Peter Morris
Muse
- Joined
- May 12, 2003
- Messages
- 938
In another thread I made the following statement
Randi made a rare appearance on these boards to say
People, there are extremists on both sides of the paranormal debate. On the one side, you have the woo-woos, who totally believe in the paranormal. On the other side, equal and opposite, you have the oww-owws such as James Randi, guru of hypocritical thinking. Their tactics are essentially the same. Believers really need it to be true, so they make up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize their position. Randi passionately hates the paranormal. He really needs it to be false, so he makes up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize his belief.
In this article I will show several examples of Randi’s pseudoscience. These examples demonstrate Randi as a man obsessed with discrediting the paranormal any way he can, without caring much about the accuracy of his statements.
Note that the categories aren’t mutually exclusive, a wrong scientific statement also doubles as a wrong anti paranormal argument, a misleading statement and a fact that isn’t true.
EXAMPLE 1 :
Attacking Penta Water Randi said:
Way.
Randi is misinformed. Water molecules do in fact cluster owing to something called hydrogen bonding. In a water molecule, atoms of hydrogen have a positive charge and oxygen has a negative charge. Each molecule of water will be attracted to, and bond with several other water molecules. This forms clusters of water molecules of various sizes, some big, some small.
I’m spoilt for choice for references. Just google for “hydrogen bonding” + water and you will find thousands of papers disagreeing with Randi.
The idea of stabilising the clusters is not as absurd as Randi makes out. Russian scientist Boris V. Deryagin claimed to have produced polywater in Sept 1966, and other investigators started to duplicate his results. Deryagin withdrew his claims in a letter to Nature on August 17 1973. While it is extremely unlikely that Penta have succeeded where he failed, the concept does at least have some basis in science.
Then, later, Randi realised his mistake and tried to correct it.
In attempting to correct his error, Randi only digs himself deeper. Randi claims that clusters are limited to six molecules. He is wrong. Any given molecule of water will form bonds with up to 5 other molecules, correct. But – here’s the part Randi misses – each of those 5 will bond with another 5, and each of those with another 5, and so on.
Nor is it correct to say that the cluster ‘lasts’ for such a short time. Individual bonds within a cluster might break, but the cluster itself is not destroyed. Also, bonds broken will re-form even more quickly. At any given instant, almost all molecules will be bonded to one cluster or another, and any individual molecule is bonded for almost all the time.
People, I don’t believe Penta’s claim, but Randi is not a suitable person to challenge them.
EXAMPLE 2 :
Secondly Randi tells his readers what the causes of arthritis are. This is misleading since it implies that those are the ONLY causes, to the exclusion of all others. There are many causes of arthritis besides the ones Randi lists.
There are many references explaining the causes of arthritis. Here's a few to get you started:
What is Rheumatoid Arthritis?
Knee Arthritis
Learn About Gout
Arthritis
A few notes:
There are over 100 different disorders classed as 'arthritis', including Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout and others.
The causes of many forms of arthritis are controversial to a certain extent. We can’t say definitively what the causes are, there are only current theories. Some forms have causes that are simply unknown.
Arthritis is not always a disease of old age; it can strike anyone anytime.
Arthritis has many different (theorized) causes, including old age, injury, infection by virus or bacteria, nutritional problems, too much or too little exercise, genetic factors, and others. In Rheumatoid Arthritis, for example, it is thought to be caused by a malfunction of the body’s own immune system where the body attacks its own joints. This can happen following a period of mental stress, or an emotional trauma such as a divorce or bereavement.
So, it is reasonable to state that "You create diseases like arthritis with your thoughts." To be strictly accurate, we should say that “according to current theory, state of mind is a major factor in the onset of certain types of arthritis”
I have no idea who this Gary Null bloke is. He may be a quack, for all I know. Is this really the best example of his quackery that Randi can come up with?
EXAMPLE 3 :
The above not actually said by Randi directly, but quoted by him with approval in his commentary. Randi claims it as a “good point” so it’s fair game to blame him for the scientific errors it contains.
Randi and his correspondent seem to think that the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son. This is wrong. There are two mechanisms that alter the Y chromosome in each generation.
Sperm is formed through meiosis. During meiosis, a process of crossing over or recombination occurs. Every pair of chromosomes - the XY chromosomes and the other 22 pairs - exchange genetic information. Genes detach from the X chromosome, and attach to the Y chromosome, and vice-versa. The recombined chromosomes are passed down to the next generation.
Note that crossing over happens to a lesser degree in the XY pair than in other pairs. There is a section of the Y chromosome where the genes don’t cross over. However, this section is subject to random mutation down the generations.
Also, the claim that we don’t have the same Y-chromosome needs examination. While all human males don’t have identical Y-chromosomes, there are strong similarities, which shows that all men on Earth are in fact descended from a common male ancestor. Of course, he lived millions of years ago, rather than the few thousand years claimed by creationists.
