Peter Vs Randi

[Darat]

Peter:

What is your point? That Randi makes mistakes, sometimes he corrects them sometimes he doesn't and sometimes he doesn't accept he's made a mistake? Is that your whole point?

If so.. then so what...?

 

[princhester]

Randi first told them to look for natural water...

Exactly. But what you said was (for the third time)

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

So you now admit, I take it, that he did not instruct them to look for rivers and that your above statement was false?

...then describred them as "natural streams running underground"

Those are his exact words.

No, he did not describe them as that, he described the dowsers as describing that. And the reason I cut this bit out is that it is totally irrelevant. What the hell does what the dowsers say they found have to do with it? [edited to add] For that matter, what the hell does what Randi says the dowsers say they found have to do with it? Nothing at all, clearly, since your erroneous comment concerned what the dowsers were asked to check for, not what they found.

If I say to you: "Check to see if you can find food" and you come back and say that you've found some peanuts, that means I have instructed you to find peanuts? Are you actually so obtuse as to contend for that?

Admit it, you were in error. Was your error a lie or a mistake?

 

[Zep]

Peter,

This is how citing your sources works. All quotes are from The Australian Skeptics Divining Test: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm
This is Randi's report on the testing, so these are his own words.

Claimants will be asked to dowse the area used, to determine if there are any anomalies present such as natural water which might inhibit or confuse the results.

Randi's pre-test requirements for dowsers to examine the test arena, Preliminary Statement of Information
I think this makes quite clear that the dowsers were not restricted in determining ANY anomalies in the test arena. In fact, they were encourage to map ANY potential disturbances, NOT JUST water. I don't see "underground rivers" or "rivers" mentioned at all...

My performance of dowsing is usually ........% correct.

I estimate that my performance in the present test will be ......% correct.

[snip]

This questionnaire, and the Rules for "Test" and "Formal Agreement" documents that follow, are signed by me freely and willingly, without reservation.

Selected parts of the Preliminary Questionnaire, to be filled in and submitted by the claimant.
There is clearly no attempt by Randi or the testers to impose any standard that the claimant does not believe they can attain, because the claimant sets their own standard of success. Nor is any force applied to the claimant to perform something they don't believe thay can do - if they do not believe the test is fair, they have every right NOT to agree to be tested.

Claimant (above) has examined the layout and the established system, and agrees that it is satisfactory.

First rule in Rules Of The Test
This backs up the above quote - the claimant is extended every allowance to examine the test procedure.

Claimants will demonstrate that the dowsing reaction is present and working, using the exposed portion of the pipe and a selected portion of the buried pipe. He will dowse the area for natural water as well, and appropriate adjustments will be made.

Third rule in Rules Of The Test
Again, allowance is being made for perceived issues when dowsing for water. Personally, I would have preferred seeing exactly the same wording as in the Preliminary Statement of Information, even though the intent is the same.

I agree that the rules as outlined in the accompanying Document Number Two (Rules for Test) are fair and proper.

First point in the Formal Agreement
Again, the claimant is given every opportunity to raise objections to the test protocol.

I feel able to perform on this occasion. There are no geographical, meteorological or personal, emotional or physical influences that might inhibit my abilities to perform.

Third point in the Formal Agreement
AGAIN, the claimant is given opportunity to back out for whatever reason they may have.

And yet...

When the results were tabulated, 111 tries had been made, with an expected 10% success rate by chance alone, There were 15 successes, 13.5%, a figure well within expectation.

But what had the dowsers declared as their expected success rate? It averaged out to better than 92%! Surely a poor performance, and one in which every rule , precaution and Procedure had been carefully and fully approved and agreed to in advance by all parties concerned.

 

[BillHoyt]

Do so, then. What's stopping you?

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

I have been doing so, sir. You refused to deal with these facts:

o YOU chose an incorrect interpretation of Randi's words
o YOU chose to ignore evidence that you chose an incorrect interpretation
o YOU chose to dismiss further discussion.

This is twice now (referrring to your previous post) you've closed off discussion with "I'm done here." Sorry, sir, we don't countenance drive-by assertions. Marshall your evidence and deal with the objections.

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter,

This is how citing your sources works. All quotes are from The Australian Skeptics Divining Test: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm
This is Randi's report on the testing, so these are his own words.

Randi's pre-test requirements for dowsers to examine the test arena, Preliminary Statement of Information
I think this makes quite clear that the dowsers were not restricted in determining ANY anomalies in the test arena. In fact, they were encourage to map ANY potential disturbances, NOT JUST water. I don't see "underground rivers" or "rivers" mentioned at all...

