Ask the Randi $1M challenge applicant

[Walter_Windchill]

I’ll cut to the chase.

How do you know these underground rivers exist?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

And another question: who do you consider to be the definitive authority on what Randi meant by the quoted passage? To be clear, if Randi claims he meant something other than what you believe he meant, is it possible that you will consider your case no longer eligible?

You’ve not answered either of these questions. I believe they are key: specifically, I expect Randi will tell you that you are misinterpreting his earlier words, before the test begins. If he tells you that, who will you consider to be the definitive authority on his intended meaning in his earlier communications?

Daniel

[treis]

By the way, you never did answer this question:

@treis

Can you show where Randi has said that he considers all bogus science to be paranormal or pseudoscience?

You said you didn’t have to, but you never said if you could or not.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Peter Morris

II state that certain geological phenomena exist. Randi does not believe me, and calls me “delusional” for believing in them. In a recent column he said “This is the most pervasive of the delusions that dowsers have and promote endlessly, that there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped. There are large reservoirs of water there to be accessed, it’s true, but they are certainly not “flowing”; they’re pretty well stationary.” He has been making similar comments for at least 25 years.

I would just like to point out a few select quotes from James Randi’s book “Flim-Flam” in regards to dowsers:

"Dowsers have the strange notion that water travels in underground rivers and will happily trace these torrents for you. But geologists know otherwise. Bob Huguley, a geologist who works for the Planning Board of Monmouth County, New Jersey, doesn’t know if one dowser in the area who has ever been successful. He also estimates that less than 1 percent of the earth’s underground water actually flows beneath the surface. That small fraction is confined to areas rich in limestone (known as “karst” country) and the resulting caves, where real underground streams can occour. Underground flow can also occur in porous material, but that flow amounts to only a few feet or a few miles in a year. Most water that is obtained by measns of wells and so forth is in pools and resevoirs underground. It does not flow.
[/QUOTE]

Empahsis added.

I have no question here. I’ll just point out that your premise is one big strawman.

Good day.

[Little_Nemo]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it’s possible Peter may be right. James Randi may have substantially different beliefs about how water moves underground than Peter does. And Randi might be wrong and Peter might be right. It might be possible for Randi and Peter to agree on their individual definitions of how water moves underground and to isolate the differences in their beliefs and to establish scientific tests to determine which of them is correct. (It does seem to be a readily testable situation.) And they might agree to treat this as a challenge under the terms of the JREF million dollar challenge.

So if all of this came to pass and Peter’s beliefs were proven to be the correct ones then he would be entitled to the million dollars.

However I don’t think this is likely. I know virtually nothing about underground water movement so I can offer no opinion on the subject. But I feel that if the challenge was made, James Randi would probably check his figures. He might discover that his previously stated opinions on the subject were incorrect. Or perhaps discussions between the two opposing sides would reveal that, while their language might differ, their beliefs on the subject itself were compatible.

But I don’t think that just because Randi has expressed an opinion on a subject he is automatically obligated to accept any challenge against that opinion. Randi may, for example, have stated he was “absolutely certain” that the Seahwaks were going to win Superbowl XL but that doesn’t mean Airman Doors could challenge him for a million dollars.

I freely acknowledge that this was not a question. It’s just my observations and opnions on the subject of this thread.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Little Nemo

But I don’t think that just because Randi has expressed an opinion on a subject he is automatically obligated to accept any challenge against that opinion. Randi may, for example, have stated he was “absolutely certain” that the Seahwaks were going to win Superbowl XL but that doesn’t mean Airman Doors could challenge him for a million dollars.

This is a very important point: not everything that Randi says that can be interpreted as a challenge may justly be interpreted as a challenge related to his $1 million JREF challenge. He might say, “Look at this diner! It’s filthy! Just try and find a clean table in here!” I will not win a million bucks by finding a clean table.

He is not morally obligated to accept any challenge that he does not think fits his criteria. That is, if someone believes that the sum of his statements commits him to a position of considering a clean diner table to be paranormal, but Randi denies that he considers clean diner tables to be paranormal, he faces no moral, legal, or ethical obligation to begin the challenge process.

Daniel

[spingears]

@Peter Morris

I have decided to apply for the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

As I understand it most underground water is in ‘aquifers’’ and there are a few underground rivers such as in Mammoth Cave, Ky. It appears you are claiming that all underground water is coming from somewhere and going to somewhere else. Could you eluciate further as to exactly what you claim to be the case as to the movement of underground water and how you intend to prove the case?
Simply asserting a thing is so doesn’t make it so. You will have to PROVE YOUR CLAIM!

