# Can people really sense if someone is staring at them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 7, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682 "2003-08-07T22:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/161 "2003-08-16T17:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*The part where they signed the test saying it was a fair test. Mr Miskatonic, please cite. [/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that it was not part of the protocol? Are you outright accusing Randi of in-your-face fruad? Because that is exactly what you are doing. > [@](#): > > Randi tested three different groups of people making three different claims. > > One group claimed they could dowse for water. > Another group said they could dowse for gold > The third group, I think it was brass. > > The water group scored MUCH higher than chance, more than twice as high. They scored 22%, when chance would give a scorew of 10%. The odds against this were more than 100 to 1. Yes. This is true. But 1-in-100 results are not that impressive to me. Especially given context of all the failures dowsers have had. 1-100 odds are not sufficient to qualify for anything, let alone the prize money. > [@](#): > > You keep making the claim that they **agreed** to combine their results with a totally different bunch of people tasking a different test. What part of the agreement says that they agreed to this, which is what you are claiming? Here’s the deal Peter, either Randi had an agreement with the dowsers to averagge the total results or he said he would do something else. IF he said he was going to do something else then where are the cries of protest at this sudden (and uneeded) change of protocol. Given that: 1. This was a filmed event 2. The dowsers made no protest over the averaging and were told the individual results of the tests. 3. Clarke does not protest Randi changing protocol on the fly, but rather for not paying enough attention to the (unimpressive) water results. His direct complaint was that Randi was combining the results, not that Randi was combining the results when he said he would not do so. If that were the case, Clarke would rightfully sceam his head off, along with all the dowsers. Yet Clarke, despite ther differences has called Randi a “national treasure”. > [@](#): > > You keep taking Randi’s word for this, over that of qualified mathematicians. Please cite the Mathematicians that accuse Randi of cheating on his agreed protocol. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/162 "2003-08-16T20:21:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes. This is true. But 1-in-100 results are not that impressive to me. Especially given context of all the failures dowsers have had. 1-100 odds are not sufficient to qualify for anything, let alone the prize money. I have always agreed with that. 100 to 1 odds are interesting, worth further testing to see it its genuine, but do not prove anything in themself. If Randi had said so, I would have no problem with that. The point is, and always has beem, Randi twisted the figures to make them appear worse than they really were. That is the point, I wish to show how dishonest Randi is, not prove that dowsers are right. Did I mention that I don’t believe in dowsing? About 30 times, or so? > [@](#): > > Here’s the deal Peter, either Randi had an agreement with the dowsers to averagge the total results or he said he would do something else. Absolutely wrong. Neither of the above is correct. He did it without advance warning that he intended to do it, or justification for doing so. > [@](#): > > Clarke does not protest Randi changing protocol on the fly, but rather for not paying enough attention to the (unimpressive) water results. His direct complaint was that Randi was combining the results, not that Randi was combining the results when he said he would not do so. No, I’m saying exactly the same thing that Clarke did. My point is that Randi combined the results. I have never claimed that Randi promised not to do so. You are accusing of doing so falsely. You, however, are claiming that the dowsers agreed in advance that they should have their results combined. This is flat out false. The agreed protocol makes no mention of combining the results of the three seperate tests. Randi only decided to combine them after the results were in. > [@](#): > > Please cite the Mathematicians that accuse Randi of cheating on his agreed protocol. I never said that. Please quote accurately. Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/163 "2003-08-16T21:25:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*That is the point, I wish to show how dishonest Randi is, not prove that dowsers are right. Did I mention that I don’t believe in dowsing? About 30 times, or so? No, what you wish to show is that Randi is dishonest _regardless of wethere or not he is or is not_ > [@](#): > > Absolutely wrong. Neither of the above is correct. > He did it without advance warning that he intended to do it, or justification for doing so. You know this for certain? You have proof? You are aware that the individual tests results were announced and that the mixed average was not announced? Merely that is was said that the dowser had reached chance? ACtually, you’ve been told this several times. > [@](#): > > Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement. \*\* The thread where you asked this question was located here[here](http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=b8cmha%24b95%241%40sparta.btinternet.