I’m agnostic myself, folks. Just pointing out that the argument praised so highly by Randi is actually pretty duff.
EXAMPLE 4 :
Atempting to provide information that refutes dowsers, Randi said:
I suggest that Randi is the deluded one here.
Randi claims that there are “no streams of water flowing underground” – he is wrong. Underground streams are very common in Karst formations, that is about 10-15% of all land on Earth. See, for example, the diagram here, showing an underground stream.
http://www.cancaver.ca/docs/karst.htm
Other types of geography contain structures that are river-like, but not true underground rivers. Picture this: You have a narrow streambed, full of sand and gravel because the water in it flows pretty fast. It flows across a plain that consists of clays and very fine silts deposited by a lake that used be on the same spot. Now fast-forward 30,000 years. You have the lake and the streambed covered by 40 to 80 meters of silts, loess, glacial tills, and assorted "stuff" deposited over the centuries. The ancient burried river is still there, flowing beneath the Earth's surface. This should be described as a burried river, rather than an underground river. The distinction is important to geologists.
Randi claims “there is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves” – he is wrong. Darcy’s Law describes the underground flow of water (and other fluids). This can be expressed as
Q = AK(Δh/L)
Where:
Q = volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
A = flow area perpendicular to L (m2)
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
Δh = change in hydraulic head (m)
L = flow path length (m)
EXAMPLE 5 :
Randi's further attempts to refute dowsers, with geological facts that aren't actually true.
Folks, Randi is very much misinformed about underground water. It’s a lot rarer than he thinks, and dry spots very much more common. Finding underground water- in any significant quantity is hard. Its a very difficult job for a trained geologist, requiring many different factors to be taken into consideration. To be precise, nowhere is totally devoid of water, but in most spots the actual amount of water is miniscule, far too little to be of any use, which would be considered dry by most people.
Finding a dry spot is easy. All you do is pick any spot at random, and the spot you pick is virtually certain to be dry. Anyone can do it.
Randi thinks that finding a dry spot would be good evidence of paranormal ability. In fact, random drilling would be far more likely to hit a dry spot than a good source of water. I attempted to discuss this point with Randi in private email correspondance. Randi admitted to me that the "find a dry spot" canard was just "a figure of speech" and not really a test that he is prepared to offer.
Randi made a rare appearance on these boards to say
People, there are extremists on both sides of the paranormal debate. On the one side, you have the woo-woos, who totally believe in the paranormal. On the other side, equal and opposite, you have the oww-owws such as James Randi, guru of hypocritical thinking. Their tactics are essentially the same. Believers really need it to be true, so they make up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize their position. Randi passionately hates the paranormal. He really needs it to be false, so he makes up all kinds of false facts and pseudoscientific gibberish to rationalize his belief.
In this article I will show several examples of Randi’s pseudoscience. These examples demonstrate Randi as a man obsessed with discrediting the paranormal any way he can, without caring much about the accuracy of his statements.
Note that the categories aren’t mutually exclusive, a wrong scientific statement also doubles as a wrong anti paranormal argument, a misleading statement and a fact that isn’t true.
EXAMPLE 1 :
Attacking Penta Water Randi said:
Way.
Randi is misinformed. Water molecules do in fact cluster owing to something called hydrogen bonding. In a water molecule, atoms of hydrogen have a positive charge and oxygen has a negative charge. Each molecule of water will be attracted to, and bond with several other water molecules. This forms clusters of water molecules of various sizes, some big, some small.
I’m spoilt for choice for references. Just google for “hydrogen bonding” + water and you will find thousands of papers disagreeing with Randi.
The idea of stabilising the clusters is not as absurd as Randi makes out. Russian scientist Boris V. Deryagin claimed to have produced polywater in Sept 1966, and other investigators started to duplicate his results. Deryagin withdrew his claims in a letter to Nature on August 17 1973. While it is extremely unlikely that Penta have succeeded where he failed, the concept does at least have some basis in science.
Then, later, Randi realised his mistake and tried to correct it.
In attempting to correct his error, Randi only digs himself deeper. Randi claims that clusters are limited to six molecules. He is wrong. Any given molecule of water will form bonds with up to 5 other molecules, correct. But – here’s the part Randi misses – each of those 5 will bond with another 5, and each of those with another 5, and so on.
Nor is it correct to say that the cluster ‘lasts’ for such a short time. Individual bonds within a cluster might break, but the cluster itself is not destroyed. Also, bonds broken will re-form even more quickly. At any given instant, almost all molecules will be bonded to one cluster or another, and any individual molecule is bonded for almost all the time.
People, I don’t believe Penta’s claim, but Randi is not a suitable person to challenge them.
