Peter Vs Randi

[The Mighty Thor]

Since you attack me for misquoting Randi, I'm sure your quotes are true and exact. I'm sure you will reply with a cite right away.

tick tick tick......

Is that a BOMB you hear ticking?

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Where is that one true Scotsman with nothing on under his kilt when you need him?

He's in a pub, drunk and challenging a dowser to a fight.......

Hang on i'll see if I can get his attention......

 

[billydkid]

Blah, blah, blah, blah

Randi says that if Noah existed we should have the same Y-chromosome.

Randi's statement is based on the assumption that the Y-chromosome passes down the generations unchanged.

Science says that the Y-chromosome mutates and changes over thousands of years.

Therefore, if Noah really existed, we would NOT have the same Y-chromosome.

Understand yet?

Blah, blah, blah, blah!

 

[Zep]

He's in a pub, drunk and challenging a dowser to a fight.......

Hang on i'll see if I can get his attention......

No, please don't. It's been such a good evening. We'll just send Mr Morris along to see you - I'm sure these two will meet and sort out their differences in the carpark later.

 

[princhester]

So, in other words, its acceptable for you to do this, but not me.

You are allowed to take "underground streams" from one article, "sharply delineated edges" from a different dowser, and "crossing over one another" ifrom someone else again, then run all three of them togrther into a statement of 'what dowsers belive' Each dowser you quote has only made half that statement, yet you feel entitled to run them together into a version of 'what dowsers think.'

So, its acceptable for you to "not quote exactly" but you throw a tantrum when I do the exact same thing?

Three points.

Firstly, "I do the exact same thing" is purest whinery. What you did was attribute something to Randi that Randi never said. You said that Randi instructed dowsers to check for underground streams, which he simply did not do. It is not a case of putting a few things he did say in different places into one sentence.

Randi did not instruct dowsers to check for underground streams. Your comment was completely false. It's that simple.

What I did was to take several things, each of which was in fact something that more than one dowser had said, and conflate them into one sentence. Every single thing I said was in fact, in substance, true.

Note the not-so-subtle difference?

Secondly, I accept that putting all these things into one sentence may have given the wrong impression. To the extent that's a problem, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have done it. I was posting in a hurry is my only excuse.

Now compare that to your behaviour when you do something three times as culpable: you go on defending the indefensible, a blatant falsity, for post after post, long after you've lost all credibility, and whine about how unfair it is that you're being taken to task.

Note the not-so-subtle-difference?

Thirdly, you have made a virtual profession of pedantry and nit-pickery when it comes to Randi. The entirety of your current OP (and others like it) can be summarised as:

Randi has made some mistakes, indulged in some exaggeration, and not always explained himself perfectly, and he is therefore discredited

Judging you by that, your own standard, leaves you discredited, Peter.

I, on the other hand, think that making mistakes, indulging in exaggeration and not always explaining oneself perfectly is an aspect of the human condition.

Judging me by that, my own standard, leaves me in reasonable shape.

Or to put it bluntly, you live by it Peter, so don't whine to me when you die by it.

 

[jj]

No, I'm saying that someone with no education to speak of should not be the head of an 'educational' foundation.

Randi is entitled to disbelieve if he wants.

He shouldn't publish this ill-informed gibberish, while claiming that it's accurate scientific information.

What level of education is required, say you, to be a world-class research scientist, Peter?

 

[Randi]

Installment #1:

Let’s examine – as Mr. Morris has almost done – one of the dreadful errors of fact that leave him so “annoyed.” I wrote that “molecules of H2O . . . do not ‘cluster’ under any influence of the dreadful effects of‘air, heat, and modern civilization’. . . That’s quite true. Those elements have nothing to do with any “clustering” of water molecules. Mr. Morris is wrong.

(Sorry, but this system does not show the "2" in the formula abve, as a subscript, as I originally wrote it.)

I then added, “True, water exhibits surface tension, and the molecules do ‘line up’ to an extent, though almost any foreign substance in there disturbs this effect — soap/detergent ‘wets’ it readily. But water molecules in ‘clusters’? No way.” Yes, a distinct error, no argument. My only excuse for that is that I was aware of the EXCEEDINGLY TRANSIENT nature of this common grouping, .000000000003 of one second. Since in the next 3 picoseconds, that clustering is broken, I could not imagine that the water would be snatched into a dry cell that quickly, as Penta claims. In any case, the imaginative illustration on the Penta website shows a 55+-molecule "cluster" trying to enter a thirsty cell. But Morris continues:

“In attempting to correct his error, Randi only digs himself deeper.”