It comes a little later in Randi's description.

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 described their findings as "natural streams running underground "

I stand by what I said. Randi made an error by calling them "natural streams" rather than paleochannels. I could let that pass. But Randi made a much bigger error when he denied that they exist at all.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But Randi made a much bigger error when he denied that they exist at all.

And so what? What is your point?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So, Randi instructed them to "dowse the area for natural water " Then described their findings as "natural streams running underground "

From the bit you are quoting Randi is reporting on what the dowsers said, not what he said.

 

[kookbreaker]

So, Randi instructed them to "dowse the area for natural water " Then described their findings as "natural streams running underground "

Randi did? Or did the dowsers? Because it sure looks liek the dowsers called them streams since they even gave directions that the stream was flowing.

Now, this shows how weak and desperate your position really is: If Randi asked me to go find a motor driven vehicle, and I returned with a motorcycle, does that mean Randi sent me to spcifically find a motorcycle?

This twisting by you seems like some patahlogical need to not admit that you are just aplin wrong.

 

[Peter Morris]

I have been doing so, sir. You refused to deal with these facts:

o YOU chose an incorrect interpretation of Randi's words
o YOU chose to ignore evidence that you chose an incorrect interpretation
o YOU chose to dismiss further discussion.

This is twice now (referrring to your previous post) you've closed off discussion with "I'm done here." Sorry, sir, we don't countenance drive-by assertions. Marshall your evidence and deal with the objections.

Your link deals with a single generation. I'm talking about thousands of years.

A man has two sons (not twins). Each of them has a Y-chromosome slightly different from the father, and slightly different from each other. You say that the diffence is so small that they are the same. Fair enough.

Each of those two sons has a son. Each son would have a Y-chromosome slightly different to his father, and there would be a slightly bigger difference between the cousins' Y-Chromosomes.

And so it goes down the generations. Through gene recombination, and through mutation down the years, the Y-chromosome changes bit by bit. Every generation the differences become greater and greater. After a few thousand years, and 200+ generations the descendants of the original two sons do NOT have the "same" Y-chromosome by any stretch of the word.

The objection is dealt with.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder if Peter wears fire-proof undies, because his pants are always aflame.

 

[BillHoyt]

Your link deals with a single generation. I'm talking about thousands of years.

You didn't read that page, did you? Go back to that page, sir, and read it. For understanding this time.

Here is the link.

Here's another example, Peter
"Squares with yellow dots represent relatives that share the same Y-chromosome"

And another
"Family historians researching their own dynasties will take heart from this, since men sharing surnames (passed from father to son in many societies) might also share Y chromosomes."

"share Y chromosomes," Peter. The phrase is everywhere. And everywhere it is shorthand for "share copies of essentially the same Y chromosome code."

Do you want more, Peter?

 

[Peter Morris]

Randi did? Or did the dowsers? Because it sure looks liek the dowsers called them streams since they even gave directions that the stream was flowing.

Now, this shows how weak and desperate your position really is: If Randi asked me to go find a motor driven vehicle, and I returned with a motorcycle, does that mean Randi sent me to spcifically find a motorcycle?

This twisting by you seems like some patahlogical need to not admit that you are just aplin wrong.

The fact that this is the biggest objection that you can find shows the sheer desperation of your position. You accuse me of a minor misquote, that nobody with any sense would object to.

Randi said : go look for underground water .... they found some underground streams. Underground streams dont exist.

Peter quotes Randi as saying : go look for underground streams. Underground strreams don't exist.


Desperate Randi fanatics scream that this is a 'lie' and that it outweighs Randi's scientific blunder claiming that underground streams don't exist.

You're just shouting, kiddo. You have nothing to say.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Desperate Randi fanatics scream that this is a 'lie' and that it outweighs Randi's scientific blunder claiming that underground streams don't exist.

You're just shouting, kiddo. You have nothing to say.

And so what? What is your point?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Peter is a believer that just doesn't want to state that he believes in the paranormal and, instead, opts to attack the skeptical position and skeptics. That, and he's a liar.

 

[wert]

You're just shouting, kiddo. You have nothing to say.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

 

[EHocking]

Answer the facts if you can.

Oh, you can't.

If dowsing worked, the petroleum industry (to name one) would not be spending billions a year on shooting seismic and employing expensive geophysicists etc to interpret seismic.

Water, without doubt, if you're drilling within the artesian basin in Oz will be hit. The quality, quantity and flow rate will be highly variable between regions, as will be the depth, but you *cannot* miss it. Caveat - (if you drill deep enough).

