Peter Vs Randi

[kittynh]

I wouldn't inflict you on my contact for anything.

Do you have an answer for the factual information?

OK if you don't trust Zep, who would you inflict on your source? Pick someone from the forum that you feel would not irritate your source and have them contact your source and then report back here. There are lots of people who could do so, many from Australia. Or perhaps a moderator. They are all very nice and many of them are professionals who would know how to talk to your source. It's not asking that much. If you want to talk with my friend, feel free to contact me. She's almost done with her classes at SIT.

But I think we are all very careful about sources on this forum. You can't just say "a source". Still, I'm sure there is someone both yourself and Zep can agree on to contact your source.

 

[princhester]

Answer the facts if you can.

Oh, you can't.

What facts? Who says they are facts? You? Don't make me laugh.

Are they facts like the "fact" that Randi told the Australian Dowsers to look for underground rivers?

By the way, you haven't answered my question. Was your error about what Randi told the Australian dowsers to look for a mistake or a lie?

 

[Peter Morris]

Neither, it was the truth.

Randi told them to look for natural streams.

The tests had been done using forked sticks, L-shaped metal rods, pendulums and other varied means. Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But—and it’s a very big "but"—they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed, and thus also disagreed with all the others who said there were no streams! Besides, the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.

So, Randi instructed them to "dowse the area for natural water " then declared that the water they were looking for is "natural streams running underground "

 

[Peter Morris]

OK if you don't trust Zep, who would you inflict on your source?

In the first place, my contact has been very helpful answering my questions. If he is badgered with too many questions from several directions, he might be reluctant to help me next time I ask.


What difference does the source of the information make? Facts are facts. If they are true, the source is irelevant. If the facts are false, Zep should be able to challenge them. The fact that he has not done so speaks volumes.


If people here think that source matters, then they should ask Zep to post his name, contact details, and credentials, or we can ignore what he says. Or is this one of those double standards so beloved of Randi fans? Only people disagreeing with Randi need provide credentials, anyone agreeing with Randi will be believed uncritically? One of those deals, right.


Ultimately, this "name your source" rubbish is just a desperate attempt by Zep to hide the fact that he's wrong.

 

[AOK Tiger]

My predictive powers are unbelievable…

I predicted Peter Morris would produce NOTHING of substance in regards to his claims against Randi…

Here we are 4 pages later and I am SPOT ON !

 

[Renfield]

Never mind.

 

[Renfield]

This argument amounts to little more than, "Randi makes mistakes, therefore he cannot be trusted in challenging paranormal claims".

This is one of the weakest criticisms of Randi I have ever heard. Rediculous.

They really are weak, most of them. Where Randi writes about some new ager who claims that diseases like arthritis are caused by the mind - implying that the major cause is mental - all Morris can do is twist the amazing one's word's around. Randi responds to this claim by stating that arthritus does indeed have physical causes, which is hardly false.

Clearly, Randi's point is essentially correct. If someone's mental state is a factor in that disease, its a relatively minor one. I truly doubt you would find many in the medical world who would deny that arthritis had physical causes.

 

[HenDralux]

What difference does the source of the information make? Facts are facts. If they are true, the source is irelevant. If the facts are false, Zep should be able to challenge them. The fact that he has not done so speaks volumes.

Ultimately, this "name your source" rubbish is just a desperate attempt by Zep to hide the fact that he's wrong.

Peter, if any of us produced a quote by an Australian geologist which offered a counter opinion (for an opinion is all you pasted from him), would you say that source is irrelevant too?

We would need to at least judge the credentials of both geologists to even approach a discussion about the weight and relevance of both viewpoints, wouldn't we?

 

[Zep]

Answer the facts if you can.

Oh, you can't.

I certainly will answer the facts...when you produce any. I already have done so myself previously, source cited and all.

By refusing to cite your own source, your alleged quotation could just as easily have been concocted by your own neighbourhood butcher rather than a "reputable Australian geologist", for all we know. Your word on this is just not good enough, I'm afraid.

So you know what you need to do if your reference is to carry any weight at all.

The ball is back in your court.

 

[BillHoyt]

I did no such thing. I have repeatedly REFUSED to play Bill's word game.

I did not, and WILL not argue what Randi meant by the word.

Sons have a Y-chromosome just a little different from their father. Brothers have Y-chromosomes a little bit different from each other.

Cousins have a slightly bigger difference, and second cousins a bigger one still. Down the generations the difference grows and grows. After several thousand years, the difference is substantial. Two men with a common ancestor 250 generations ago do NOT "share the same Y-chromosome"

I say that Randi got this fact wrong. This is not nitpicking a difference between "the same" and "almost the same" it is showing that Randi's facts are twisted.

It is you, Peter, who are playing the word games. Then when your game is called you want to closely and twistedly constrain the rules so that you are guaranteed success. But you hoisted yourself by your own petard.

Taken literally, sir, "share the same chromosome" would have to mean the equivalent of "share the same bed" or "share a pot to p*** in." Fortunately you weren't foolish enough to claim the fathers and sons passed a single chromosome back and forth on alternate Thursdays.

Yet you stand there trying to claim you've made no interpretation of Randi's words.

You did, sir. You interpreted "share the same chromosome" to mean "have identical copies of the same chromosome." There's no getting around that interpretation unless you want to try to convince us of the literal meaning of "share the same chromosome."

Now, sir, will you at long last look at the examples I provided that clearly indicate that this is scientific shorthand? In the URL provided, the text alternates between exactly this shorthand and its less abbreviated version.

 

[princhester]

Neither, it was the truth.

The hell it was. You are piling lie upon lie, now.