[Auntbeast]

I’m unable to find your application on the JREF site. Could you provide a link to show it has been received?

I sense a history here of you having issue with James Randi.

1. Have you had prior applications?
2. Did you post about them here?
3. Were they welcomed as warmly as this one has?
4. Do you honestly believe that a site called the “Straight Dope Message Board” would be unlikely to ask specific questions regarding your application and belief? (I use belief since you don’t seem to process the definitions of “theory” and “fact” very well)
5. To many, this seems a major issue of picking and choosing Randi’s words, rather than a valid claim, is this merely a loophole you think you have found and chosen to exploit?
6. Do you have any degrees or college education or professional experience with geology or any other field that would lend you creedence to your claim?
7. Could you please post a link to your application on JREF’s site, rather than your own as soon as it is processed?

[Oakminster]

I actually hit one of the OP’s links. He’s posted some emails that appear to be from Randi. Also appears that Randi finds his “application” even less credible than I do…

This “challenge” ain’t happening.

[Contrapuntal]

@Auntbeast

I’m unable to find your application on the JREF site. Could you provide a link to show it has been received?

Its on Peter’s website, which I beleieve he links to in the OP.

[Roland_Orzabal]

From your application:

6. Definition of a dry spot

James Randi issued a challenge to “find me a dry spot.” It is therefore necessary to define precisely what the term “dry spot” means.

Applicant has previously corresponded with Mr Randi attempting to establish what Mr Randi meant by “dry spot.” Mr Randi did offer a few comments including: “A dry spot would be a spot at which water is not to be found in a practical sense, in an area wherewater might otherwise be expected to be found.” That is therefore the definition we shall use

* Where there is water found in only minute quantities. A well that yields less than one half of a gallon per minute (0.5 GPM) would be insufficient for any domestic, industrial or agricultural purpose. If the yield is too small to be of any use, then it would not be water “in a practical sense.”
* Where there is a large amount of water, but tightly bound to the particles of the soil. If the water is tightly bound to the ground, and cannot be extracted, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”
* Where the water has been contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants, or has a too high mineral content, or is seawater. If a well produces seawater, or toxic sludge that is too badly contaminated to be of any use, then it is not water “in a practical sense.”
* Where the water is underneath a deep layer of very solid rock. Drilling through this layer to reach the water would be very expensive, if not impossible. If watercannot be reached, or can only be reached at great expense, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”

From a series of emails between you and James Randi (taken from the Correspondence section of your website):

Date : 29-MAR-2004
From : Peter Morris
To : James Randi

Yes, Mr Randi, It’s my word, not yours. If you object to that, we can stick to your word, i.e. “find a dry spot” and try to establish precisely what you mean by that.

Can you please say whether a clay formation with low permeability, as described in previous messages, would satisfy your requirements as a “dry spot” Yes or no? Its a simple question.

Can you please say whether, given a well that yields in excess of 300 gpm, and a spot less than 100 metres from that well which yields a mere 10 gpm, you would count that as a “dry spot” Yes or no? Its a simple question.

If I select a spot, not close to a well, and that spot yields a small amount of water, say 1 gpm or less, would that be a dry spot? Yes or no? Its a simple question.

If I select a spot for drilling, and that spot yields water that is unusable due to being polluted, or has a too high mineral content, would that be a dry spot? Yes or no? Its a simple question.

I am willing to answer the challenge you made, to “find a dry spot.” You have made this challenge so many times, why are you unable to say what you mean? You repeatedly dodge and avoid. Please answer my question.

You have stated that I would have a 6% chance of finding a dry spot. I state that I can find dry spots with an accuracy far greater than that, say 24%. Heck, I’ll be generous, lets say 30% FIVE TIMES greater than the rate you think I should get.

Please do tell me what else you need from me. Any questions you have, I’m willing to answer, but don’t expect me to read your mind.
Date: 29-MAR-2004
From James Randi
To Peter Morris

Look in the dictionary. “Dry” means, “free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet.”

Date : 30-MAR-2004
From : Peter Morris
To : James Randi

Should I take that as a “no” to each of my specific examples?
Date: 29-MAR-2004
From James Randi
To Peter Morris
“a clay formation with low permeability ….Yes or no? Its a simple question.”

No. It’s a simple answer. That would not be a dry spot, by the definition given: “free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet.”

“a well that yields in excess of 300 gpm, and a spot less than 100 metres from that well which yields a mere 10 gpm ….Yes or no? Its a simple question.”

No. It’s a simple answer. That would not be a dry spot, by the definition given: “free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet.”

“a spot, not close to a well, and that spot yields a small amount of water, say 1 gpm or less, would that be a dry spot? Yes or no? Its a simple question.”

