Peter Vs Randi

I think some of the most rational and fair writing about the falacy of dowsing was written in the 1920's. Part of what was brought up then was the dowsers ability to judge depth in feet in the US and in whatever was standard measure in any other country. Dowsers just don't find water, they find water closest to the surface for the benefit of those that need it. They usually are paid quite a bit too. So, somehow the "guide" has to find the location of the water that is most useful to the person looking for water. Since when does a stick have the ability to tell not only that there is safe water, but water that is what the seeker is looking for? And tell the depth! It doesn't make sense. Once you shake the sillies out (pre school jargon) there isn't much left.

Sometimes it's just opening your eyes, or the sound of the first persons laughter that will make you acknowledge the absurdity of something. An absurdity that is big business with it's own newsletters and societies! Too many people stand to lose their "profession" if dowsing is seen for the naked emperor it is.
 
tamiO said:
It's just your tone that offputs discussion. Have you ever thought of friendlying up your choice of words?
Click to expand...

This post is the first post that I am aware of anywhere by Peter Morris on the subject of dowsing.

Check out the last line.

Friendly, isn't it?

Now tell me again who set the tone for what followed.
 
Why does this thread continue? Go to the link princhester posted in the previous message, and read a few of the posts made there by Peter Morris. Two years ago these were made!

Kissing the moon would be easier than for PM to somehow repair his obvious brain problem- whatever the specifics may be, surely they include shorts in the wires connecting his keyboard to his brain., and any possibility of advancing his critical thinking skills past those of an infant. Continue to beat the proverbial dead horse, but doing so is simply taking minutes off the clock.
 
princhester said:


This post is the first post that I am aware of anywhere by Peter Morris on the subject of dowsing.

Check out the last line.

Friendly, isn't it?

Now tell me again who set the tone for what followed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Last line, though? How about that whole last paragraph?
As for Randi, I think he is the biggest fraud of all. His tests are certainly unfair, even rigged. The fact that he hasn't paid out $1million proves nothing. Randi works on the principle that if it can be explained then it isn't psychic, so no money, and if it can't be explained then it doesn't exist so no money. He will never pay out, whatever the proof. A dowser might have 20 years practice tracing underground rivers, but Randi won't test him on that, he must trace a pipe underneath a concrete floor instead, and do it on the first attempt. This is not the same thing at all. If he allows an outdoors test, then they muast do it blindfold, denying them the subliminal clues from the local geography. And if he detects any involuntary muscle movement then it doesn't count because the rod must move itself to win the prize. Randi has made a fortune trading on the gullability of skeptics.
Click to expand...

It has been abundantly clear from PM's posts on this board, and crystal clear from the one you just provided us, that PM is one of the league of woo cybersmearers. But, of course, woo accusations never set the tone, do they? And the tone is never set by woo failure to defend the charges they smear all over the internet, is it? And the tone is never set by the woo games played here to defect from clear evidence they've been called out. The tone always is set by the skeptics calling the cybersmearers out. The tone always is set by the skeptics demanding they marshall the evidence.

Perhaps PM will find himself on the list of Grubbies JREF is suing. This should be fascinating. By the time JREF is done, they may have a $2m challenge fund, half provided by the Grubbies themselves, and that will really p*** them off, won't it?
 
princhester said:


This post is the first post that I am aware of anywhere by Peter Morris on the subject of dowsing.

Check out the last line.

Friendly, isn't it?

Now tell me again who set the tone for what followed.
Click to expand...

Maybe we have different goals. Mine is to sway people on the fence to come to their senses. By matching their tone you just confirm the negative stereotype of skeptics, that's all.
 
tamiO said:


Maybe we have different goals. Mine is to sway people on the fence to come to their senses. By matching their tone you just confirm the negative stereotype of skeptics, that's all.
Click to expand...

I think the any intelligent fence-sitter should see PM for what he is and not really be affected by threads like this. You like to be nice and squishy warm with people. I don't, I like to whoop butt.
 
