challenge history

[Peter Morris]

Amazing. We have a poster who says explicitly that it means
either the first, or the last, or both statements.

And yet you can leap, lemming-like, to the conclusion that somehow the poster also believes it means NEITHER. Despite the fact that that conclusion is somehow absent from his exhaustive list of possibilities.

I'm agog. I don't think your perceptual reality touches ours at any two continous points. I really don't.

But the poster obviously DOES think that.

Look Randi said "To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

Your poster has explained to me that this means that Randi will :

1) "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us" or

2) "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to actually conduct the tests" or

3) both.

In fact, Randi has done neither. But your poster clearly believes that "and/or" includes "neither " He lectures me on how the words "and/or" cover the current situation, where Randi has done neither. He thinks that by doing neither one, Randi has kept his promise to do one and/or the other.

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

 

[Ashles]

I can't believe you are still arguing this.

Your poster has explained to me that this means that Randi will :

1) "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us"

What would you consider proper academic and scientific expertise to check the observable claims of Dalton? I.e. that his rock stops ice from melting.

It has been explained over and over that many people would have this level of "proper academic and scientific expertise". Frankly, I would.

You are clearly now arguing for the sake of arguing. It's hard to tell exactly why you are continuing this.

 

[kookbreaker]

[*] Randi twists people's claims around and distorts what they say

Look at his remarks about the "ideomotor effect" the claim that "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement."

This is an example of a claim that Randi makes a lot. According to Randi, the dowsers think there is some kind of mysterious force tugging on the dowsing rod.

Actually, dowsers don't think anything of the sort. They state directly that it is their own wrist making the movement. They say that the rod or the pendulum magnifies the wrist movement, making it easier to see.

Dowsers claim many things, and Randi has dealt personally with more dowsers than anybody. To give you an idea of how foolish it is to claim that "dowsers don't think of anything of the sort" I give you these links.

http://john183.freeyellow.com/three.txt

“One theory is that the reaction of the two energies causes the muscles
in the arm, wrists and hands to move minutely. Another is that the mag-
netites in the rods react to each other, when the rods cross an electric-
al field. ”

http://www.inter-web.co.uk/pendulum.htm

“There are all kinds of theories and explanations being propounded. One authority, Max Freedom Long, says that it is subconscious phenomena which the pendulum makes conscious. Nerne Cameron himself maintains that it is superconscious energies. Others propose all kinds of metaphysical and religious explanations for the phenomena - angels make the pendulum move, or God makes it move, and so forth. Spiritualists say it is their guides or discarnate entities. “

http://www.crystalinks.com/dowsing.html

“Various theories have been given as to what causes the rods to move: electromagnetic or other subtle geological forces, suggestion from others or from geophysical observations, ESP and other paranormal explanations, etc. “

http://www.hlla.com/reference/dowsing.html

This pays lip service to ideomotor, but dismisses them, referencing dowsers who use no tools.

http://www.greatdreams.com/dowsing.htm

“The person stand directly in front of you. Point your dowsing rods toward their chest area and slowly walk backwards. You are INSIDE of THEIR field walking backwards to the outer edges. When inside up close the rods will be crisscrossed. As you walk backwards they open up. Walk backwards until the rods come together into a point.

THAT is the outer edge of the mesurable aura around the human body. Have the person focus on different emotions and measure their field simply by staying in front of them.”

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/dowsing/d02b.htm

“There were variations of the explanation that the green cut forked stick was pulled downward over water because of the "attraction of green things to water," or an intensification of the magnetism over water. There was difficulty with this theory because the forked stick also found ores and other things. However, there was difficulty in any of the ideas to date because terrestrial magnetism is "an incredibly weak" force and anything would work as a dowsing device—even a nonconductor. And finally it was noted that no device was necessary! “

http://www.netowne.com/esp-psychic/esp/

“The reaction of my rods is due to the fact that the particular water vibration at such a site recognizes the similar water vibration in my aura, subsequently a handshake comes into being, and energy fusion and energy transfer will occur.”