Hold on. Two points to make here: first, I did admit and correct my error – I didn’t just “attempt” to do so, and Morris seems to imply here that correcting an acknowledged error – or even acknowledging it in the first place – is a grave offense. No, Mr. Morris, it’s what logical, honest persons do, with no loss to their pride or reputation. He goes on:

“Randi claims that clusters are limited to six molecules. He is wrong.” No, I am right. The free “arms” available on the six molecules are fully occupied in forming up the “lattice” or “crystal” assembly, and that is a complete, saturated – though transitory – arrangement. This is called, “passivation,” and until that 6-molecule assembly breaks up, none of those molecules can “get together” with any other molecules.

Morris writes, “. . . 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.” No, Randi didn’t “miss” anything here. Morris, however, did. Mr. Morris is wrong.

Folks, this is only a beginning. From time to time, I’ll get back to the Morris comments, but I’ve serious work to do here, and the Morris claims, though easy to demolish, are just not that important. Lest he begin chortling at this point, I’ll state that I’ll eventually handle it all – but I’m in no rush to do so, believe me. There’s little of any substance here, and certainly not much, if any, that could be labeled, “misleading. totally untrue, or utterly wrong.” The "facts that aren't true,” I haven’t yet been presented with. In any case, and this is the important factor here, do these peccadillos alter my arguments and criticisms of the woo-woo world in any substantial fashion? I think not….

James Randi.

 

[jj]

But water molecules in ‘clusters’? No way.” Yes, a distinct error, no argument. My only excuse for that is that I was aware of the EXCEEDINGLY TRANSIENT nature of this common grouping, .000000000003 of one second. Since in the next 3 picoseconds, that clustering is broken, I could not imagine that the water would be snatched into a dry cell that quickly, as Penta claims. In any case, the imaginative illustration on the Penta website shows a 55+-molecule "cluster" trying to enter a thirsty cell.

Indeed. This is the same problem that Homeopathy has, with the water molecule taking "patterns". Any such "patterns", even if taken, will be destroyed by both quantum probabilities and thermal motion, no matter any "short, sharp shock" delivered in "making" the pattern. As an aside, I saw "Pentawater" on the shelf at a QFC in downtown Redmond ( such as we have a downtown) the other day. Agggghhhhhh! (insert soundtrack of ducks calling)

Anyhow:

Score: Randi 1, Morris 0.

Why do I think this is going to be a trend?

Morris is, in my opinion, trying to take advantage of the sorry state of science education, making plausible, but ridiculous, explainations, and taking advantage of the well-known "big lie" psychology.

 

[BillHoyt]

(Sorry, but this system does not show the "2" in the formula abve, as a subscript, as I originally wrote it.)

Ah, somebody needs to initiate you in the arcane mysteries of Horrid Text Markup Language or HTML, as the high priests know it. I'll give you the secret, but I''ll have to kill a credophile argument afterward. Deal? Okay.

Precede the two with <*sub*>, and follow it with <*/sub*> (Remove all asterisks; they're inserted to prevent HTML from acting on the command.) The text then looks like H<*sub*>2<*sub> and appears to the reader as H₂O.

In any case, and this is the important factor here, do these peccadillos alter my arguments and criticisms of the woo-woo world in any substantial fashion? I think not….

Substance, of course, is not the issue here. The real issue is to demonstrate that skeptics are inhuman, cold, closed-minded, inflexible types who make mistakes and are therefore human. Wait, that's not quite right, is it? They are human, cold, closed-minded, inflexible types who have to admit mistakes. Hold up, I'll get it... They are human, cold, closed-minded types who admit mistakes and learn from their... Wait. Let's see. They are human, cold types who make and learn from mistakes...

Ahhh, d*I** ... and a fanatical dedication to the Pope.

 

[Dragon]

*pops head round edge of the door*

Has Peter got on to Sister Elizabeth Kenny or that guy who reads vinyl LPs yet? (you, know the one whose name he can't spell).
No?
Ah well the thread is yet young.
Oh, and Stephen Hawking will probably be making a guest appearance too.
See you in a couple of pages.

