Peter Vs Randi

[ceptimus]

We've been here before

 

[Martin]

Bill, I'm not going to play word games with you. Randi's correspondant said "the same" and I interpreted that as meaning "the same"

If it gives you comfort to believe that "the same" means "different" then by all means keep the faith

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

So 'the same' must mean exactly 'the same'. But 'dry' actually means 'not much water, though technically there is water everywhere, which is actually what Randi said'.

 

[Zep]

I've been back to the library, I've consulted people who know what they're talking about. You have not shown thet they were wrong yet.

Allow me to quote yourself from above:

Zep's post contradicts the information I have already been given by the geologists I consulted. I'll look into it. I'll seek advice. I might later revise my opinion based on further information.

If the text from the reference you quoted was any example of your standard of research then you are going to be laughed out of here very shortly.

Any geologist worth his salt will be able to expound at length and in detail on artesian water. It would have been one of the first answers to any questions about where underground water exists. In fact, any high school geology student could have given you the same answers as I did above.

This suggests to me that you have been asking the right people the wrong questions. Certainly your referenced conversation indicates that the geologist in question answered precisely the question you asked, but put simply, you did ask him the wrong question. What you actually asked was: "[Is it true that]...the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction [is] not supported at all by geological research." Not only is it a yes/no question that usually hides details and explanations behind the answer, the geologist answered in the negative because that particular point is clearly not true. You were just lucky that he qualified his answer with details to go on to the subject of karsts anyway.

Perhaps a better worded question more likely to give you the real information you sought, and more importantly, being relevant to Randi's statements, would have been along these lines: "What sources of water exist under the ground, how easily are they tappable, and do they exist right across the earth?" My first post above has given you just ONE answer to this question, and there will be so much more if you care to research further.

Or maybe you just didn't WANT to try to ask the right questions at all... You had a single answer from a "reputable scientific source" that you believe killed off Randi's statements good and proper, so you were satisfied to go no further. Huh! Maybe Randi IS wrong, but fudging the results to "prove" it is plain out-and-out cheating. I don't think the US Geological Water people will be pleased with that sort of manipulation of their responses...

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter,

I'm going to be charitable here. Doubly so, because I provided a broken link, and I will assume you were unable to read the information on that page. I have corrected that link in my previous post.

I beseech you to go to it, read it with understanding and then respond again. This will, however, be your last chance, because I have been following the conversation and am coming to the same conclusions others have already posted here. In short, I'm about to go medieval on your Grubbie rump.

Bill, I really don't know what your point is.

I stated that the X and Y chromosomes exchange genes. This is correct.

I stated "There is a section of the Y chromosome where the genes don’t cross over". This is correct. You point out that the section is 95% of the chromosome. Thank you for that detail.

I stated that the Y chromosome mutates down the generations. Are you contradicting that claim?

My essential point is that the Y-chromosome passed down from father to son is similar but not the same. Your link appears to agree with me.

I said that all men have similarities on their Y-chromasome that indicate a common ancestor. Do you agree with that point? I've not seen any clear refutation.

I said that the common ancestor was several million years ago. You disagree with 'millions.' How long ago was it?

The only real point of contention is the meaning of Randi's word "same." You attach one meaning, I attach another. And I'm not going to play that game with you.

 

[princhester]

No, I didn't ignore it, I just don't see how it challenges my information.

Possibly you are failing to understand that water doesn't JUST flow in caves. It flows in other places too.

Look up Darcy's Law, which describes how water flows through the pores in permeable rock, or flows around the particles in banks of sand and gravel. These are not caves by any stretch of the imagination.

and

See his information on ancient buried rivers. (They are properly called paleochannels by the way, look it up). The flow rate in one of those things is not small, it might be over 50 times greater than the surrounding area.

No one, least of all Randi, is denying water flows underground. He even says so right there in what you quote in your very first post. Water flowing through rock and gravel is not an underground river. Even if the water flows through old riverbeds faster than in surrounding areas, you yourself say that is not an underground river but a "paleochannel". And if you think that's a nitpick, let me quote your very own beloved experts:

You tend to find sands and gravels in old stream beds that have been buried, so you *do* find water flowing faster and in greater quantities through old buried rivers than through the surrounding materials, but it still doesn't count as an "underground river".

[my emphasis]

And another quote:

So, to summarize, in 15-20% of the world underground rivers are very common, and in the rest of the world you get ancient buried riverbeds, which are very similar to underground rivers, but not quite the same.

[my emphasis]

The author of this quote can be learned here but I'll give you a clue. His initials are PM.

As you would say, if it gives you comfort to believe that "different" means "the same" then by all means keep the faith.

Your basic hypocrisy is as always your undoing, Peter. You cannot maintain the standard of literalness and accuracy that you require of Randi.

 

[Peter Morris]

Perhaps a better worded question more likely to give you the real information you sought, and more importantly, being relevant to Randi's statements, would have been along these lines: "What sources of water exist under the ground, how easily are they tappable, and do they exist right across the earth?" My first post above has given you just ONE answer to this question, and there will be so much more if you care to research further.

Or maybe you just didn't WANT to try to ask the right questions at all... You had a single answer from a "reputable scientific source" that you believe killed off Randi's statements good and proper, so you were satisfied to go no further. Huh! Maybe Randi IS wrong, but fudging the results to "prove" it is plain out-and-out cheating. I don't think the US Geological Water people will be pleased with that sort of manipulation of their responses...

Zep, I asked several geologists on various forums, I met some in person to seek their advice, and I did some reading on the subject.

Here's another couple of links where I asked directly about finding dry spots.

part one

Here's a summary of what I learned.

o There is some water everywhere. Nowhere is completely devoid of water.

o In most places the actual amount of water is miniscule.

o In many locations where there is water, it will not be potable. It could have too much salt content, or too much chalk, or contain chemical contaminants.

o There are underground clay formations which hold large quantities of water, but don't release it. There will be no flow from such a spot.

o In many places the water lies under a layer of hard rock. There is water there, but you can't actually reach it. Or at least, reaching it would be difficult and expensive.

o GOOD water sources are rare and hard to find, which may only be discovered through a detailed geological survey.


So, if someone selects a spot at random and drills, they are likely to find only the most minute amounts of water, too small to be useful, or hit a clay bed from which no water flows, or strike hard stone that they can't get through, or find a lot of water that is contaminated and unusable.

If you define "dry spot" as meaning miniscule amounts of water, Randi is wrong, most places would be dry.

If you define "dry spot" as meaning no water at all, Randi is still wrong, the correct figure would be 0%.

Randi's information is wrong, however you shape it.


In part two I quoted Randi's words to the geologists, and asked their opinions. The geologists laughed at Randi's words.

I asked them about Randi's statement that you should have a 6% chance of hitting a dry spot. They laughed.

They told me that almost everywhere is a "dry spot" as Randi meant it.


Zep, these people appear to know what they are talking about. Why should I trust your claims over their detailed information?

It seems to me that even in the Great Artesian Basin, you have to select your spot with great care, or you won't have a useful supply.

 

[Peter Morris]

and



No one, least of all Randi, is denying water flows underground. He even says so right there in what you quote in your very first post. Water flowing through rock and gravel is not an underground river. Even if the water flows through old riverbeds faster than in surrounding areas, you yourself say that is not an underground river but a "paleochannel". And if you think that's a nitpick, let me quote your very own beloved experts:

[my emphasis]

As you would say, if it gives you comfort to believe that "different" means "the same" then by all means keep the faith.

Your basic hypocrisy is as always your undoing, Peter. You cannot maintain the standard of literalness and accuracy that you require of Randi.

As usual, Princhester produces another bizarre rant.

I Said :

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 ... This should be described as a burried river, rather than an underground river. The distinction is important to geologists.

Princhester tries to prove me wrong by quoting my own beloved experts :

but it still doesn't count as an "underground river".

My sources say that paleochannels aren't true rivers, and I say that paleochannels aren't true rivers, and Princhester imagines some error in this.

Sigh.

 

[tamiO]

Re: Re: Peter Vs Randi

As someone with arthritis and a variety of other ailments I can attest that your state of mind does affect your level of pain.

Deep stress affects sleep patterns and dysfunctional sleep patterns bring on symptoms of fibromyalgia in normal people.

 

[tamiO]

I see that Peter Morris has responded. As I expected, these are canards taken from the extensive attacks of the Grubbies, and I'll answer them in a few days when I get back from NYC. I expect that he'll go scurrying to find more, and I'll answer those, as well. It's a never-ending battle.....

Morris forwarded this to me, with the single line: "Have fun."

Oh, I will, depend on it.

Later.

James Randi.

While I admire your stance against "woo-wooism," it does appear that your prejudices color your perception. I guess you are human after all!

 

[princhester]

Here are some quotes from your "Part Two" in which geologists comment on Randi's challenge to "Find me a dry spot ... it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough."

True, but you also need sustainable flow and a minimum quality. I can get you squillions of litres a day from lots of places where I have worked and drilled, but often it is so salty it is hypersaline.

Here's another one:

Sure there is water below, but if if the drill hits a layer of hard rock you give up.

So here's two geologists that agree with Randi. They do say that the flow and quality might not be good. Randi never said anything about that. They do say that drilling might be beyond what is practical (but Randi did qualify by saying "if you drill deep enough").

Here's a quote from what you have called "Part one", in answer to your question "would it be true to say that there is underground water everywhere, but most spots would yield only a tiny quantity, less than a useful amount?

I'd guess most would yield a considerable amount.

Undoubtedly some geologists who you were pumping for information agreed with Randi and some didn't. You of course only mention the former. Does it occur to you that it is fairly forgivable for a layperson (Randi) to say something that some experts in the relevant field agree with, even if what they have said is wrong? Clearly, if even the experts can get it wrong, it is hardly a hanging offence for a layperson to do so.

But of course, for your, nothing Randi does is forgivable.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's pretty sad that a person would spend so much time and effort to discredit and defame a person that is only searching after the truth. Petey hates James Randi, that is what the thread is really about.

 

[princhester]

My sources say that paleochannels aren't true rivers, and I say that paleochannels aren't true rivers, and Princhester imagines some error in this.

You miss my point. I don't imagine you are in error in this respect. I think you are right: paleochannels are not underground rivers. They are not underground streams. They are paleochannels.

In your OP you offer up paleochannels as evidence of why Randi is wrong when he says there are no underground rivers or streams (subject to the qualifier he mentions). But you yourself say that paleochannels are not the same as rivers. Nor are they streams. They are paleochannels.

And while paleochannels may have some resemblance to rivers or streams, you yourself Peter are quick to criticise if someone suggests that "different" is "the same".

 

[Peter Morris]

It's pretty sad that a person would spend so much time and effort to discredit and defame a person that is only searching after the truth.

Princhester should stop doing it to me then.

 

[princhester]

Princhester should stop doing it to me then.

Feeling the heat?

 

[Peter Morris]

You miss my point. I don't imagine you are in error in this respect. I think you are right: paleochannels are not underground rivers. They are not underground streams. They are paleochannels.

In your OP you offer up paleochannels as evidence of why Randi is wrong when he says there are no underground rivers or streams (subject to the qualifier he mentions). But you yourself say that paleochannels are not the same as rivers. Nor are they streams. They are paleochannels.

And while paleochannels may have some resemblance to rivers or streams, you yourself Peter are quick to criticise if someone suggests that "different" is "the same".

Not at all. When Randi talks about dowsers hunting for 'underground rivers', really what the dowsers are looking for is paleochannels.

For example, in the Australian test, Randi instructed the dowsers to check for 'underground rivers' Really, he should have told them to check for paleochannels.

Randi is wrong to deny the existence of such things. 'Underground rivers' is Randi's term, and it's not correct. The dowsers he tested may, or may not, make the same error. Perhaps the dowsers also call them rivers, perhaps not,

The point is, it is misleading to say that underground rivers don't exist. Structures exist that are river-like except for a bit of terminology.

 

[tamiO]

It's pretty sad that a person would spend so much time and effort to discredit and defame a person that is only searching after the truth. Petey hates James Randi, that is what the thread is really about.

It's pretty sad that a person would spend so much time and effort to discredit and defame a person that is only searching after the truth. James Randi hates Peter Morris, that is what the thread is also about.

 

[Clancie]

grub-by: adj. dirty; untidy.

Posted by James Randi

I see that Peter Morris has responded. As I expected, these are canards taken from the extensive attacks of the Grubbies,

I know what a "Bright" is (supposed) to be.

But what, exactly, is a "Grubbie"?

And how does using words like this (and generalizing from one person's comments to some imagined repellent "group") serve the goals and methods of Critical Thinking?

 

[Dancing David]

I was going to cooment on some of the dialouge but gosh this is getting to be be a repetition of the same old stuff, we have two unsubstantiated claims that randi hates Ptere and that Petere hates Randi, we also have the usual name calling occuring, we have the usual retratcion of statements and continuing to assert that the retracted opinions were correct, if retracted.

Look here is the deal people, randi is two things, he is a debunker and he writes an editorial, if he makes a factual error in the ditorial then it is likely that he does so because he is writing an editorial. But by a nad large his stements are correct.

1. His comments on clustering were in reference to the magic properties of Penta water.

His comments on dowsing and underground rivers are in reference to the dowser's reference to 'underground rivers'.

So freaking what?

The conversation would be easier to read if people could refrain from the ad homs and stick to the argumentation, and leave the vendettas at the door.

 

[kookbreaker]

It's pretty sad that a person would spend so much time and effort to discredit and defame a person that is only searching after the truth. James Randi hates Peter Morris, that is what the thread is also about.

Way off base, Tami, way off base.

Were Peter Morris making honest inquiries, I would understand. But, he's using a boatload of dishonesty to make these attacks.

I doubt Randi 'hates' Peter Morris. By comparison, Peter's hatred of Randi is palpable. Look at the linked threads listed above and go to some of the SDMB threads as well.

 

[Dancing David]

Poster by Peter Morris
Firstly, he challenges the notion that thoughts create arthritis. He is wrong on this. Thoughts – or at least state of mind – CAN cause arthritis.

Alright then show me the source Mr. Morris, where does it state that thoughts are the causal agent of arthritis, this does not mean that thoughts can effect arthritis. You have made the claim that thoughts cause arthritis. That means the thoughts create the arthritis or are the causal agent that leads to arthritis.

I hope you do better on this than the foolishness about underground rivers.

The gauntlet is down, what reputable medical articles says that 'thought or state of mind are the cause of arthritis'?

(Lets check the sources you list shall we?)

The exact cause of rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. Many doctors believe that a virus or a bacterium may prompt rheumatoid arthritis to develop in those people who have a genetic predisposition to it. Seven out of ten people who have rheumatoid arthritis have an inherited chemical marker on their cells leading doctors to believe that there is a correlation.

Some experts think rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease, meaning that the body tissue is the victim of an immune response against itself. The body creates antibodies that actually attack the joints causing the swelling and redness. Excess fluid will flow into the joint space making joint motion painful.

Severe stress may also play a role. In some cases, rheumatoid arthritis will first appear after a person has experienced a life-changing event like a divorce, loss of a job, death of a loved one or a severe injury.

Nope. no thoughts causing arthritis here.

Causes
The question of what causes osteoarthritis of the knee has not been answered. Prior knee injuries seem to increase the likelihood of osteoarthritis, but many people with knee arthritis have never had a serious knee injury. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis, and many people have a genetic predisposition to this chronic disease.

Causes
The exact cause of rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. It’s possible that a virus or bacteria may trigger the disease in people with a genetic predisposition to rheumatoid arthritis. Many doctors think rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease in which the tissue of the joint’s lining is attacked by the body’s immune system. It’s also possible that rheumatoid arthritis is caused by severe stress. The disease sometimes occurs after a life-changing event such as divorce, loss of a job or a severe injury.

There are many reasons why an episode of gout will appear, including drinking too much alcohol or eating certain kinds of food rich in purines such as seafood, beans, sweetbreads, gravies and anchovies.

Other potential triggers of gout include:

Surgery
Stress
Crash diets
Sudden, severe illness
Chemotherapy
Joint injury
High blood pressure
Excessive exercise.

I could check the last source but I doubt that it says that 'thoughts or state of mind cause arthritis'.