claim. IF, by some chance, the guy has simply found a new law of science that the experts have overlooked and the challenge is accepted, then lucky him. This falls into the category of "so unlikely that it's worth the risk".

Oh yeah, did you see this part?

PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.

I think he's talking to you.

And my claim is in EXACTLY the same category as that.

No, it is not. The JREF has not agreed that your claim is paranormal and you are not doing any sort of demonstration. It is not even remotely the same.

 

[Moochie]

I've already sent in an application form following Randi's own rules to the letter.

Bullcrap.

I've read your site and it is full of fanciful excreta.

Why do you have such a hard hat on for Mr. Randi?

M.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Peter - Any response to my question?

 

[nathan]

I've already sent in an application form following Randi's own rules to the letter.

Well, clearly you should issue a writ, if you want satisfaction.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Peter - Have you updated your site recently? As I recall, the last time I checked it, in the "Correspondence" section, I could have sworn I saw something along the lines of Randi rejecting your claim. Am I mistaken? Because I think that would make all discussion moot.

Well, Peter Morris, has your application been rejected?