 

[Peter Morris]

Thirdly, you have made a virtual profession of pedantry and nit-pickery when it comes to Randi. The entirety of your current OP (and others like it) can be summarised as:

Randi has made some mistakes, indulged in some exaggeration, and not always explained himself perfectly, and he is therefore discredited

Judging you by that, your own standard, leaves you discredited, Peter.

Now this is where I get annoyed at this guy. He has this talent for making things up out of whole cloth .

I do not nit-pick, I point out serious errors.

Randi has spent several decades writing books and articles, giving lectures, and interviews for newspapers, making wildly inaccurate statements about geology to 'prove' that dowsing doesn't work.

Randi claims that underground rivers don't exist.

Fact is, underground streams, and river-like structures (paleochannels) exist alright.

Randi says that there is huge amounts of water underground, just drill anywhere and you are virtually certain to hit water.

Geologists say that finding a suitable well is very hard, with many factors that need to be taken into account. Many places only produce a tiny trickle, others tjhe water is too contaminated, others you have to drill through hard stone before you reach it, and so on.

Pointing out these errors are not nit-picking. Randi's errors are too frequent, too big, delivered too often and too central to his arguments to be ignored.

But here come Princhester, trying to find an excuse for Randi. He can't can't fault the message so he attacks the messenger instead.

Oh, screams Princhester, look at how Peter lies. Peter claims Randi told the dowsers to check for underground streams, but really Randi told them to check for anomalies such as natural water. This is a huge difference, claims Princhester. (The fact that Princhester himself did exactly the same thing doesn't bother him at all. He makes excuses for himself, but can't apply the same to me. )



And then we have Princhester's usual confusion, he thinks that pointing out a mistake I made somehow wipes out the mistakes Randi made. No matter how many lies Randi tells, if Princhester can find just one tiny little error on my part, then he can kid himself that Randi is correct.

So, in Princhester's tiny mind we see :

Randi's several decades of lectures giving lots of wrong information = small error.

Peter misquoting Randi several pages into a long discussion = big error.

Therefore, claims Princhester, Randi was right after all, because Peter's misquote eliminates Randi's decades of errors.

All in all, Princhester is a victim of Randi's lessons in hypocritical thinking and self delusion.

 

[jj]

Now this is where I get annoyed at this guy. He has this talent for making things up out of whole cloth .


Really? Looks to me like he's spot on.


I do not nit-pick, I point out serious errors.


Your pointing out of "serious errors" contains serious errors itself, so you aren't entitled to refer to your actions as fact.


Randi has spent several decades writing books and articles, giving lectures, and interviews for newspapers, making wildly inaccurate statements about geology to 'prove' that dowsing doesn't work.


Then how come you can't show them.

Why are you dodging the "water cluster" issue now that it's been tromped into the mud?


Randi claims that underground rivers don't exist.


Your claim involves extracting Randi's comments from context, and is entirely misleading.


Fact is, underground streams, and river-like structures (paleochannels) exist alright.


Underground streams and rivers exist in caves, like Randi said. Paleochannels are not rivers, the water motion is much slower that that in any flowing river.


Randi says that there is huge amounts of water underground, just drill anywhere and you are virtually certain to hit water.


And that's right in line with what everyone else who is informed thinks, too. Having been involved in the drilling of several wells, I am quite comfortable saying that the location of the well was entirely determined by where it would be convenient to park the rig, and plumb to the storage tank. None of the experienced well-drillers I know of used a dowser, none of them worried much at all if they were in the "right place", either, and all of the wells worked fine. One nearly too fine, pointing out a serious groundwater level problem (not "too low" either).


Geologists say that finding a suitable well is very hard, with many factors that need to be taken into account. Many places only produce a tiny trickle, others tjhe water is too contaminated, others you have to drill through hard stone before you reach it, and so on.


First, that's not what the geologists I know have said (yes, I know geologists). Second, the rest of your rant has nothing to do with dowsing, and nothing to do with actually finding water, only with the ease of doing so.


Pointing out these errors are not nit-picking. Randi's errors are too frequent, too big, delivered too often and too central to his arguments to be ignored.


You haven't shown anyone who knows anything about the subject any "big" error. The "errors" you're citing consist mostly of nitpicking, or of attempting to relate lay terms to scientific terms.