Zep said:
For someone who is engaged in a nit-picking exercise with others here about claiming that near enough is NOT good enough,
Click to expand...

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.
 
By the way, folks, I consulted an Australian geologist about the Great Artesian Basin, and here's what he had to say:

even though those parts of Australia coloured blue represent the likely location of the Great Artesian Basin, localised geology will always do it’s best to thwart your efforts. While it is likely that inside that boundary your chances of finding water increase, you can be guaranteed that many, many bores have been sunk inside that boundary and have ended up being bone dry.

The trick here is understanding the difference between regional and local geology. Regional geology is typically defined by mapping and aerial surveys, while local geology must be determined typically by drilling (however there are some geophysical methods that can help with localised effects these are somewhat useless with out significant drill hole information to use as correlation).
Click to expand...

So, even in the Artesian Basin, you have to pick your spot with care, and geological information, or you are likely to hit a dry spot.
 
and that means what as far as dowsing is concerned?

You sound like my fundie neighbors who try to show the TRUTH of the bible by pointing out the minor errors of science. If I hear one more time, "Yeah, and science used to say blood letting and making your baby sleep on his tummy were ok!" one more time...

Science is fluid, dogma is not.

Speaking of which, I asked my friend who is aborigonal (she just moved to Vermont, and she said people never guess where she is from until she speaks) about dowsing. She just laughed and said "if you want to find water, let an animal find it for you. If the animals are thirsty, no water! Time to move on."

Practical magic, that's what I like!
 
kittynh said:
and that means what as far as dowsing is concerned?
Click to expand...

It means nothing at all.

I'm demostrating the errors of James Randi, not advocating dowsing. Randi claims it's easy to find water. It's actually pretty hard. You require an expert geologist - not a dowser - to find water.

Randi's anti-dowsing arguments are rubbish.

That says nothing about whether dowsing is true or not. I never intended it to.
 
Peter Morris said:
By the way, folks, I consulted an Australian geologist about the Great Artesian Basin, and here's what he had to say:

even though those parts of Australia coloured blue represent the likely location of the Great Artesian Basin, localised geology will always do it’s best to thwart your efforts. While it is likely that inside that boundary your chances of finding water increase, you can be guaranteed that many, many bores have been sunk inside that boundary and have ended up being bone dry.

The trick here is understanding the difference between regional and local geology. Regional geology is typically defined by mapping and aerial surveys, while local geology must be determined typically by drilling (however there are some geophysical methods that can help with localised effects these are somewhat useless with out significant drill hole information to use as correlation).
Click to expand...

So, even in the Artesian Basin, you have to pick your spot with care, and geological information, or you are likely to hit a dry spot.
Click to expand...
Given your previous mode of asking experts loaded questions and then being selective with the answers here, I would very much like to know WHO you asked, and WHAT you asked them. A reference would be appreciated.

Being in Australia, it will be quite easy for me to contact these people directly.
 
Peter Morris said:
I did not, and WILL not argue what Randi meant by the word.
Click to expand...

We know, we know. The question is, why? And how do you hope to advance a convincing argument when you will only participate in those parts of it that suit you?
 
Because arguing what Randi meant by the word is trivial, and used by obsessed Randi fanatics to distract away from stuff they can't answer.
 
Peter Morris said:
[re nit-picking]

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.
Click to expand...
Whatever Randi does or does not have to say about the issue (and I don't really care either way), the evidence is clearly here that you are nitpicking the whole issue in extremis. It's as relevant to the subjects as asking Randi if the traffic lights are going to be red at a specific road intersection in the world at a specific time, and when they are not, accusing him of gross factual inexactitude in everything else he says.

I'm just not seeing much substance to your claims, and more importantly, very little relevance. Beyond the fact it is clear you just don't personally like James Randi.
 
Peter Morris said:
I wouldn't inflict you on my contact for anything.

Do you have an answer for the factual information?
Click to expand...
If that is in response to my request, I will take it that your previous quote from this "source" is now worthless and can be discounted.

And we are back to square one...your own claim has been overturned by your own acceptance of Randi's assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom