[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
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?
[/QUOTE]
But that’s not what he said. He has been saying for 25 years that they don’t exist at all in any form.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but if I only need .5gpm to water my hydrangea three times a weeks, it as an embarrassing overabundance. Heck, at a steady rate of 2gpm I could water my entire backyard, since most of it consists of native plantings and drought tolerant shrubbery. I would be thrilled to have a “dry spot” on my property.
Damn! I just did the math! That’s 5040 gallons a week! From a dry spot! Free water! Free laundry, showers, dishwashing! All from a dry spot. Maybe you are right. There is definitely something spooky going on here.
You do see how ridiculous your statement is, don’t you? What does a farmer who needs water have to do with your claim?
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
But that’s not what he said. He has been saying for 25 years that they don’t exist at all in any form.
[/QUOTE]
You skipped post 152, which had a highly relevant question to this quote. Just a reminder.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Yeah, but if I only need .5gpm to water my hydrangea three times a weeks, it as an embarrassing overabundance.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think this is irrelevant: “in a practical sense” is adjacent to “found,” and almost certainly is intended to modify the verb and not the noun. Finding water in a practical sense is ambiguous, but would seem to suggest not requiring the use of highly sensitive machinery to find the water–i.e., being able to find it by visual or tactile inspection. If I can find a drop of water by looking at it, that seems to qualify the site as not a dry spot.
Daniel
Shoot! Change the 2gpm to .5gpm. Double shoot.
My math is based on .5gpm.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Actually, I think this is irrelevant: “in a practical sense” is adjacent to “found,” and almost certainly is intended to modify the verb and not the noun. Finding water in a practical sense is ambiguous, but would seem to suggest not requiring the use of highly sensitive machinery to find the water–i.e., being able to find it by visual or tactile inspection. If I can find a drop of water by looking at it, that seems to qualify the site as not a dry spot.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Then tell Peter, not me. I was responding to this statement of his –
I included those words in my post.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Who is the final authority of the intended meaning of my words, you or me?
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Arthur C. Clarke? 
[QUOTE=Musicat]
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?”
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, Peter Morris, I didn’t read far enough on your application page. I see you have indeed proposed a protocol.
But I can see some serious problems with it. In brief, you proposed drilling holes to see if water is found, and the number of dry holes vs. wet holes will determine if the claim is correct. While it might be possible to use statistics in this manner, here are the obvious practical problems (above and beyond the fact that your claim is not paranormal, by your own admission):[ol][li]Drilling is expensive. Since JREF will not pay these expenses, do you have deep enough pockets?[]I can’t find anything in your protocol specifying the depth to drill. Yet if you don’t drill to a uniform sufficient depth, the test won’t be very useful, and most drillers charge by the foot, so it could be expensive.[]You seem to have confused a “wet hole” with “flowing water”. While your protocol might detect a wet hole, I don’t see where you will be able to tell if it is flowing. So your original premise (water flows underground) won’t be what you are testing at all.[/ol]REF:[/li][quote]
3. Applicant makes four statements…
i) Some underground water exists in channels…some of which can be correctly classified as “underground rivers.”
ii) Water flows underground…
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Walter Windchill]
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?
[/quote]
I am 100% certain that I’ve understood Randi’s words. There is no room for doubt about what he said and what he meant.
It’s possible that I misunderstood the geologists I consulted. But there’s always a chance that I’m wrong. If Randi successfully proves to me that underground channels don’t exist, I’ll happily admit that he was right all along, and that I was wrong.
In the protocol I’ve suggested, we consult existing geological surveys to see if a particular spot has water or not. No actual digging need be done. That should be cheap to do. The expense will be minimal, and yes I will bear the cost.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
But that’s not what he said. He has been saying for 25 years that they don’t exist at all in any form.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any cites where Randi specifically denies the existence of underground channels such as the Mole River, and where his statements can not be reasonably considered, in context, to refer to the vast underground rivers posited by dowsers? Having visited your website and list of claims made by Randi (http://www.proverandiwrong.net/claims.aspx), I would venture that none of these are an emphatic denial of underground streams of any kind, so you will have to do better.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
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”
[/QUOTE]
Then I fail to understand what your challenge for Mr. Randi is. He claims that it is untrue that large numbers of underground rivers of size exist, except in unusual areas, such as those heavy in limestone, such as the River Mole.