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMathematicians%2BRandi%2Bdowsing%2Baverage%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Db8cmha%2524b95%25241%2540sparta.btinternet.com%26rnum%3D1) Most of the ansawers in this thread dealt with your cvalculation of odds. You claim Mathematicians called this combining to be wrong, and even said the best term used to describe Randi was “Naive” in fact that was the worst. Here’ to the replies to your query as to wether Radni was right or wrong to do so: “Yes and no… would always err on the side of adding together lots of tests, as this reduces the chances of random variations in individual tests creating a false positive effect” But here’s a negative one for balance: “Of course not. He buggered up the water test with gold and brass, buggered up the brass test with gold and water, and buggered up the gold test with (may I have a drum roll please) water and brass! The guy’s a professional debunker. No matter what evidence you present him with, he’ll find a way around it, and laugh up his sleeve at those of us who actually believe that there’s more to the Universe than what’s in The Amazing Randi’s bag of tricks.” Your Mathematicians are not as uniform in their opinions as you would have us beleive. Gee, just like your geologists! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/164 "2003-08-16T21:42:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*That is the point, I wish to show how dishonest Randi is, not prove that dowsers are right. Did I mention that I don’t believe in dowsing? About 30 times, or so? No, what you wish to show is that Randi is dishonest _regardless of wethere or not he is or is not_ > [@](#): > > Absolutely wrong. Neither of the above is correct. > He did it without advance warning that he intended to do it, or justification for doing so. You know this for certain? You have proof? You are aware that the individual tests results were announced and that the mixed average was not announced? Merely that is was said that the dowser had reached chance? ACtually, you’ve been told this several times. > [@](#): > > Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement. \*\* The thread where you asked this question was located here[here](http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=b8cmha%24b95%241%40sparta.btinternet.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMathematicians%2BRandi%2Bdowsing%2Baverage%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Db8cmha%2524b95%25241%2540sparta.btinternet.com%26rnum%3D1) Most of the ansawers in this thread dealt with your cvalculation of odds. You claim Mathematicians called this combining to be wrong, and even said the best term used to describe Randi was “Naive” in fact that was the worst. Here’ to the replies to your query as to wether Radni was right or wrong to do so: “Yes and no… would always err on the side of adding together lots of tests, as this reduces the chances of random variations in individual tests creating a false positive effect” But here’s a negative one for balance: “Of course not. He buggered up the water test with gold and brass, buggered up the brass test with gold and water, and buggered up the gold test with (may I have a drum roll please) water and brass! The guy’s a professional debunker. No matter what evidence you present him with, he’ll find a way around it, and laugh up his sleeve at those of us who actually believe that there’s more to the Universe than what’s in The Amazing Randi’s bag of tricks.” Your Mathematicians are not as uniform in their opinions as you would have us beleive. Gee, just like your geologists! ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/165 "2003-08-16T22:04:36Z")
Miskatonic, you have stated that the subjects agreed to having their results combined. Please provide a cite for your claim. Its time to put up or shut up. Time to piss or get off the pot. Stump up, or admit your error. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/166 "2003-08-16T23:17:42Z")
That’s great coming from you Peter. I’m not debating you any more. None of what you say is fact. You are just making things up. You can’t even get basic searchable facts from these threads correct. You have no credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/167 "2003-08-16T23:39:48Z")
I would say no as a general rule, but… If the question were re-asked from the basis of intuition, I would say maybe. When I was younger I noticed a tendency to have the same sentence pop into my head, verbatim, just prior to certain people uttering them. Kind of like “Radar Orielly” in MASH. It went away as I got older but the number of occurrences, and the dissimilarity with the persons involved, put the events above the level of coincidence. It was only with certain people and not people that I necessarily hung out with (like a teacher). I would entertain the possibility of people possessing extremely crude forms of telepathy. To this day I wonder why I shudder for no reason. No specific thought, just a shudder. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/168 "2003-08-16T23:56:52Z")