http://www.geomantica.com/aboutgeo.htm

This site seems to be working towards a namby woowoo explanation that is essentially the ideomotor effect (the phrase ‘tapping the subconcious’ is the most often that I could see in dithering the idoemotor effect, but then says:

“Don't be put off by people who say "Your hand is moving!" at this point. A strongly rotating pendulum will certainly make your hand move. When this happens the comments of sceptics can undermine dowsing confidence and ruin results. That's why it's best practised alone in a non-hostile environment. Don't give the sceptics satisfaction! “

http://mypage.direct.ca/j/jliving/landmine.htm

This site is just plain scary:

“There is an old saying ‘ Like likes like ’ - that similar things attract each other. It may give you an extra advantage in finding anti-personnel landmines if your pendulum bob is a defused mine, preferably with a trace of explosive still inside. “

That sure doesn't sound like saying its their wrist to me.

The neutral:

http://www.britishdowsers.org/about_dowsing.html

Lip service to many possible theories

http://dowsers.new-hampshire.net/faq.htm

Lips service to several theories

http://www.dowsing.com/Dowsing/dqanda.htm

This one, for example, hints at the ideomotor effect, then follows up with tool-less dowsing:

“Some persons actually receive contact from a distant target, buried object or energy field, without the benefit of an instrument. Others claim they make contact with the help of an invisible guide. “

This effectively puts to lie your claim about what dowsers believe.

Peter's other complaints have been shown to be equally empty and have been done to death in other threads.

 

[CFLarsen]

Easy enough. Of course, you will simply deny that I have posted this. Your little trick of say it often enough and it becomes true. Here's a little quote from Randi that amply illustrates all that's wrong with him.

No, I will not deny that you have posted this. As to whether you have answered the questions...well....

Randi's pseudoscintific gibberish?

Two examples
[1] "There are no streams of water flowing underground,"

Actually, underground streams are a reality. Just google for "underground river" and you'll find thousands of examples. See, for example, the diagram here Note that an underground stream is clearly shown.

In non-Karst country there are structures called paleochannels which are rivers (originally surface features) that have become burried by thousands of years of geological activity. They still exist as water flowing along narrow channels a few dozen metres below ground level.

[2] "There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. " I'm sure that will come as a great surprise to geologists. They think that water flows underground according to Darcey's Law.

Pardon me, but where does the "pseudoscientific gibberish" come in? It looks to me as Randi is merely wrong. What is so "pseudoscientific" about it?

Randi saying and doing anything to discredit the paranormal

Well, he tells people how "deluded" dowsers are to believe in underground rivers. He tells everyone that underground rivers don't exist, so dowsers must "have delusions" to believe in them. This is the act of a man more interested in attacking dowsers any damn way he can, and not caring about accuracy in his statements.

I was kinda hoping for something more substantial that Randi merely being wrong. Is being wrong the same as "saying and doing anything to discredit the paranormal"?

Randi twists people's claims around and distorts what they say

Look at his remarks about the "ideomotor effect" the claim that "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement."

This is an example of a claim that Randi makes a lot. According to Randi, the dowsers think there is some kind of mysterious force tugging on the dowsing rod.

Actually, dowsers don't think anything of the sort. They state directly that it is their own wrist making the movement. They say that the rod or the pendulum magnifies the wrist movement, making it easier to see.

As kookbreaker has already pointed out, you are wrong here. Randi has not twisted people's claims around and distorted what they say.

Randi's vitriolic attacks on things people have never said in the first place.

The claim made by dowsers : water causes my arm to twitch, and I hold the rod to magnify the twitch.

Randi's twisted version of the claim made by dowsers : There is some mysterious unknown force acting upon the rod which moves of its own accord.

Then having invented this, which dowsers never said in the first place, he pours out the vitriol. See here for just one typical example.

See his claim that the dowsers "persist in their delusion" and that they are "self deceived" to claim the rod moves by itself.

The simple fact is, they never claimed that in the first place.