But here come Princhester, trying to find an excuse for Randi. He can't can't fault the message so he attacks the messenger instead.


And he seems to be spot on. On the other hand, he's entirely capable of defending himself, I'll let him toss this one in the blender.


Oh, screams Princhester, look at how Peter lies. Peter claims Randi told the dowsers to check for underground streams, but really Randi told them to check for anomalies such as natural water. This is a huge difference, claims Princhester. (The fact that Princhester himself did exactly the same thing doesn't bother him at all. He makes excuses for himself, but can't apply the same to me. )


Evidence? Please? Where did Princhester do whatever it is that you seem to accuse him of. I'm not surprised you're vague on this, because that makes it easier to argue, but I put exactly zero stock into a crass accusation with no cited evidence.

(rest of self-serving rant based on the fallacies dismissed above removed as beneath comment)

 

[princhester]

For a person who likes calling others liars and frauds, you sure do squeal when your mistakes are pointed out, don't you Peter?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As usual , I've posted facts that Randi fanatics are unable to refute, so they descend into invective, words games, and lies.

same old, same old.

I'm done here.

You said that once before. Then you came back.

Liar.

 

[Peter Morris]

No, Princhester, in most cases the "errors" you point out are far too trivial to be worth commenting on. Mostly I just ignore you.

 

[BillHoyt]

Randi says that there is huge amounts of water underground, just drill anywhere and you are virtually certain to hit water.

Geologists say that finding a suitable well is very hard, with many factors that need to be taken into account. Many places only produce a tiny trickle, others tjhe water is too contaminated, others you have to drill through hard stone before you reach it, and so on.

"Suitable well" does not equal "existence of underground water." Neither is "finding suitable wells" what dowsers claim to do.

You, sir, are the one who plays word games and who is foot-loose with facts whenever it suits you.

 

[Peter Morris]

Installment #1:

“Randi claims that clusters are limited to six molecules. He is wrong.” No, I am right. The free “arms” available on the six molecules are fully occupied in forming up the “lattice” or “crystal” assembly, and that is a complete, saturated – though transitory – arrangement. This is called, “passivation,” and until that 6-molecule assembly breaks up, none of those molecules can “get together” with any other molecules.

Morris writes, “. . . 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.” No, Randi didn’t “miss” anything here. Morris, however, did. Mr. Morris is wrong.

Folks, help me out here. With Randi followers being such skilled critical thinkers I'm sure they didn't just blindly accept Randi's word for this, they of course did a little research to confirm the truth of what he said.

Well, people, I look into this "passivation" thing that Randi speaks of, and I can't find anything about it. You see, the only references I have been able to find have used the word in a totally different way. Many scientific sites say that passivation refers to treating a substance in order to make it less reactive.

For example this site says "Passivation refers to any treatment of the metal surface that renders it less reactive." The encyclopedia says that "Passivation is the process of making a material "passive" in relation to another material prior to using the materials together".

I am unable to find any references using the word in the sense Randi uses it. If anyone can point to a suitable reference proving the truth of his words it would be very helpful.

I shall of course attempt to seek out a chemist who can explain this to me, but in the meantime, anyone have any references?

 

[jj]

Well, people, I look into this "passivation" thing that Randi speaks of, and I can't find anything about it.

General Chemistry, McQuarrie and Rock, ISBN 0-7167-1806-5

Read it cover to cover. You need to.

 

[BillHoyt]

General Chemistry, McQuarrie and Rock, ISBN 0-7167-1806-5

Read it cover to cover. You need to.

No, jj, no. It is far more informative to go to an online encyclopedia and then to ask a skeptical community for the answers. The great irony is that Morris has the gall to charge Randi with scientific errors and then for Morris to clearly demonstrate he is unfamilar with them as well.

 

[EHocking]

Folks, help me out here. With Randi followers being such skilled critical thinkers I'm sure they didn't just blindly accept Randi's word for this, they of course did a little research to confirm the truth of what he said.

Well, people, I look into this "passivation" thing that Randi speaks of, and I can't find anything about it.
...
I am unable to find any references using the word in the sense Randi uses it. If anyone can point to a suitable reference proving the truth of his words it would be very helpful.

I'm unable to find any reference to the word "passivation" in the Forum or on the Commentary.

Where abouts does Randi use this word and in what sense?