Princhester, I have provided cite after cite for my claims. I have given you examples of Randi misrepresenting the claims of the people he tests. I have shown mathematicians disagreeing with Randi’s flawed analysis of results. I have shown you geologists disagreeing with Randi’s statements about geology. I have shown you cases of Randi choosing to ignore his own rules. What other facts do you want? Do you really suppose that your blind faith in Randi in the teeth of the evidence gives you some great respect? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/169 "2003-08-17T00:51:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*Miskatonic, you have stated that the subjects agreed to having their results combined. Please provide a cite for your claim. Its time to put up or shut up. Time to piss or get off the pot. Stump up, or admit your error. \*\* I don’t jump on command. Especially to kooks who claim support from geologists and mathematicians when they don’t actually have it. Does that corner you’ve backed into feel comfy? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/170 "2003-08-17T00:56:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*Princhester, I have provided cite after cite for my claims. Thats an outright lie. You provided links and hpoed we wouldn’t read what was actually said. > [@](#): > > I have given you examples of Randi misrepresenting the claims of the people he tests. No, you have not. You came up with some links from dowsing websites wheras Randi has dealt with many dowsers since before the web existed. I suspect he knows more than you. > [@](#): > > I have shown mathematicians disagreeing with Randi’s flawed analysis of results. ANd i have shown that not all the mathematicians agreed with you analysis. > [@](#): > > I have shown you geologists disagreeing with Randi’s statements about geology. I have shown more geologists disagreeing with your assesment. > [@](#): > > I have shown you cases of Randi choosing to ignore his own rules. > > What other facts do you want? Real ones rather than “I did this” tales that aren’t true. > [@](#): > > Do you really suppose that your blind faith in Randi in the teeth of the evidence gives you some great respect? \*\* DO you suppose your blind hatred of Randi is skewing your perception? I mean , this crap you’ve spewed, even if it were 100% accurate, is petty beyond belief. The whole “Karst” bit is such an eye-roller that even the geologist were pretty much saying it was what the dowsers were saying was happening. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/171 "2003-08-17T09:49:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Thats an outright lie. You provided links and hpoed we wouldn’t read what was actually said. Hardly. You refuse to read and comprehend. You just claim that they agree with Randi in the teeth of the evidence. > [@](#): > > Real ones rather than “I did this” tales that aren’t true. The ones I quoted came from Randi himself. If you want to claim they are untrue, that’s up to you. > [@](#): > > I have shown more geologists disagreeing with your assesment. Name two. You found ONE geologist agreeing with Randi on ONE small point. All the rest disagreed with him on everything else. > [@](#): > > DO you suppose your blind hatred of Randi is skewing your perception No blind hatred, I just have zero respect for him because I have found him lying so often. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/172 "2003-08-17T16:04:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*Hardly. You refuse to read and comprehend. You just claim that they agree with Randi in the teeth of the evidence. Funny how you never quote the evidence or anything, you just make blanket statements about it. > [@](#): > > The ones I quoted came from Randi himself. If you want to claim they are untrue, that’s up to you. So you got the quotes from Randi,but you have failed to demonstrate that they are untruthful. > [@](#): > > Name two. > > You found ONE geologist agreeing with Randi on ONE small point. All the rest disagreed with him on everything else. Muckracker, and then from “diddly-squat” [http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/474/topic474517.shtm](http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/474/topic474517.shtm) “\*\<\< There are no streams of water flowing underground,” he said. "There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves.\>\>Is Randi right?[/I} Yes, this statement is correct, the key here is the ’except in caves’ bit." Then there is J.F. Cornwall "Except for a few circumstances where streams and rivers _can_ flow underground though limestone in karst country (where they have carved/dissolved cracks and caverns as channels thru the rock and flow thru these openings), underground water is NOT found flowing as “rivers”. " Sounds like he’s pretty much saying that Randi is close enough, certainly not decpetive. Then there’s Jo Schaper, who you tried to suck up to: “I see no other interpretation of those words, however there is a logically false premise posited here in that he [Randi] asserts \<\\> is not actually asserted by all dowsers.” So here is as close as you get, but the assertion is not that Randi is wrong about rivers, but that he is wrong about the dowsers assertion about the river. Randi, however, was not speaking about all dowsers. > [@](#): > > No blind hatred, I just have zero respect for him because I have found him lying so often. \*\* Pretty weak, given what I’ve show here. Looks like you just are cloying for reasons to dilsike him Oh, and remember when you said Randi was misrepresenting the opinions of dowsers with regards to what causes the rods/pendulums to move? [Perhaps he wasn’t wrong at all](http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/dowsing.htm) "Dowsing, scientifically known as radioesthesia, is the interaction of the mind of the dowser and the energy of the object of interest. " “When you enter the energy field, the wires will open wide, the left wire going to the left and the right hand wire swinging to the right.” [http://www.crystalinks.com/dowsing.html](http://www.crystalinks.com/dowsing.html) "Scientists have tried to understand the physical basis of dowsing; what factors link the movement of the rod in the dowser’s hand to underground structures. No one has yet successfully explained the dowsing signal. " [http://www.dowsing.com/Dowsing/dqanda.htm](http://www.dowsing.com/Dowsing/dqanda.htm) “Presently, the device moves beyond one’s physical control, according to a preestablished code.” ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/173 "2003-08-17T18:09:44Z")
[qiopte] Funny how you never quote the evidence or anything, you just make blanket statements about it. [/quote] Given over and over. You simply ignore it. But, since you ask, here are some of the ones you have chosen to ignore, bevcause they dispute Randi’s position. funny how you quote over and over the single one that partly supports one of Randi’s statements, and ignore these: Wiyaka : \<\< I think the term “underground river” is used losely by dowsers, meaning often a fault line where moisture penetrates and collects easier. Water for a well collects better at a fault line\>\> Manfred : \<\< Well, what is an underground river? Regardless of whether you have a broad sheet of underground water moving from a higher plateau to a lower level or a thin stream, riverlike, body of water moving from one place to another underground, usually ending up in the ocean or a lake, it acts like a river, although the motion of the mas of water may be very slow. E.G. The Danube river near its source disappears for a stretch underground and reappears as the river proper further down. Lots of rivers and seemingly landlocked lakes in the volcanic belt of Victoria (East of Geelong towards the S.A. border)are connected by an underground drainage system and there are many other examples throughout Australia. So, it’s not a rare event at all.\>\> DV: \<\< Water can pass through porous rock and along faults and fractures, as well as through actual broad channels such as in karst. Maybe all the dowsers mean is “water moving through the earth by some means for some reason”.\>\> Diddly squat : [detailed analysis of how water flows underground, with diagrams] \<\\> * * * Randi says \<\< A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. \>\> Peter asks \<\\> diddly-squat replies : \<\\> geoff d : \<\\> So, you have all those geologists disagreeing with Randi and describing how water **does** flow underground, as opposed to one saying that it doesn’t. And even that one was just objecting to it being called ‘rivers’, not to the fact that it flows. He didn’t claim that water doesn’t flow underground, he said that it doesn’t flow freely. So, you ignore all these, and only quote the one who agrees with Randi on one small part of what hw wrote. > [@](#): > > So you got the quotes from Randi,but you have failed to demonstrate that they are untruthful. Well, the proof is above - AGAIN. But you being such a fundamentalist will simply ignore it. > [@](#): > > ounds like he’s pretty much saying that Randi is close enough, certainly not decpetive. No, he’s just objecting to the term ‘rivers’. All the geologists agree that water flows underground in **paleo-channels.** Some accept the term “underground river” as a substitute for paleo-channel, others object to the term. Some state that ‘rivers’ can only exist in caves, but paleo-channels can exist anywhere, others say that paleo-channels are the same as rivers, and can exist anywhere. All of them disagree with Randi, who claims that paleo-channels, which he terms rivers, don’t exist. > [@](#): > > Oh, and remember when you said Randi was misrepresenting the opinions of dowsers with regards to what causes the rods/pendulums to move? > > Perhaps he wasn’t wrong at all > > "Dowsing, scientifically known as radioesthesia, is the interaction of the mind of the dowser and the energy of the object of interest. Exactly, this proves that he IS wrong. The dowsers say that the object acts on the MIND of the dowser, and the dowser himself moves the rods. But Randi claims that dowsers think that the object acts on the rods, and the rods move by themselves. Your own link proves what a fraud he is. Thank you for that. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/174 "2003-08-17T18:50:46Z")
I “witched” my septic (rhymes with Skeptic ;)) tank once, many years ago, and managed to find the dimensions of the tank, the pump-out hole, and the leach pipe. All anecdotal, though, so I’ll keep the details to myself. Except to say that I didn’t think there was anything religious about it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/175 "2003-08-17T22:30:58Z")
