I was originally going to post the following in this thread, but Czarcasm warned against continuing the hijack. He suggested it continue in the Pit. I have no intention of abusing anyone, but since a mod suggested it…
Unfortunately this is going to mean that this is a little disjointed unless you refer to the original thread. The basic issue is statements by Randi over the years to the effect that because water is most everywhere underground, it would be a better challenge to dowsers for them to find a dry spot.
What, all people? There are as I understand it numerous people who do trust Randi and think his tests are fair. I think you’re exaggerating and using overblown rhetoric and a figure of speech. But that’s OK, isn’t it Peter? I mean, it’d be quite inappropriate for us to engage in some silly exercise of castigating you high and low over a comment you have made for a rhetorical purpose as if you were speaking utterly literally, wouldn’t it?
It seems that you are quite capable of using the term yourself. And that you call Randi comparable names when it suits you. Do you think you should be taken seriously?
You’d be of the opinion that Peter isn’t a person capable of administering a million dollar award then I take it?
To listen to Peter you would think that the geologists he has checked with are of one mind. In fact they have told him various things, some of which agree with his point of view, and some of which don’t. Here is an example of a comment from his cite which Peter is unlikely to mention (in response to whether Randi’s 90% figure is correct):
I don’t think a gallon of water a minute would fit any rational definition of “dry”. So actually some geologists agree with Randi.
If you look at the page in question, you will see that the diagram shows that the unsaturated zone lies immediately above the saturated zone, from which you can get water. The USGS site is quite clear. You just don’t want to hear.
Really? Do you have pictures of him in the act? If so, please don’t post them here. I don’t care what he does in private, but I have no wish to see it.
I couldn’t disagree more. Having read one of his books and his commentary, I will allow that he’s not always the most socially graceful, but I suspect that anybody who has had to put up with as many kooks and cons as he has will have become less than patient and may have lost some tact, but I don’t think he’s “sleazy” at all.
Christ on a limestone substrate, what a mole-engineered mountain this is.
For clarity, Peter is conflating this sentence of Randi’s: “Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot!”, from this essay, with the $1M challenge to demonstrate genuine dowsing ability in a cheat-proof, luck-proof test . I strongly advise everyone to read the whole essay, and ask themselves whether they really think he is issuing the $1M challenge in that sentence, or whether he simply used sloppy syntax in his hyperbole.
The $1M challenge is not to prove that James Randi is somehow in error (which he may well be in this instance, for all I know). It is to demonstrate some effect or ability which any reasonable person would call “paranormal” in a test which eradicated luck or cheating.
In this case, a fair test would be to put soil in 10 containers, pour water in one (or nine), and cover the top of the soil with cloth/dry soil/whatever. Dowsing ability would show a better-than-chance succes rate in identifying the odd one out. Is there any way in which this test is unfair? If you can think of one, we can modify it further until everyone agrees what a fair test of dowsing ability is.
I’ll admit again that Randi might well be wrong in his numbers, even to the extent that Peter is right. But that is irrelevant. Randi is not some perfect, humble Nebuchadnezzar: he is a showman, and his hyperbole and rhetoric reflect this. To paint him as a fraud comparable to Uri Gellar or Miss Cleo for this single sentence is absurd.
I have better things to do than contribute any more here, unless something more interesting happens.
Let’s compare and contrast. There are lots of atheists I respect and admire. Richard Dawkins is a genius and a great writer; I quoted a recent piece by him in another thread today.
James Z. Randi is, in both the social and intellectual realms, a piece of shit. He is a baiter that feeds on negativity. He sees “believers” as incorrigible idiots who deserve to have their faces rubbed vigorously in the feces of their own beliefs. He is the very worst person to symbolize the skeptic cause, yet, unfortunately (if this board is to serve as evidence) skeptics dig his schtick and take the same tone in their trouncing of the ignorant believers.
Sure, Randi is a showman. His gig is making an ass of people at every opportunity, and, barring that, making an ass of himself. He has purposely planted people in paranormal experiments who cheated in order to discredit paranormal research. Guess what? If you plant cheaters in experiments you do prove that the experimenters couldn’t catch cheating well but you’re still a damned cheater and liar yourself. Recently he appeared before a studio audience on TV and was going to play the same game: pretend to be a medium a la John Edward and do cold and hot readings. But the audience recognized him and basically told him to fuck off.
Randi is also a slob. I visited his website and his message boards (a pathetic shadow of SDMB) to find out more about applicants to his “Challenge.” Good luck if you’re interested. They don’t have much in the way of records on-line.
Randi is just plain good at attracting hate, because he’s been so hateful to others over the years. He’s just plain nasty. He’s been involved in numerous CSICOP fuckups and farces. He’s a walking disaster.
The skeptics really–seriously–need a better hero. Someone who can talk to the public about their cause without alienating just about everyone he comes in contact with.
You forgot to add that he has proven every single person that has actually applied, rather than boast and back off like most, wrong. They make the claim, they agree on the parameters of the test, they agree on the people judging the test, and they fail, every single time, without exception. The JREF isn’t yet another organization where people make fantastic claims that are, at best, scientifically dubious, and people respond with,“Oooh! How wonderful! Let me tell you about my magical powers!”
I believe this has now been remedied to some extent: each prospective candidate now has a dedicated thread on the Message Board which holds all significant correspondance.
As for “cheater and liar”: he said he was doing “cold reading” without psychic powers. Would you not say that this was honesty?
Careful, Peter will say he “applied”. You should specify “applied for the $1M challenge to demonstrate paranormal ability” to avoid such picayune nitpicks.