EXAMPLE 2 :
Maybe James Randi should get someone to check his writings for accuracy. Randi makes two errors here. Firstly, he challenges the notion that thoughts create arthritis. He is wrong on this. Thoughts – or at least state of mind – CAN cause arthritis.
Secondly Randi tells his readers what the causes of arthritis are. This is misleading since it implies that those are the ONLY causes, to the exclusion of all others. There are many causes of arthritis besides the ones Randi lists.
There are many references explaining the causes of arthritis. Here's a few to get you started:
What is Rheumatoid Arthritis?
Knee Arthritis
Learn About Gout
Arthritis
A few notes:
There are over 100 different disorders classed as 'arthritis', including Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout and others.
The causes of many forms of arthritis are controversial to a certain extent. We can’t say definitively what the causes are, there are only current theories. Some forms have causes that are simply unknown.
Arthritis is not always a disease of old age; it can strike anyone anytime.
Arthritis has many different (theorized) causes, including old age, injury, infection by virus or bacteria, nutritional problems, too much or too little exercise, genetic factors, and others. In Rheumatoid Arthritis, for example, it is thought to be caused by a malfunction of the body’s own immune system where the body attacks its own joints. This can happen following a period of mental stress, or an emotional trauma such as a divorce or bereavement.
So, it is reasonable to state that "You create diseases like arthritis with your thoughts." To be strictly accurate, we should say that “according to current theory, state of mind is a major factor in the onset of certain types of arthritis”
I have no idea who this Gary Null bloke is. He may be a quack, for all I know. Is this really the best example of his quackery that Randi can come up with?
EXAMPLE 3 :
The above not actually said by Randi directly, but quoted by him with approval in his commentary. Randi claims it as a “good point” so it’s fair game to blame him for the scientific errors it contains.
Randi and his correspondent seem to think that the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son. This is wrong. There are two mechanisms that alter the Y chromosome in each generation.
Sperm is formed through meiosis. During meiosis, a process of crossing over or recombination occurs. Every pair of chromosomes - the XY chromosomes and the other 22 pairs - exchange genetic information. Genes detach from the X chromosome, and attach to the Y chromosome, and vice-versa. The recombined chromosomes are passed down to the next generation.
Note that crossing over happens to a lesser degree in the XY pair than in other pairs. There is a section of the Y chromosome where the genes don’t cross over. However, this section is subject to random mutation down the generations.
Also, the claim that we don’t have the same Y-chromosome needs examination. While all human males don’t have identical Y-chromosomes, there are strong similarities, which shows that all men on Earth are in fact descended from a common male ancestor. Of course, he lived millions of years ago, rather than the few thousand years claimed by creationists.
I’m agnostic myself, folks. Just pointing out that the argument praised so highly by Randi is actually pretty duff.
EXAMPLE 4 :
Atempting to provide information that refutes dowsers, Randi said:
I suggest that Randi is the deluded one here.
Randi claims that there are “no streams of water flowing underground” – he is wrong. Underground streams are very common in Karst formations, that is about 10-15% of all land on Earth. See, for example, the diagram here, showing an underground stream.
http://www.cancaver.ca/docs/karst.htm
Other types of geography contain structures that are river-like, but not true underground rivers. Picture this: You have a narrow streambed, full of sand and gravel because the water in it flows pretty fast. It flows across a plain that consists of clays and very fine silts deposited by a lake that used be on the same spot. Now fast-forward 30,000 years. You have the lake and the streambed covered by 40 to 80 meters of silts, loess, glacial tills, and assorted "stuff" deposited over the centuries. The ancient burried river is still there, flowing beneath the Earth's surface. This should be described as a burried river, rather than an underground river. The distinction is important to geologists.
Randi claims “there is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves” – he is wrong. Darcy’s Law describes the underground flow of water (and other fluids). This can be expressed as
Q = AK(Δh/L)
Where:
Q = volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
A = flow area perpendicular to L (m2)
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
Δh = change in hydraulic head (m)
L = flow path length (m)
EXAMPLE 5 :
Randi's further attempts to refute dowsers, with geological facts that aren't actually true.
Folks, Randi is very much misinformed about underground water. It’s a lot rarer than he thinks, and dry spots very much more common. Finding underground water- in any significant quantity is hard. Its a very difficult job for a trained geologist, requiring many different factors to be taken into consideration. To be precise, nowhere is totally devoid of water, but in most spots the actual amount of water is miniscule, far too little to be of any use, which would be considered dry by most people.
Finding a dry spot is easy. All you do is pick any spot at random, and the spot you pick is virtually certain to be dry. Anyone can do it.
Randi thinks that finding a dry spot would be good evidence of paranormal ability. In fact, random drilling would be far more likely to hit a dry spot than a good source of water. I attempted to discuss this point with Randi in private email correspondance. Randi admitted to me that the "find a dry spot" canard was just "a figure of speech" and not really a test that he is prepared to offer.
