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.
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.
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:
This was a filmed event
The dowsers made no protest over the averaging and were told the individual results of the tests.
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”.
Please cite the Mathematicians that accuse Randi of cheating on his agreed protocol.
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?
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.
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.
I never said that. Please quote accurately.
Mathematicians say that Randi was wrong to combine the results, not that he broke the agreement.
No, what you wish to show is that Randi is dishonest regardless of wethere or not he is or is not
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.
The thread where you asked this question was located herehere
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!
No, what you wish to show is that Randi is dishonest regardless of wethere or not he is or is not
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.
The thread where you asked this question was located herehere
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thats an outright lie. You provided links and hpoed we wouldn’t read what was actually said.
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.
ANd i have shown that not all the mathematicians agreed with you analysis.
I have shown more geologists disagreeing with your assesment.
Real ones rather than “I did this” tales that aren’t true.
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.
“*<< 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 <<Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers
maintain>> 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.
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?
"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. "
[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] <<Flow through an aquifer can be described by Darcy’s Law. Darcy’s Law is a generalised relationship for flow in porous media. It shows the volumetric flow rate is a function of the flow area, elevation, fluid pressure and a proportionality constant. It may be stated in several different forms depending on the flow conditions. Since its discovery, it has been found valid for any Newtonian fluid. Likewise, while it was established under saturated flow conditions, it may be adjusted to account for unsaturated and multiphase flow. The following outlines its common forms and assumes water is the working fluid unless otherwise stated.>>
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 <<Is Randi right in this? Is it likely that you can have a high yield well, and a dry well less than 100 metres apart? >>
diddly-squat replies : <<Yes this is possible. The situation would be that the two wells would be geologically separated by an impermeable barrier (ie, a rock that exhibits very low porosity and permeability).>>
geoff d : <<Confusion often exists when people try to translate ‘buried palaeo-channel’ into layman’s language and come up with underground river. Sand and gravel filled palaeo-channels do exist over a lot of inland Australia and are quite often useful local aquifers. They resemble a river, in plan, but are not suited to high rates of extraction because their limited width brings edge effects and ‘discharge boundaries’ into play.>>
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.
Well, the proof is above - AGAIN. But you being such a fundamentalist will simply ignore it.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
He was quoting accurately:
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.
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.
Really? Does he truly qualify it in that matter? I don not see it, and Randi has dealt with more dowsers personally.
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 on this site. This is not to say that some dowsers accept ideomotor, but there are plenty that don’t
“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.”
I have yet to psee any logic from Randi’s fundamentalists.
will do.
No, he was quoting the exact opposite of what I said.
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 <<many errors>> 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”
It’s not enough that they said the exact opposite that he did?
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. <<raging torrenting rivers criss crossing the country>> 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.
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.
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.