I don’t really think you need to point out what Randi thinks again; you’ve referred to him thinking claims such as yours are “delusional” six times now. I think we get it.
Anyway, that doesn’t seem to be a particularily scientific hypothesis. “Water flows along underground channels” seems to be more of a general assertation than a quantified hypothesis. Since Randi seems to want to run his tests in a scientific way, do you have an idea of the rough hypothesis you would be working from?
I have another question; you state that many people with what they consider to believe non-paranormal events are challenged by Randi, who believes those events would, in fact, be paranormal if they transpired. You state that should those claims be proved correct, it would naturally mean that they are not paranormal in origin. Why is that so? Isn’t it possible that the events themselves do happen, but happen in a way inconsistent with the challenger’s explanation?
It’s not a contest; there are not two parties competing for the same prize. It’s a challenge. It’s someone who, as a result of extensive experience, doesn’t believe you can do what you say you can do, daring you to do what you say you can do. It’s a dare.
As a result of his considerable experience, James Randi does not believe that I can demonstrate the existence of water flowing underground. Nor does he believe that I can select a spot in the ground, and show that there is no water there. He has issued a challenge and a dare to prove my claim, which he says is a “delusion.”
The fact that Randi has said for 25 years that I’m “delusional” for believing it. HE thinks it’s paranormal, supernatural or occult. He’s wrong, of course, but the fact that he thinks so makes it a legitimate claim.
Interesting, but that’s not really what I asked: can you quote from the challenge itself the part that you believe you qualify for? I’ve read the challenge, and it’s written very specifically, and I’m having trouble figuring out how you’re seeing your claim as qualifying.
Whether he thinks your delusional about the specific claim is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether he thinks your specific claim is paranormal, supernatural, or occult. Do you have any evidence that he thinks so?
Could you quote something specific Randi has said wherein he explicitly says “if water flows underground, the reason would have to be paranormal, supernatural, or occultish in nature”? From your site, you appear to have examples which you consider similar, but they are not the same, and none of them have actually applied to take the test.
It seems to me that you are offering a theory, not, as the challenge requires, a demonstration.
Now, in the FAQ, he does list “the existence of ghosts” and “the existence of auras” as things that qualify, so you may well qualify in kind (if not in particulars–I’m not convinced about that yet). Is it your claim that you qualify by proving “the existence of underground flowing rivers”?
If that is your claim, can you describe exactly how you intend to prove it? I suspect that you mean something different in your claim than Randi meant in his, but an explanation of how you intend to prove your claim may help clear up confusion on this subject.
The claims must be at heart supernatural, occult, or paranormal. The existence of ghosts and auras easily qualify under that. Underground rivers, on their face, do not qualify as supernatural, occult, or paranormal. This is an important distinction. If not, every single new discovery would qualify.
From the quote you cited, the phrase that always leaps out at me is “there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped.”
Is it your contention that vast, tappable rivers do indeed exist? Or have you managed to agree upon a less restrictive and more precise definition? As has been noted, it is no great secret that water flows underground. I can make it happen in my back yard any time I choose.
Randi may well think you are “delusional.” But the terms of chellenge do not apply to “delusional” claims – they apply to “paranormal, supernatural or occult” phenomenon. Can you show me any instance of Randi’s characterizing the water flowing underground claims as “paranormal, supernatural or occult?” Or can you show any instance of his accepting a Challenge based on something he merely called “delusional?”
Can you show me where Randi claims that “phony scientific theories ARE paranormal” rather than “phony scientific theories are appeals to the paranormal.” Can you provide a cite where he says the actual claim is paranormal? If that were the case, wouldn’t the Challenge be ridiculously easy to claim? Do you intend to answer my previous questions?
(1) Water flows in underground rivers is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of fact. Scientific theories attempt to explain a set of facts, they are not simple sets of facts.
(2) Your argument is: Randi thinks A is B. Randi thinks my theory is B. Therefore he thinks my theory is A. In other words, you have shown (assuming your account is accurate) that Randi considers psuedoscience to be junk, and you have also shown that Randi thinks your theory is junk. What you have yet to prove is that Randi believes all junk scientific theories to be paranormal, or that he believes your particular brand of junk science to be paranormal.
rivers - yes and no. To be exact, the correct term is channels. Some channels are rivers, many aren’t.
But I contend that some water exists in narrow channels flowing underground. Sink a well into the channel and get hundreds or thousands of gallons per minute. Sink a well either side of the channel, just a few metres away, and you might only get two or three gallons per minute.
