princhester said:
I've decided I'm going to reform and stop rising to peter's bait and I'm going to be polite.
That's good. This post is, for once, polite and reasonable. Please do keep to this standard, and I shall do the same.
It's hard because a lot of what peter says is quite galling. Can I ask this, Peter? Try to be more accurate about what my position is. I find it annoying when you are not, and it causes me to be grumpy. For example, I have never said that I think Randi is "the only game in town". In fact I have said precisely the opposite, at least once, as you can see here. I'd really appreciate it if you could check what I've actually said before you accuse me of having a particular position, Peter. Please?
On this particular point, can I just say that, several times in the past,
you have accused
me of thinking that "randi is the only game in town", even after I vrepeatedly said its the exact opposite of my point.
Just for once, I thought I would turn the tables, and say it about you before you said it about me. It certainly is a great deal closer to your position than to mine.
The guts of it is this: a few posts back you said "Because the "stunt" was logically flawed, and Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test." If you have any evidence to support the statement "Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test" then produce that evidence. That would be impressive. But pointing at stunts that Randi mentions as evidence that his tests have logical flaws is not, on its own, convincing of anything.
Well, I have given you evidence of flaws in his tests before, but you didn't listen. Since you now seem to in a more reasonable frame of mind I will show you one of my favorites among Randi's many flawed tests.
But first, a little geology lesson is required.
I consulted some geologists about the science of underground water, checking the accuracy of certain statements made by Randi.
See
Here
I was checking on Randi's statement that "more than 90% of the world's land mass [is] above reachable supplies of water" I was told the following:
- You can find
some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle.
- The availability of water varies enormously over a short distance.
- It is perfectly possible, in fact, to have two spots 20 metres apart, one yields 10 gpm, the other yields 800 gpm.
- You must also consider accessibility: At one spot water may be 20 feet down, and another spot on the same patch of ground, the water may be 70 feet down.
- Finally, you have to consider the quality of the water. In one spot, the water can be sweet and clean, a short distance away the water could be contaminated, or contain too much dissolved minerals to be useful.
Finding an optimal spot for a well is a difficult task for an expert. You can't just dig anywhere and expect to find useful supplies of water.
Now you know geolohy, lets get on to Randi's test.
Suppose a dowser claims the ability to locate a spot for a well where the water is potable, easily accessible, and in large supply. How would James Randi test that claim?
I'll let Randi speak for himself:
One:
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.
Two:
To that, Randi says, "Find me a dry spot," because, as he points out, it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough.
Three:
Having a string of successful wells to which one can point, proves nothing. A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult.
Four
Ninety percent of the surface of the Earth has water within drillable distance so I would like someone to find me a dry spot
So, there we have it. If someone claims they can find water, Randi challenges them to "find a dry spot." That is the only test Randi is willing to give, and it makes no sense at all.
There are no "dry spots" that can be found, anywhere. Any spot will give
some water, albeit a bare trickle. Randi's conditions cannot be met. If someone had genuine dowsing powers, it would still be impossible to meet his challenge.
Randi's often repeated statement that "94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance" is true
only if you include a bare trickle of dirty water. And by that standard, there are no dry spots at all.
Finding a
good well - as opposed to a poor one - by dowsing would be "paranormal", finding a dry spot is impossible.
Apart from anything else, the challenge set by Randi is radically different from the claim being made. Dowsers claim the ability to find water, not the ability to find dry spots.
Naturally, most dowsers refuse to have anything to do with his tests. Randi claims some sort of victory by default.
To me, the logic of the test he offers seems fundamentally flawed. Many other tests have similar basic flaws in their design.
)