Mangeorge > [@](#): > > I’m under the impression that Randi’s offer seeks to disprove the existance of supernatural influence by the fact that no one has won the million. > I’ll be back. The _offer_ seeks to disprove, or at least cast doubt on, the existence of supernatural phenomena. The _test_ seeks to prove it. Conversely, your _offer_ seeks to prove the existence of a future dog-kicking episode, while your _test_ seeks to disprove it. Therefore, your offer is the opposite of Randi’s. Princhester > [@](#): > > it is quite clear that this clause is just to avoid someone subsequently claiming for defamation or accident occuring during the testing. Well, yes, but shouldn’t it be worded that way? As it’s worded, it’s incredibly broad. If after the test, Randi drives his car into my house, I can’t sue him. And why isn’t symmetrical? What if Randi claims defamation or accident? Peter Morris: While I suspect that this is a lost cause, as you have not given any indication of being swayed by logic, I feel compelled to point one of your many errors. Perhaps you can surprise me and provide a reasonable counterargument, or else admit error. You said: > [@](#): > > I never said that. Please quote accurately. > > Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement. He was quoting accurately: > [@](#): > > You keep making the claim that they agreed to combine their results with a totally different bunch of people tasking a different test. What part of the agreement says that they agreed to this, which is what you are claiming? > > You keep taking Randi’s word for this, over that of qualified mathematicians. For Mr. Miskatonic to be taking Randi’s word over the “qualified mathematicians” that Randi broke the agreement, the mathematicians must be saying that he did so. Not that I understand how being a mathematician makes one an expert on what Randi has and hasn’t done. And BTW, saying that you have made thorough arguments in other threads, therefore you have no need to support your position here just doesn’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/176 "2003-08-17T22:49:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > \*\*[qiopte] Funny how you never quote the evidence or anything, you just make blanket statements about it. Given over and over. You simply ignore it. So, you have all those geologists disagreeing with Randi and describing how water **does** flow underground, as opposed to one saying that it doesn’t. [/QUOTE] And yet, none of them really came out and said “Randi was wrong to say this.” I’m going ot give you another quote: “Dowsers have a strage notion that water travels in undeground rivers, and they will ahppily trace these hidden torrents for you. But geologist know otherwise. Bob Hughuley, a geolgist who works fo rth Planning board of Monmouth County, NJ, doesn’t know of one dowser in the are has ever been successful. He also estimates that less than 1 perscent of the earth’s underground water actually flows beneath the surface. That small fraction is confinded to areas rich in limestone (known as “karst” country) and the resulting caves, where real underground streams can occur. Underground flow can als occour in porous material, but that flow amounts to a few feet or miles per year…” James Randi Flim Flam pp. 315-316 1982. So here Randi lists karst country. That means he is certainly aware of it. So his real crime is apparently in editing. Using the phrase "notion of underground rivers as described by dowser’ (raging torrenting rivers criss crossing the country instad of the qualifiers. Most of us understood this from the first thread you participated in. Most geolgoists did too, you seem to feel their qualifiers are the same as calling Randi a liar. Not so. > [@](#): > > Exactly, this proves that he IS wrong. The dowsers say that the object acts on the MIND of the dowser, and the dowser himself moves the rods. Really? Does he truly qualify it in that matter? I don not see it, and Randi has dealt with more dowsers personally. > [@](#): > > But Randi claims that dowsers think that the object acts on the rods, and the rods move by themselves. I’ll say it again, Randi deals with more dowsers personally. Some may feel one way, some may feel its the other. Its hardly fair (but youve never been intersted in being fair) for Randi to mention the one he encounters more often. Even the American Dowsing Society refuses to comment either way: “There have been many attempts to explain dowsing over the course of history. Various books have contained theories and attempted explanations, but the fact is that the pages of science are incomplete on this matter, and we are dependent still on judgement by result. The facts, as we know them, have been preserved in our quarterly Journal, to which we invite all to communicate to further understanding.” No mention of [ideomotor](http://dowsers.new-hampshire.net/faq.htm) on this site. This is not to say that some dowsers accept ideomotor, but there are plenty that don’t [You can find a hundred theories, pointing any which way.](http://www.hlla.com/reference/dowsing.html) “Some believe that it must be an external force that guides the instruments, rather than an internal force that emanates from the person dowsing. But this doesn’t explain why some dowsers don’t need an instrument, they just tune in to physiological changes they feel in their body when they dowse, and let these changes guide them.” But that doesn’t make Randi dishonest. Any more than it makes [the guy who asked Cecil and his “experts” dishonest](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_168.html) in this classic Cecil column: "The only explanation the local experts could provide is that moving water creates a magnetic field, " You’re still making mountains out of molehills. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/177 "2003-08-18T00:50:57Z")