As above: Evidence has been provided that you are wrong.

Outright lies by Randi.

See above. these include his claims that:

- underground streams don't exist
- water doesn't flow underground
- dowsers think the rod moves by itself

I'm certain he knows the falsehood of such statements, but he keeps churning them out anyway

How can you be so "certain"? Now you are asking us to take your word as evidence. That won't do.

Randi runs tests that don't give claimants an honest chance of proving their abilities.

Too long to go into here in any depth. But as an example, when Randi has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be totally dishonest, he insists that claimants take tests devised and run by himself, or by his own cronies, and refuses testing designed and carried out by independent third parties.

He does? Where? Verifiable examples, please?

Peter, you are not doing a great job here. Randi is probably wrong regarding the underground rivers, but that doesn't make him dishonest. Which was what you set out to prove. So far, you have failed miserably.

Wanna try again? Or do you want to repeat that you have succeeded, and go on and on and on repeating it?

 

[Vikram]

But the poster obviously DOES think that.

Look Randi said "To achieve this, we call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us and/or actually conduct the tests."

Your poster has explained to me that this means that Randi will :

1) "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to advise us" or

2) "call upon proper academic and scientific expertise to actually conduct the tests" or

3) both.

In fact, Randi has done neither. But your poster clearly believes that "and/or" includes "neither " He lectures me on how the words "and/or" cover the current situation, where Randi has done neither. He thinks that by doing neither one, Randi has kept his promise to do one and/or the other.

How do you know that the JREF hasn't "called upon proper academic and scientific expertise to ADVISE" it? How do you know Randi hasn't phoned a scientist to ask for ADVICE on the protocol that should be used to test Dalton? On what basis do you claim that the JREF has violated point #1 mentioned above?

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

 

[kookbreaker]

Two examples
[1] "There are no streams of water flowing underground,"

<snip>

Deceptive paraphrasing of Randi by Peter, BTW.

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But the poster obviously DOES think that.

Telling me what I am thinking now huh? Well, don't quit your day job to become a mind-reader, because you are SO wrong.

Anyway, now that we have cleared up the logical operand confusion you seemed to be facing, maybe you will address the point of what constitutes proper academic and scientific expertise regarding melting ice?

Or more to the point, why was Dalton, according to you, right when asking for a scientist (a high energy™ scientist no less) to be present during the test, when clearly, neither his expertise nor his presence were required to have the test administered?

 

[Peter Morris]

Dowsers claim many things, and Randi has dealt personally with more dowsers than anybody. To give you an idea of how foolish it is to claim that "dowsers don't think of anything of the sort" I give you these links.

http://john183.freeyellow.com/three.txt

“One theory is that the reaction of the two energies causes the muscles
in the arm, wrists and hands to move minutely. Another is that the mag-
netites in the rods react to each other, when the rods cross an electric-
al field. ”

Which COJNFIRMS my point. Dowsers don't deny that it's the ideomotor effect. Randi claims they don't know it, but they clearly do.

http://www.inter-web.co.uk/pendulum.htm

“There are all kinds of theories and explanations being propounded. One authority, Max Freedom Long, says that it is subconscious phenomena which the pendulum makes conscious. Nerne Cameron himself maintains that it is superconscious energies. Others propose all kinds of metaphysical and religious explanations for the phenomena - angels make the pendulum move, or God makes it move, and so forth. Spiritualists say it is their guides or discarnate entities. “

Again, your cite confirms that most dowsers say that it is a subconcious phenomenon. A small percentage say otherwise.

Througout your cites, the links you provide show again and again that most dowsers know the rod magnifies their arm movements.

Randi takes the minority opinion which very few hold, and pretends that 100% of dowsers refuse to believe their own arm moves the rod.

Randi claims that he shows dowsers film o0f their arms moving and they NEVER believe him, they ALWAYS claim that the rod is moving of its own accord.

You may finf one or two that say that, but overwhelmingly dowsers are aware that the rod magnifies their arm movements. Your own links confirm this.

 

[BKITU]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Dowsers claim many things, and Randi has dealt personally with more dowsers than anybody. To give you an idea of how foolish it is to claim that "dowsers don't think of anything of the sort" I give you these links.

http://john183.freeyellow.com/three.txt

“One theory is that the reaction of the two energies causes the muscles
in the arm, wrists and hands to move minutely. Another is that the mag-
netites in the rods react to each other, when the rods cross an electric-
al field. ”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which COJNFIRMS my point. Dowsers don't deny that it's the ideomotor effect. Randi claims they don't know it, but they clearly do.

Ideomotor effect in no way refers "the reaction of the two energies causes the muscles in the arm, wrists and hands to move minutely."

Ideomotor effect refers to someone thinking about a movement, even subconsciously, and the muscles following without conscious effort.

Your point isn't even remotely confirmed by that quote. The dowsers are claiming that mystical energy fields or magnetism are moving the rods. Ideomotor effect means that the people are moving it as a result of their own desires. Those are VERY different concepts.

 

[kookbreaker]

Which COJNFIRMS my point. Dowsers don't deny that it's the ideomotor effect. Randi claims they don't know it, but they clearly do.

Yes, a handful acknowledge it. Most, however, do not. You have yet to establish otherwise. Considering that Randi has field experience in personally dealing with dowsers directly, wheras you have a book or two, the evidence ,when supported by the links above shows that dowsers really don't think much of the ideomotor effect.

Again, your cite confirms that most dowsers say that it is a subconcious phenomenon. A small percentage say otherwise.

No Peter, your assertion is not supported. The majority of the links show that dowsers feel there is something well past any ideomotor efffect, and frequently site tool-less dowsers as proof. You assertion that this is a minority is unsupported.

Througout your cites, the links you provide show again and again that most dowsers know the rod magnifies their arm movements.

No, they do not.

Randi takes the minority opinion which very few hold, and pretends that 100% of dowsers refuse to believe their own arm moves the rod.

Randi has not made a 100% claim. ANd you have yet to support the 'minority' claim.

Randi claims that he shows dowsers film o0f their arms moving and they NEVER believe him, they ALWAYS claim that the rod is moving of its own accord.

This is his experience, you have yet to show otherwise.

You may finf one or two that say that, but overwhelmingly dowsers are aware that the rod magnifies their arm movements. Your own links confirm this. [/B]

Unsupported claim. Its obvious you avoided all the links and had to stretch the first sentence of the first one to get anything resembling an ideomotor effect. At most you have lip-service to the ideomotor effect.

Edited because it looked goofy,

 

[Peter Morris]

No, I will not deny that you have posted this. As to whether you have answered the questions...well....

Yeah, you will claim - in the teeth of the evidence - that I didn't answer the questions.

Pardon me, but where does the "pseudoscientific gibberish" come in? It looks to me as Randi is merely wrong. What is so "pseudoscientific" about it?

Pseudoscience means a non-scientific statement masquerading as proper science. That is certainly true here. Randi presents this as accurate scientific fact, proving that dowsing doesn't work. He presented it as science, its actually something he made up. That is pseudoscience.

I was kinda hoping for something more substantial that Randi merely being wrong. Is being wrong the same as "saying and doing anything to discredit the paranormal"?

When he presents it as accurate scientific fact, yes. He said it to attack the paranormal. He doesn't mind giving wrong scientific information as long as it discredits the paranormal.

You make excuses for his lies, I don't. That's the difference between us.

As kookbreaker has already pointed out, you are wrong here. Randi has not twisted people's claims around and distorted what they say.

As kookbreakers own links show, Randi's claims do not accurately represent the opinions of most dowsers. A small minority, possibly. Most dowsers are perfectly aware the rod magnifies wrist movements. Randi claims they ALL think the rod moves by itself. Kookbreakers links show that most of them think nothing of the kind.

As above: Evidence has been provided that you are wrong.