Do you disagree with this statement? Do you think these rivers are common, do you think they exist all over the world? Do you think Mr. Randi claimed otherwise?
Vast is Randi’s word. And you are challenging Randi’s word, so shouldn’t you pay attention to it?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Then tell Peter, not me.
[/QUOTE]
I did, post 155. I think his misunderstanding of this phrase invalidates other matters regarding what constitutes a practical amount of water.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I am 100% certain that I’ve understood Randi’s words. There is no room for doubt about what he said and what he meant.
[/QUOTE]
I would appreciate an answer to post 160, in light of this information. Three names should suffice as an answer, or an explanation of why three names do not suffice as an answer.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I am 100% certain that I’ve understood Randi’s words. There is no room for doubt about what he said and what he meant.
[/QUOTE]
Since I and every other person in this thread have come to very different understanding of what he meant, is that evidence that there is “room for doubt”? Or would you suggest that you are the only one here capable of interpreting his meaning and reporting it honestly in this thread?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I did, post 155. I think his misunderstanding of this phrase invalidates other matters regarding what constitutes a practical amount of water.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah? Your understanding of his misunderstanding trumps my understanding of his misunderstanding? All I have to say is that 5040 gallons fills a whole lot of SuperSoakers. Sleep with one eye open. While wearing goggles. Or at least one goggle.
Seriously, if we are in competition to question the understanding of someone who uses “theory” and “fact” interchangeably when discussing a scientific exploration, I say we both lose.
Do you realize that you are mentally ill?
Have you, in the past, been treated for your mental illness?
If your answer to number 2 was yes, at what time and why did you cease your treatment?
No matter what you say, there are a few simple facts here that prove you are wrong and I think you know it.
Your application is not in the spirit of the challenge and you know this is a fact because Musicat pointed it out upthread in post #151.
Your claim is not in direct conflict with anything Randi has said and is not a response to any direct challenge he has officially issued (most specifically the $1M Challenge you are applying for.) You know this is a fact because The Left Hand of Dorkness pointed it out upthread in post #152.
What is your real motivation here? Why are you obsessing over Mr. Randi? Do you see yourself as some great Victorian nemesis of his that is going to come along and declare to the world that their idol is wrong and flawed (and perhaps evil to boot) and save them with the truth?
People who think water flows underground may or may not be delusional, but you certainly are Peter Morris.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Oh yeah? Your understanding of his misunderstanding trumps my understanding of his misunderstanding? All I have to say is that 5040 gallons fills a whole lot of SuperSoakers. Sleep with one eye open. While wearing goggles. Or at least one goggle.
[/QUOTE]
As I’ve said before, I think the trouble arises from a misunderstanding of linguistics; I’m harping on this phrase as an example. I believe any English teacher or professor or linguist who is consulted on this matter will agree that “in a practical sense” is adverbial, not adjectival, in nature, and that Peter would do well to run it by such an expert for guidance.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
You skipped post 152, which had a highly relevant question to this quote. Just a reminder.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Your question was yet another of your stupid irrelevent strawmen. It wasn’t worth answering then, and I’m only answering it now to end your whining about it.
If Randi said that there are no humands at all with six fingers, and that belief in such things is a delusion, then issued a direct challenge to “find me a hand with six fingers” , then any polydactyl would be justified in claiming the prize.
IF Randi issues a challenge, anyone who can do the thing demanded may claim the prize. That is the whole nature of the challenge. And if you don’t understand that, then you’ve missed the whole point of Randi.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I would appreciate an answer to post 160, in light of this information. Three names should suffice as an answer, or an explanation of why three names do not suffice as an answer.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m not going to answer your question, because it is based upon a deliberate and mendacious distortion of what I said. You, sir, are a liar, and I shall not pander to you any further. Good day.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
As I’ve said before, I think the trouble arises from a misunderstanding of linguistics; I’m harping on this phrase as an example. I believe any English teacher or professor or linguist who is consulted on this matter will agree that “in a practical sense” is adverbial, not adjectival, in nature, and that Peter would do well to run it by such an expert for guidance.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
You may well be right. Certainly the shifting of meaning is a common theme in this thread, as well as outright equivication (using the word “challenge” interchangeably with the term “JREF Challenge”,) but as he dismisses all such protests as meaningless word games, he may need to speak someone who can translate “Peter” to English first. At any rate, I take your point. My point is irrelevant if yours obtains.
And I needed that water, too.