To The Ryan: > [@](#): > > While I suspect that this is a lost cause, as you have not given any indication of being swayed by logic I have yet to p **see** any logic from Randi’s fundamentalists. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you can surprise me and provide a reasonable counterargument, will do. > [@](#): > > He was quoting accurately: No, he was quoting the exact opposite of what I said. > [@](#): > > For Mr. Miskatonic to be taking Randi’s word over the “qualified mathematicians” that Randi broke the agreement,the mathematicians must be saying that he did so. Except that isn’t the claim I’m making. I have never said anything about Randi “breaking the agreement” That is a strawman invented by a desperate Mr Miskatonic. There was no agreement to break, that is the point. This is what happened. Randi combined the results of three seperate tests to make them appear much less impressive. Mathematicians have commented that Randi was wrong to combine the three tests, each one is seperate. Miskatonic claimed, falsely, and repeatedly, that the subjects taking the test **agreed in advance** that the results would be combined. I challenged Miskatonic to provide a cite for his claim. Now Miskatonic is talking about an agreement **not** to combine the results. There was no agreement about combining the results, that is a fact. I have never said that Randi “broke an agreement”. That is an invention by a desperate fundamentalist. Your question about \<\< For Mr. Miskatonic to be taking Randi’s word over the “qualified mathematicians” that Randi broke the agreement,\>\> lacks any logical substance. The point isn’t that Randi “broke an agreement” but that he fiddled the figures. Miskatonic, and nobody else, is waffling about a non-existent agreement. Look at it this way. If somebody burgles your house, the crime is that they have burgled your house. The suggestion that the “broke an agreement that they wouldn’t burgle your house” has nothing to do with it. That is the absurdity of Miskatonics strawman. I still haven’t seen any logical rebuttals of my points. What \<\\> are you talking about? Name one. Most of the alleged errors that Randi fans claim, are sheer fiction, things that I never even said, like the one you were asking about. A few are true, but trivial, such as misremembering which particular fanatic spewed which particular insult, or my misspelling of “reknowned” The rest aren’t errors. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/178 "2003-08-18T00:56:23Z")
To Miskatonic > [@](#): > > And yet, none of them really came out and said “Randi was wrong to say this.” It’s not enough that they said the exact opposite that he did? > [@](#): > > So here Randi lists karst country. That means he is certainly aware of it. So his real crime is apparently in editing. Using the phrase "notion of underground rivers as described by dowser’ (raging torrenting rivers criss crossing the country instad of the qualifiers. Most of us understood this from the first thread you participated in No you did not. Several of you commented that underground rivers do not exist AT ALL. You people quoted Randi as saying that “underground rivers are fictional” and the difference between an underground pipe and an underground river is that “one exists the other doesn’t” The statements you all made showed that you think underground rivers are fictional. Only after I proved that underground rivers are real, only then did a hysterical Princhester come up with that lame reinterpretation of Randi’s words. And then the rest of you pretended that that’s what you meant, even though its not what you said. All you could do was flame me for quoting what you said, and claim that I’m lying, because you meant to say something different. \<\\> Even Princhester admitted that he couldn’t find any actual dowsers who said such a thing. He merely declared that it must be so, because its the only way to make Randi right. Nobody belived him, you just tried to save face by pretending to agree with him. > [@](#): > > I’ll say it again, Randi deals with more dowsers personally. and lies about what they say. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/179 "2003-08-18T01:08:40Z")
To The Ryan: I’ll make this even simpler. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you can surprise me and provide a reasonable counterargument…For Mr. Miskatonic to be taking Randi’s word over the “qualified mathematicians” that Randi broke the agreement,the mathematicians must be saying that he did so. Precisely so. The mathematicians have not said anything about Randi breaking an agreement, that’s a fact. Miskatonic is making that claim, I am not. Miskatonic is arguing about Randi breaking or not breaking an agreement, I am saying that there WAS no agreement on that particular point. So, in fact, your objection actually defeats Miskatonic, and supports me. Is that reasonable enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682/180 "2003-08-18T01:54:13Z")
I’ve always been a fan of Randi’s web site and I thought I’d throw my 2cents in: I wouldn’t go so far as to call Randi a fraud, but it seems to me that he is an advocate with an agenda as opposed to an impartial searcher for the truth. I would expect that if Randi saw a bona fide demonstration of supernatural powers, he would come up with excuses just like dowsers who come up with excuses why their powers don’t work when put to a controlled test. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-people-really-sense-if-someone-is-staring-at-them/193682.md?page=10)