No, the evidence given supports me. Of course, You and the Kook ignore most of the evidence, only reading the bits that support you.

How can you be so "certain"? Now you are asking us to take your word as evidence. That won't do.

Well, I emailed Randi to discuss things with him. I told him that I had discussed the matter with qualified geologists, and from the information they had given me, it appears that he is wrong on a number of items. If he had discussed the matter with me in a reasonable manner, maybe put an article in his weekly column apologising for his error and correcting the mistake I could have accepted that. If he had discussed the matter reasonably, and given me reliable information contradicting my current understanding of geology, I could have accepted that. Instead he sent me a short and abusive note telling me that he's too busy to discuss it, and I should go and bother a dowser instead.

This is just one example of his aggressive behaviour. He makes mistakes like this all the time, and is not remotely interested in accuracy or truth. He just says anything that harms "the paranormal" and doesn't care whether his information is accurate or not.

I've little doubt that he's been told of his errors 100 times, but still continues to spread the lies. He knows it's untrue, but it sounds good, the skeptics applaud when he say it, so he keeps saying it.

He does? Where? Verifiable examples, please?

Sigh. Alright then, very briefly. As I mentioned above I tried to discuss geology with Randi and received an abusive reply. now one of the point I tried to discuss with him is a claim he has made frequently, going back more than 20 years. Here's one example of this, and he has made numerous other statements to the same effect
" 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."

I discussed the matter with some geologists, who told me that Randi had got his facts wrong. Actually "dry spots" are all around and anyone who drills a well without a proper survey first is virtually certain to hit a dry spot.

So, after I received Randi's abusive response to my email, I contacted him to say that I was considering accepting his challenge to "find me a dry spot "

Now note this, Larsen. I stated clearly to Randi that I was following the advice of geologists. This is a scientific disagreement. I'm not claiming any paranomal abilities, I'm just trying to show Randi's ignorance. And to that end, I was willing to accept the challenge he made.

So what did Randi do? He weaseled out. He claimed that his challenge to "find me a dry spot" , which he has made repeatedly over more than 20 years is just a "figure of speech" and not to be taken literally. He was simply unwilling to honour his challenge.

I stated clearly what I could do : dig holes in the ground and hit dry spots far more often than he thinks I ought to. I suggested 18%, then increased it to 30%, and was willing to keep increasing my offer.

And you want to know how he proposed to test my claim? Here's the message I received from him:

"You’ve not told me what you can do….! Is that too difficult to understand? ( A direct lie - I told him clearly, several times. I can dig in the ground and find dry spots. Simple.)

What do you call, dry? What do you call, wet? (Another lie. I'd repeatedly gave a definition of dry and wet, and asked him whether he accepted the definition. He repeatedly refused to answer.)

It’s YOUR claim, not mine, so YOU tell me what you would want to be tested on….! Since you seem to have a tough time with fundamentals, I’ll try to simplify it for you: can you differentiate – by dowsing – between a dry/dessicated/waterless patch of soil in a plastic container, and a wet/damp/soaked patch of the same soil, in a plastic container?

There! That should be simple enough, for a first question!"

You see this Larsen? See how Randi twisted my claim around his little finger? See how he distorts everything? First of all, he has decided that I'm a dowser. I never claimed that, it is his invention. Secondly, my claim only works for geology. Of course it doesn't apply to soil in plastic containers.

I rejected his offer, and he accused me of making excuses.

See, Larsen, this is how Randi works. He offers preposterous tests that have nothing to do with logic or reason. He refuses to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion. He is incapable of polite communication, and discussion with him is impossible.

To be tested by Randi, a claimant has to accept his claim being twisted out of shape. Whatever your actual claim, Randi will offer to test you on something else.

This is the reason why most dowsers sincerely believe their abilities, offer to be tested by scientists, but refuse to be tested by this one dishonest individual named Randi.

Peter, you are not doing a great job here. Randi is probably wrong regarding the underground rivers, but that doesn't make him dishonest. Which was what you set out to prove. So far, you have failed miserably. Wanna try again? Or do you want to repeat that you have succeeded, and go on and on and on repeating it?

I've given the facts. As I predicted, you have refused to acknowledge the evidence. There's none so blind...

 

[Peter Morris]

No Peter, your assertion is not supported. The majority of the links show that dowsers feel there is something well past any ideomotor efffect, and frequently site tool-less dowsers as proof. You assertion that this is a minority is unsupported.

Kook, think about what you have written here. Tool-less dowsers - those who don't need to hold a rod. They say that it is their own hand moving, and they are able to see the movement without a rod.

Tool-less dowsers show that they know that its their own hand moving.

Once again, your own cite confirms that most fdowsers think their own hand moves. Most hold a rod to magnify the hand movements, some see the hand movements without needing a tool.

Your own links confirm my point. Most dowsers are perfectly well aware of the hand movements.

Randi claims they don't know this, which is a lie.

 

[kookbreaker]

Kook, think about what you have written here. Tool-less dowsers - those who don't need to hold a rod. They say that it is their own hand moving, and they are able to see the movement without a rod.

Tool-less dowsers show that they know that its their own hand moving.

If what you say was true, then why is it that tool-less dowsers are cited as a reason the ideomotor effect is not happening?

Also, you seem to be making several assumptions as to how tool-less dowsers operate. I'd like more evidence. Especially since the ideomotor effect and full hand motion are far, far, far away from each other.

Once again, your own cite confirms that most fdowsers think their own hand moves. Most hold a rod to magnify the hand movements, some see the hand movements without needing a tool.

Once again, you are showing your ability to ignore evidence. My cites have said nothing like what you claim.

Your own links confirm my point. Most dowsers are perfectly well aware of the hand movements.

Unproven. Purely unsupported assertion by Peter.

Randi claims they don't know this, which is a lie. [/B]

Wrong.

 

[Stitch]

Yeah, you will claim - in the teeth of the evidence - that I didn't answer the questions.

Pseudoscience means a non-scientific statement masquerading as proper science. That is certainly true here. Randi presents this as accurate scientific fact, proving that dowsing doesn't work. He presented it as science, its actually something he made up. That is pseudoscience.
When he presents it as accurate scientific fact, yes. He said it to attack the paranormal. He doesn't mind giving wrong scientific information as long as it discredits the paranormal.

You make excuses for his lies, I don't. That's the difference between us.


As kookbreakers own links show, Randi's claims do not accurately represent the opinions of most dowsers. A small minority, possibly. Most dowsers are perfectly aware the rod magnifies wrist movements. Randi claims they ALL think the rod moves by itself. Kookbreakers links show that most of them think nothing of the kind.
No, the evidence given supports me. Of course, You and the Kook ignore most of the evidence, only reading the bits that support you.



Well, I emailed Randi to discuss things with him. I told him that I had discussed the matter with qualified geologists, and from the information they had given me, it appears that he is wrong on a number of items. If he had discussed the matter with me in a reasonable manner, maybe put an article in his weekly column apologising for his error and correcting the mistake I could have accepted that. If he had discussed the matter reasonably, and given me reliable information contradicting my current understanding of geology, I could have accepted that. Instead he sent me a short and abusive note telling me that he's too busy to discuss it, and I should go and bother a dowser instead.

This is just one example of his aggressive behaviour. He makes mistakes like this all the time, and is not remotely interested in accuracy or truth. He just says anything that harms "the paranormal" and doesn't care whether his information is accurate or not.

I've little doubt that he's been told of his errors 100 times, but still continues to spread the lies. He knows it's untrue, but it sounds good, the skeptics applaud when he say it, so he keeps saying it.



Sigh. Alright then, very briefly. As I mentioned above I tried to discuss geology with Randi and received an abusive reply. now one of the point I tried to discuss with him is a claim he has made frequently, going back more than 20 years. Here's one example of this, and he has made numerous other statements to the same effect
" 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."