You said, once again:

For example, in the Australian test, Randi instructed the dowsers to check for 'underground rivers'.

There is absolutely nothing in any description of the Australian Dowsing test that mentions any instruction to check for underground rivers.

The only things the dowsers were told was to check for "anomalies present such as natural water which might inhibit or confuse the results" and for "natural water"

Your comment was an out and out falsity.

Admit it, and answer my question about whether this was a mistake or a lie.

 

[Zep]

In the first place, my contact has been very helpful answering my questions. If he is badgered with too many questions from several directions, he might be reluctant to help me next time I ask.


What difference does the source of the information make? Facts are facts. If they are true, the source is irelevant. If the facts are false, Zep should be able to challenge them. The fact that he has not done so speaks volumes.


If people here think that source matters, then they should ask Zep to post his name, contact details, and credentials, or we can ignore what he says. Or is this one of those double standards so beloved of Randi fans? Only people disagreeing with Randi need provide credentials, anyone agreeing with Randi will be believed uncritically? One of those deals, right.


Ultimately, this "name your source" rubbish is just a desperate attempt by Zep to hide the fact that he's wrong.

Desperate, hardly. I'm going to sleep here waiting.

Citing your sources is one of the cornerstones of good scientific argument, and, hopefully, reasoned and high level debate. So if you feel free not to cite your source, we will feel free to give that statement the weight it has earned - nothing.

If I were the one who was making any scientific statement using my own knowledge and learning then I would certainly (a) cite myself properly, and (b) be prepared to take scientific criticism from any and all quarters. That is only fair, and I have done that before many times.

As it is, that isn't the case. Not only am I not asking you to give out your own personal contact details and qualifications, I also realise you don't have the knowledge to speak on the subject, and are just quoting someone else. I'm simply asking who that "someone else" is.

Also, if you wish to email me at any time, have a look at the bottom of any of my posts. There's a button labelled "PM" for Personal Message. Hit it if you like, that's why it's there.

 

[HenDralux]

Ultimately, this "name your source" rubbish is just a desperate attempt by Zep to hide the fact that he's wrong.

I just fail to see how Peter can conclude this as some sort of attempt to disacknowledge a discussion due to 'being wrong' - let alone in a desperate fashion. Citing sources is perfectly usual and reasonable within debate, otherwise we could make up any old crap and state it as expert opinion.

I could possibly understand where Peter was coming from, if the 'opinion' he pasted was full of factual information backed up with evidential data which would give Zep at least *something* to work with. But all he seems to have done is post somebody elses opinion..and asked Zep to 'answer the facts'.
I'm at a loss.

 

[Zep]

Incidentally, this was one of Winston Wu's favourite tactics. He would post some ineffable and completely inane crap from somewhere (it usually looked like some crack-pot "self-help" books, or nitwit ghostbusters), and then challenge me to address these "facts". When asked to show where he got them from, he, too, refused to say, and continued to rant about "skeptics not answering the facts".

And that's all he ever went on about. Be it the hollow earth theory or orbs in photographs, it was always about the sizzle, never about the burnt meat.

 

[kittynh]

so Peter, ask your friend to just give you some sources that are available on the internet. I think if you asked a professional to give an opinion on something this important, most of them are more than glad to have their opinion cited. My daughter has access to many professionals and experts at her college (Dartmouth) and none of them would be other than pleased to be quoted on this forum. Plus, all professionals have to publish publish publish. They don't open their mouth without writing it down. Certainly, his opinion is based on fact, not something he just thought up. Just email him, hey, can you direct me to a paper or site that backs up your opinion. That's what the skeptic movement is about.

Plus, it still sounds like you are defending dowsing. the wording of the test, or some sort of confusion about what type of water. Water is water. Running in a pipe or in an underground stream. If there was some sort of water difference, and is it the dowser or the branch or twig that is doing the dowsing? Most dowsers claim anyone can do what they do. Are you saying the dowser is so sensitive that he needs to know what kind of water he's looking for? If finding water is such a careful science that can be thrown off by something as simple as a pipe, maybe it's just nothing more than an impractical oddity. Sort of like bending spoons with your mind. I can do it much more quickly with my hands!

 

[Peter Morris]

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.

 

[Peter Morris]

so Peter, ask your friend to just give you some sources that are available on the internet. I think if you asked a professional to give an opinion on something this important, most of them are more than glad to have their opinion cited. My daughter has access to many professionals and experts at her college (Dartmouth) and none of them would be other than pleased to be quoted on this forum.

Do so, then. What's stopping you?

If you want to refute the facts, refute them. Stop the ad homs.

 

[Peter Morris]

The hell it was. You are piling lie upon lie, now.

You said, once again:



There is absolutely nothing in any description of the Australian Dowsing test that mentions any instruction to check for underground rivers.

The only things the dowsers were told was to check for "anomalies present such as natural water which might inhibit or confuse the results" and for "natural water"

Your comment was an out and out falsity.

Admit it, and answer my question about whether this was a mistake or a lie.

I've given direct quotes from your hero to prove that I spoke the truth, as usual.

Randi first told them to look for natural water, then describred them as "natural streams running underground"

Those are his exact words.

The fact that you cut this bit out shows that you are a deliberate liar.

 

[Zep]

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.

Really? Facts? Where...? Unattributed quotes from some unknown "Australian geologist", certainly. Facts, no.

Incidentally, you really SHOULD try to cite that quote. If it makes you happy, I'm already quite prepared to believe the person who wrote it was indeed Australian, at least! Go on! Why don't you give it a go?! Who is it going to benefit if you do - you, or me?

As for the other accusations...

 

[princhester]

I'm waiting on an answer to my question, Peter