No. It’s a simple answer. That would not be a dry spot, by the definition given: “free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet.”

“spot yields water that is unusable due to being polluted, or has a too high mineral content, would that be a dry spot? Yes or no? Its a simple question.”

No. It’s a simple answer. That would not be a dry spot, by the definition given: “free from moisture or excess moisture; not moist; not wet.”

With this is mind, I have two questions. My apologies ahead of time for the somewhat belabored wording below, but I did want ensure that I encompassed everything into an inquiry rather than phrasing any portion as a statement.

1. Given that Randi has, in response to direction questioning from you, specifically stated that none of the situations listed in your application as examples of successfully “finding a dry spot” are concurrent with his definition of the term “dry spot” – going out of his way, no less, to apply his dismissal to each individual situation – what leads you to believe he’ll accept your application as a valid response to his challenge now?

2. Again given Randi’s aforementioned dismissal of your proposed definitions of “dry spot”, why, in your application, did you decide that this statement from the “few comments” made by Randi – “A dry spot would be a spot at which water is not to be found in a practical sense, in an area wherewater might otherwise be expected to be found” – would be the definition used for testing purposes, when further comments from Randi had provided a clearer picture of what he does and does not consider a “dry spot”?

While I commend you for your honesty in including that particular bit of correspondence from Randi on your website (which convinces me that you are, as you state Randi to be, a “man of honour”), I must admit that it does seem to render your claim more or less irrelevant.

If I’ve missed something, perhaps a past statement from Randi that contradicts his current stance on the definiton of “dry spot”, that would serve to justify your continued use of the less restrictive definition for purposes of your claim, by all means please point it out in your reponse to my questions and I’ll gladly retract the above. At present, though, I am truly confused as to why you believe your claim to be valid.

[Peter_Morris]

@Revenant Threshold

Which do you believe will be the case? That is, do you believe that Randi engage in discreditable behaviour, or honourable behaviour? What do you predict?

If I knew that, I’d be either a mind rerader or a fortune teller, and entitled to the million dollars anyway.

[Peter_Morris]

@Revenant Threshold

And though I was wrong on that part, the rest of my question still stands. Since people on here do not seem to believe your method of judging Randi’s creditableness is reasonable, do you not think that, whatever the result is, people will be disinclined to believe you?

Since I’m just responding to a specific challenge issued by Randi, my method is totally reasonable. If you think otherwise, it speaks about your own flawed judgement. Your question, then, is a non-sequitor.

[Peter_Morris]

@RickJay

1. How do you plan, at the challenge, to prove your first … second … third … fourth claim? .

Suggested protocol for this listed in my application:

http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Application.aspx

[Peter_Morris]

@Walter Windchill

How do you know these underground rivers exist?

Well, for a start I grew up in Surrey, England, near the banks of the river Mole… so named because at certain points along its length it disappears underground, runs underground for a way, and re-emerges at another point.

I’ve known about underground rivers forever.

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

I ask again, what did the Dowsers mean by underground rivers?

Asked and answered. Move on.

[Peter_Morris]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If he tells you that, who will you consider to be the definitive authority on his intended meaning in his earlier communications?

Here’s what Randi has to say about it. http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

**<< I will not, and do not, “formulate” any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there’s any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It’s always been this way, despite the statements — such as this one — made to the contrary. >> **

I have a few names in mind, starting with Arthur C. Clarke. He’s a friend of Randi, but I think he can be trusted to make an honest, impartial and intelligent decision in any matter of dispute.

[Walter_Windchill]

Why do you need to find a dry spot, then? Just take Randi to Surrey. Funny nobody thought of it before. Of course, I’m not at all sure that demonstrating the existence of underground rivers will qualify as a paranormal feat, but you seem to be convinced of it, so I must be missing something. Good luck!

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

You said you didn’t have to, but you never said if you could or not.

Asked and answered. Move on.

[Peter_Morris]

@Mr. Miskatonic

I would just like to point out a few select quotes from James Randi’s book “Flim-Flam” in regards to dowsers:

"Dowsers have the strange notion that water travels in underground rivers and will happily trace these torrents for you. But geologists know otherwise…

I have no question here. I’ll just point out that your premise is one big strawman.

So, what you’re saying is that my claim is unknown to science? And that if I demonstrate it true I have shown something that science rejected? That ought to be worth a million, shouldn’t it.

But if you don’t believe me, that’s great. Please write to Randi and ask him toconduct the test and prove me to be wrong. go tell him how much you have faith in his words, and how you are sure I’m wrong. This will really help me get the test going.

Thank you so much for this.