I discussed the matter with some geologists, who told me that Randi had got his facts wrong. Actually "dry spots" are all around and anyone who drills a well without a proper survey first is virtually certain to hit a dry spot.

So, after I received Randi's abusive response to my email, I contacted him to say that I was considering accepting his challenge to "find me a dry spot "

Now note this, Larsen. I stated clearly to Randi that I was following the advice of geologists. This is a scientific disagreement. I'm not claiming any paranomal abilities, I'm just trying to show Randi's ignorance. And to that end, I was willing to accept the challenge he made.

So what did Randi do? He weaseled out. He claimed that his challenge to "find me a dry spot" , which he has made repeatedly over more than 20 years is just a "figure of speech" and not to be taken literally. He was simply unwilling to honour his challenge.

I stated clearly what I could do : dig holes in the ground and hit dry spots far more often than he thinks I ought to. I suggested 18%, then increased it to 30%, and was willing to keep increasing my offer.

And you want to know how he proposed to test my claim? Here's the message I received from him:


You see this Larsen? See how Randi twisted my claim around his little finger? See how he distorts everything? First of all, he has decided that I'm a dowser. I never claimed that, it is his invention. Secondly, my claim only works for geology. Of course it doesn't apply to soil in plastic containers.

I rejected his offer, and he accused me of making excuses.

See, Larsen, this is how Randi works. He offers preposterous tests that have nothing to do with logic or reason. He refuses to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion. He is incapable of polite communication, and discussion with him is impossible.

To be tested by Randi, a claimant has to accept his claim being twisted out of shape. Whatever your actual claim, Randi will offer to test you on something else.

This is the reason why most dowsers sincerely believe their abilities, offer to be tested by scientists, but refuse to be tested by this one dishonest individual named Randi.

I've given the facts. As I predicted, you have refused to acknowledge the evidence. There's none so blind...

Ahh now we are getting to the heart of the matter. PM had a grumpy e-mail from Randi (apparently) and then went on to suggest he could win the prize.

Seeing as the prize is for the demonstration of a supernatural or paranormal phenomenon why do you find it surprising that he is dismisive when you claim to be able show a normal scientific event?

Judging by the responses you got it looks to me like Randi thought - surely somebody can't be this daft to try and claim a paranormal prize for something they claim is a normal scientific phenomenon - personally I am surprised you got a response at all.

 

[kookbreaker]

Ahh now we are getting to the heart of the matter. PM had a grumpy e-mail from Randi (apparently) and then went on to suggest he could win the prize.

Seeing as the prize is for the demonstration of a supernatural or paranormal phenomenon why do you find it surprising that he is dismisive when you claim to be able show a normal scientific event?

Judging by the responses you got it looks to me like Randi thought - surely somebody can't be this daft to try and claim a paranormal prize for something they claim is a normal scientific phenomenon - personally I am surprised you got a response at all.

This thread on the Straight Dope Message Board pretty much shows how bankrupt Peter's claim actually is. As one person on page 2 points out, what Randi says is not that finding a dry spot is not an adequate test, merely a better one than finding water.

 

[Ashles]

DALTON: Unnecessarily argumentative. Claims things about the Randi million test that are untrue. Tries to wiggle out of arguments. Ultimately gives up. Starts whining on other message boards about how unfair Randi is to him

Peter Morris: Unnecessarily argumentative. Claims things about the Randi million test that are untrue. Tries to wiggle out of arguments. Ultimately gives up. Starts whining on other message boards about how unfair Randi is to him


Hmmm....

 

[Doubt]

They are not the same person. The writing style is completely different.

Also, Peter has a clue about science. Unfortunately, his bias impairs his ability to reason.

Dalton suffers from an inadequate education. Dalton may eventually overcome faulty reason and progress beyond his current state of belief. Dalton just needs to get comfortable with doing a test with a useful control and the consequences of doing it.

Peter has invested a great deal effort in blinding himself to reason in many forms. Someday he may even figure out that many of those that disagree with him don’t care about Randi.