It's a pretty simple equation:
Spend $Billons a year on seismic
Spend a few $K a year for a dowser

 

[Peter Morris]

You didn't read that page, did you? Go back to that page, sir, and read it. For understanding this time.

Here is the link.

Here's another example, Peter
"Squares with yellow dots represent relatives that share the same Y-chromosome"

And another
"Family historians researching their own dynasties will take heart from this, since men sharing surnames (passed from father to son in many societies) might also share Y chromosomes."

"share Y chromosomes," Peter. The phrase is everywhere. And everywhere it is shorthand for "share copies of essentially the same Y chromosome code."

Do you want more, Peter?

You still haven't given anything that contradicts my original statement.

From your own link:

This is why the Y chromosome is so widely used in human population studies. As it passes from father to son down paternal lineages, the only changes occurring are due to mutation, and the molecular record of the past is therefore relatively easy to interpret compared to the recombining X chromosome and autosomes.

Findings support the hypothesis that modern humans originated in Africa about 150 000 years ago.

The simplest and slowest kind of mutation alters a single base in DNA, for example from a ‘C’ to a ‘T’. A rich resource of these binary DNA markers has now been discovered on the Y chromosome, and in combination these define signatures of different Y-chromosomal types called ‘haplogroups’. Haplogroups can be arranged into a well-resolved genealogical tree, representing the branching order in which the different mutations occurred since all modern Y chromosomes had a common ancestor (sometimes known as ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’, although he was only one of many men in a population, rather than the solitary forefather of the Book of Genesis).

Your own link shows that men with the same ancestor have different Y-chromosomes due to mutation.

The human race DOES have a common male ancestor, the Y-chromosomal Adam. Yet they don't have the same Y-chromosome because of mutation.

Which is what I said originally.

I erred when I said the common ancestor lived several million years ago. From your link, he lived 150,000 years ago. On that point I stand corrected.

Randi's column contained the words "By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't."

Well, you might want to believe that the word "same" means "the same apart from mutations". Fair enough.

So, in your opinion, Randi meant to say "all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome apart from mutations, and we don't."

The trouble is that even in your interpretation is correct, Randi is still wrong. Because, by YOUR definition of "same" we DO share the same Y-chromosome.

Randi is wrong either way.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Randi is wrong either way.

So what? What is your point?

 

[Dancing David]

Answer the facts if you can.

Oh, you can't.

I would respectfully claim that you clarify the facts that you feel are in error, you yourself have contradicted yourself in this thread..
"Thoughts can cause arthritis"

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

So, it is reasonable to state that "You create diseases like arthritis with your thoughts."

"State of mind can influence arthritis."

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”

And then you hold Randi to a higher level of semantic exactness that you don't meet yourself. First you say TWICE that thoughts can cause arthritis, then you go and state that what you really meant was not that 'thoughts cause arthritis' but instead what you mean is 'major influence in the onset of arthritis'.

So while you claim to have valid points of fact, your use of the english language is obscuring and self contradictory.

You don't meet the standard that you hold Randi to, pretty funny, huh?

You are the one who first stated "Thoughts cause arthritis."

So I would respectfully request that in clear language you state the errors of Randi in fact.

What are the facts Mr. Morris? So far we have seen you not met the standard that you are holding Randi to.

Mr. Kettle I would like you to meet Mr. Pot...

 

[Dancing David]

So, in your opinion, Randi meant to say "all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome apart from mutations, and we don't."

Ah yes Mr. Morris, you are a clever one, what was the original Randi statement in conjunction with? Oh dear lets us not become so reductionist that we take every statement of Randi's as being the gospel truth all the time. Is everything you say always true in all circumstances Mr. Morris?

What was the context, something about Noah and the flood was it not? And supposedly according to those who beleive that Noah's flood occured, when did it occur?
About four thousand years ago?

And if that was the case then the genetic drift in the y-chromosone would show convergence at 4,000 years ago not 150,00 years ago, now wouldn't it?

So is that your game Mr. Morris? Randi makes a comment about how genetic drift on the y-chromosone does not prove Noah's flood to be geneticly accurate and you take him to task about how the statement was false in the general nature of genetics.

What was the statement you are taking exception to, and what was the context again?

The whole human race is supposedly descended from Noah and his sons, after god drowned all of Adam and Eve's descendants (except for Noah and his brood) in the Great Flood. By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't. How do the credophiles answer that, I wonder? http://www.randi.org/jr/081503.html