GSV, what the hell are you talking about? Even with your snippage and selective quoting, its not clear what you think the misrepresentation is.
Just let me restate.
Randi said that water is easy to find, and dry spots are rare. The geologists I consulted said the opposite.
I wrote to Randi in the belief that he had made an error. I wrote to Randi and informed him of my discussion with geologists. I was prepared to have a polite discussion of the matter with him.
Randi, however, was not prepared to discuss the matter. I received a very rude response from him. So much for him making corrections when he finds out, eh Miskatonic? That’s when I thought, “Right, you’ve asked for this!”
So I told him I was willing to accept his “find me a dry spot” challenge. I never claimed any paranormal ability. I specifically resisted Randi’s attempts to turn it into a dowsing test. I just said that dry spots are easy to find.
Where did I misrepresent myself then? I don’t think this is paranormal, but Randi has declared that he does. That’s his choice. I can hardly be blamed for acceopting the challenge he made, can I?
Very well, since quoting your own words back to in bold text seems to be insufficient reminder, I will explain it for you:
You yourself said in your first post to this thread that you told Randi you were interested in accepting his challenge. His challenge is to demonstrate paranormal abilities in controlled conditions.
You clearly had no intention of accepting the challenge, since you have stated here that you never have believed in dowsing (unless that itself is a lie, in which case you have proved my point for me) therefore you lied to him.
If you genuinely wanted to correct a scientific error you could have done so without the bullshiat about wanting to take the challenge.
Actually, GSV, I think Peter is confusing the nature of the $1M challenge. He seems to think that the challenge is to prove something James Randi has said is incorrect.
No, he said this was a “better” test of paranormal abilities. That still does not mean that he thinks it is by any means a satisfactory test of paranormal abilities.
Summary for those who can’t be bothered reading the thread;
Dowsing: Still doesn’t work. Tests accepted by dowsers prove it. Randi: Concluded above and made sarcastic, throwaway remark. Peter Morris: Took above remark as an official, prize-winning challenge. Pedantically and repeatedly tried to claim on it. Has way too much time on his hands. Randi: Grouchy old man, not known for suffering time-wasters lightly. Usually in the right all the same.
What’s more, in the tests I’ve read about, Randi does an initial phase where the dowsers get to test their skills after being told where the water is, and the dowsing rods always work. Then he does the identical test, except without their knowing beforehand, and their results are no better than chance. This way, it takes away an excuse a dowser might use, that there was something in the setup that nullified the powers, and makes it obvious to all (except the truly deluded) that the subconscious is responsible for the dowsing effects.
It’s been a while, now, but I believe he was referring to the temperate zone in general, the US in specific, and generally, the north-east area around where he lives. I may be wrong, but I think as far as temperate, non-arid zones go, where you’d find farmland and suchlike, he’s probably right about water, if you dig deep enough.
So, Randi declared finding a dry spot to be p[aranormal, and accepting his chgallenge is a “lie” is it? Accepting the terms that he laid out, is dishonest?
Randi fans are a strange bunch. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Look, if you read Randi’s accounts, you will note that his $1M challenge covers scientific theories that he disagrees with. Example someone claimed that sight works by the eye emiting radiation. Randi disagrees and offers $1M for proof.
If this claim is suitable for the $1M, then so is mine.
I am stating a scientific theory that Randi has been attacking since 1980 or earlier.
I say that:
underground water is fairly rare, and hard to find.
almost anywhere you dig would be a dry spot.
underground rivers exist.
water flows underground according to Darcy’s Law.
Randi on the other hand, has spent 25 years attacking such notions. Randi claims
underground water is very common.
almost anywhere you dig would be a “successful well.”
underground rivers don’t exist, and belief in them is a delusion.
water does not flow underground.
so, Randi made a public challenge to “find a dry spot” on numerous occasions. He considers this a demonstration of a principle that otherwise he refuses to accept.
It’s hardly dishonest to take him up on the offer.
In any event, you’re missing the main point of my article. I presented that little anecdote as a demonstration of Randi’s appaling childish and unprofessional behaviour. This is how Randi acts when someone approaches with a reasonable claim. Randi’s behaviour makes it nearly impossible to negotiate a test with him.
Now, suppose someone with an actual paranormal ability ewanted to be tested. You can bet that Randi will do the same thing. Someone willing and able to show a paranormal ability in the lab would have the same problem.
No I have not, because there are already, as I said, hundreds of rebuttals to your neverending equivocation and misrepresentation. I have selected Princhester’s extract because it “perfectly sums up” these attempts of yours to impugn Randi’s credibility. I said exactly that very clearly the first time around, but as we have seen one clear statement is simply not sufficient for you.
Yes, I did read it. I had a good chuckle too, as your prose on this subject inevitably elicits. Have another look at that thread and count the number of times your arguments are systematically addressed, and count how frequently phrases such as “pedant”, “semantic confusion”, “you are wrong Peter”, “a decent tutor would send you packing straight back to the library”, “leave the vendettas at the door” occur as intros or codas to arguments that you then go on to misrepresent and equivocate or downright ignore in a desperate bid to appear at least marginally right.
Yes, when the techniques you routinely bring to the debating table are employed I agree this is the case; however if we eliminate your loaded questions to “experts”, selective quoting, out of context arguments, and flagrant dishonesty, the matter is entirely different – as has already been exhaustively pointed out.
I find it delicious however that you call other posters trolls and even accuse some of selective quoting! Here, as in most of your arguments on this topic, it is in fact you who exhibits these qualities.
Hm. Thought he lived up here. Wasn’t the place with the cop with the personal problem with him somewhere in the northeast? Still, the point being “Not the arid midwest, but you could probably dig a hole there, too.”
Telling him you were interested in accepting his challenge, when you had no real intention of doing so and were just fishing for something to criticise was dishonest. You know it, I saw it, and now everyone else can see it too.
Twist and turn, duck and weave all you want; your own words here and at the JREF have revealed your lack of credibility.
I’m done with you. Feel free to get the last word in if your ego demands it.
Yes, it is a lie. He did not say finding a dry spot was paranormal. He said that it was a “better” test of paranormal ability than finding water. This does not in any way imply that he believes it to be a sufficient test of paranormal ability.
Just out of curiosity (actually, that’s a lie, I’m using Socratic irony), what paranormal abilities do you claim to have that lets you find dry holes? Until and unless you claim such abilities, aren’t you by definition ineligible for the million, which seeks evidence of paranormalcy?
Heck, if you want to prove you can find dry holes through geological knowledge or random chance, well, that looks very impressive on a CV but it ain’t worth the big mill.
