Do you think that you are the final arbiter of the meaning of your words? Plenty of people here do seem to be confused about your intended meaning. Perhaps all of us are senseless, but that does not seem to be a parsimonious explanation of the facts.
Daniel
Of course it’s a slam against me.
Who is the final authority of the intended meaning of my words, you or me?
Daniel
Two followup questions to the proposed wet/dry test:
You say that the spots to be tested will be 10,000 in number, numbered from 00000 to 99999. Since there are 100,000 five-digit numbers between 00000 and 99999 - not 10,000 - which 90,000 numbers will be left out of the random sample?
Given that Randi has specifically told you he considers a “Dry spot” to be a place where there is no water at all, whereas you are defining “dry” as including spots where there is water but just not inquantities sufficient for agricultural or industrial use, how will you resolve this rather significant disagreement so the test can go ahead?
So, since you are so convinced that Randi is right, and that I am wrong, write to him and tell him to take me on in the challenge.
I guess I can consolidate some questions.
It seems to me that the final authority on what Peter means is Peter. The final authority on what I mean is Peter. The final authority on what Randi means is Peter. Is this a correct summation of how you view this matter?
If not, could you correct me with three names describing, successively, whom you consider to be the final authorities in all three cases?
Not a question, but an observation: I think you view language in a manner significantly different from how linguists and cognitive psychologists view language. That is why I advised you to consult such experts, not because I’m suggesting you’re crazy. Cognitive psychologists are researchers, not health care providers.
Daniel
Are there a set of circumstances by which you would concede that your premise was wrong and/or that you misunderstood Randi’s statements about groundwater and/or misunderstood the contest itself? Is there a forseeable outcome where you would not receive the money and also not fault Randi for being dishonest or dishonorable in some way? If so, what would those circumstances be?
Also, are you prepared to finance the study? It sounds like Randi requires that. It seems like it could get steep.
No I didn’t. I point out that “vast” is Randi’s word, not mine. I say that underground channels exist. I don’t sat either that they are “vast” or that they are “rivers”
I am reposting this because it is asked and unanswered. Is this your position?
Ah, you miss a very basic point here. Let me spell this out to you.
I do not think that is a paranormal ability.
James Randi, however, does. He has been saying for 25 years that it is impossible to do so, and anyone who claims to do so is “delusional”
The fact that HE thinks it paranormal makes it a legitimate application.
It is Randi’s chain of logic that is flawed, not mine.
According to the main JREF challenge page,
Yet, according to your application,
Therefore, I would say you pretty much made your application nothing more than an exercise in futility, much like many of your posts.
No, this is not a question, and I not asking you to respond.
(All italics mine.)
But I think we are all waiting for your response to the oft-asked question, “What is the protocol you propose to prove your claim?”
Less than 1% of the population is born with six fingers on one hand. Have I just claimed that it is impossible to be born with six fingers on one hand?
Daniel
Do you consider those terms important to Randi’s use of the word “delusional”? Perhaps he believes there to be slow-moving channels of water, but NOT vast underground rivers. If he were to simply say as much, would you abandon your application?
Obviously that’s a typo on my part. It should have been 100,000 instead of 10,000. I think you knew that already.
No, Randi did not say that. His exact words were **" A dry spot would be a spot at which water is not to be found in a practical sense, in an area where water might otherwise be expected to be found."
**
Note his words “in a practical sense.” I think it fair to say that insufficient quantities falls within the definition. If a farmer needs 100gpm to irrigate his field, and a particular spot only yields 2 gpm, then that isn’t water in a practical sense.
"In a practical sense " is an adverbial phrase modifying “found,” not modifying “water.” That is, if there are no practical means by which water can be found, it’s dry. If practical means can find water, but the water is not available for practical uses, it’s not dry.
Daniel
That is an outright lie on your part. You know very well Idon’t think that. What I have said indicates nothing of the sort, but you invent opinions for me.
The moderators have been informed.
Again, that was a question; questions are not lies. Since that is clearly not what you meant, will you answer the follow-up question?
Daniel
No, it is not fair to say that. Clearly, Randi means to say that any water found in such “dry spots” is not practically extractable by any normal means, such as well digging or drilling. Perhaps it’s bound up in soil–damp soil has water in it, to be sure, but getting it out would involve enormous amounts of labor. That’s what he means by “practical”.
Well, that should give them a good chuckle, at any rate. :rolleyes:
The follow-up question, for your convenience.
Daniel