I’m unclear on the nature of the mental calculations necessary to lead to a conclusion that Randi is making science look bad and is helping scam artists.
That’s a general link to the former Million Dollar Challenge itself. Where in there does it describe the test that supposedly happened as described by I.F.?
Right here. He got some of the details wrong, but it is a very well known experiment.
That experiment was not even close to what I.F. described seeing, either in the set up or in the results. That one was outside using buried pipes and flowing water with multiple checks and specifications on what the multiple contestants were looking for; one of the conditions was for each of them to check the area first for anything that might interfere with their real test The description says "The dowser must first check the area to see if there is any natural water or anything else that would interfere with the test, and that would be marked. ". I.F.'s main objection to the test he saw was that the stage wasn’t checked by anyone for potential interferences; this couldn’t have been the same show. What was described is very different from this test and also uncharacteristic of what Randi does, which is why people are asking for a cite of that specific show.
Different experiment entirely from what he described.
In 1961 I was handed a willow forked stick, showed how to hold it and to go 'that a way" untill the stick tried to bend down.
I was 17, new next to nothing about the location and I did and it did and it was a real weird feeling. They were looking for a very old water line and I found it. I did not sleep well for a few days. over the next 25 years or so, I would test myself in random places and see if the stick bent. Some place I could ask folks what was there and other place I could not.
Later on I heard all of the tests and money to be won etc., etc…
Did a bit of reading and I wondered why no one got the money. Seems they won’t test you for what you claim you can do but for what & how they want you to do it.
I don’t worry about it too much but if you ever had the stick bend for you as it did for me all those years you snicker a bit about how you are making the stick do it.
Anyway, at first I did some experimenting and then found something interesting about me. If a test was set up, I did very poorly. If I could find a place that already had what I said I could do, I was very good.
All the wire crossing and cherry sticks etc. etc. mean nothing to me, it does not work for me. I could find a small list of things and nothing else. As to trying to do something I know I can’t to try to win $$$ is so stupid that I would be embarrassed to even ask to try. when $$$ gets involved, truth & good sense go out the window.
Those that have felt what I felt understand and all the ones who have all the proof it is not happening are not going to change their minds, so, who cares.
If you are really curious, make to effort to spend a week following a crew with guys that do it a lot and watch close, take pictures and then try it yourself. If you can do it, don’t get all excited, 99.999% of the people who can’t do it or never could even once will never believe you and those others, well they are the choir you are preaching to and they are not arguing with you. Bawahahaha
Education, science, critical thinking, historical records, logic, etc. can not make something that happened not happen or ALWAYS prove that a person is deluded, mistaken or, or, or.
Appearance of trickery is not proof of trickery.
No, on with the show… 
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Referring to the above post by Gus et al, what scientific mechanism could possibly account for those types of selected results?
Uri Geller, for example, why spoons? if he can bend a man made metal object like a spoon, why not any random metal object handed to him? Why do dowsers claim to have power finding water… so long as they are not being tested? You either have a power or you don’t. Crying about the fine tunings of the test is silly.
Who is trying to prove that people are deluded or mistaken?
Your post is the same old rationalisation that we always see from proponents of the paranormal. Anecdote and “success” under uncontrolled conditions that are never replicated when experts in experimental protocol design the test.
That’s fine, I don’t doubt that you believe in your ability but if you never put it to a strict test how can you possibly know if you are fooling yourself or just seeing what you want to see?
I note from your post that actually you did try to “test” yourself and you did poorly, you are not alone in that. Whenever a stringent scientific test is designed these paranormal effects go away. Does that not make you stop and think?
Ask yourself what is the more likely reason for that? Are humans fooling themselves or is a paranormal effect somehow sensitive to being rationally assessed?
In relation to that you say elsewhere
This is flat out wrong. The whole protocol is built on what you claim you can do. If it is pools of water or running water or electricity or pipes then that is what gets tested.
Moreover, the artificial nature of the test is clearly addressed in the protocol (which is agreed between the two parties). The claimant gets to do a prior check on the artificial set-up when the substances under test are fully visible to everyone and they have to confirm that, under these conditions they can do what they claim.
This is very important so let me stress it again. The person being tested confirms that it is a fair test and only then are the blinding conditions applied and…wow!..would you believe it, only then does their “ability” suddenly desert them.
He got some of the details wrong? The details are the only thing that matter here, the details are the experiment.
Plus, I appreciate you trying to help them but **igor frankensteen ** has not yet come back to confirm what/where/when this test was. From your link this was clearly not it, unless **igor **'s memory is failing them very badly…in which case their anecdote carries no weight whatsoever.
Where did you read such a thing?
Well, at the very least, it also makes the claimed powers nothing much more than a useless novelty. You can bend spoons and occasionally, also forks and house keys, but not anything else? Not much call for that particular skill, these days.
No, the test protocols are designed together with the person taking the test. The person being tested has to sign off on the test protocols - to say, “I believe that I can beat this test as designed”.
Okay, why do you think this is the case? Why do you think that, when we put this skill to the test, people consistently fail? Why does it only work when people aren’t paying attention? Real science doesn’t work this way. Your computer doesn’t randomly stop working when you think about it too hard.
No, but the inability to perform under controlled conditions usually is. It’s like if I tell you, “I’m invisible, but only if nobody is watching.” That’s a very funny superpower, but I’m not going to believe you. It gets even worse if we then turn and say, “so if we check a camera, we won’t see you,” and you start making excuses. What are we supposed to think? It sounds like a very dumb hoax. Similarly, if dousing is based on something real and actual, it should be possible to test the effect in controlled conditions. Instead, we find that whenever someone does a controlled test of dousing - a test that removes other possible explanations such as knowing the lay of the land and having good intuition about it - it fails. So what are we supposed to think? “Dowsing works, but nobody cares enough to win a million dollars with a simple, clearly-outlined test that dowsers generally agreed to?”
Which real phenomena exist which become unverifiable when examined in a controlled environment?
Well, no, he’s got a bit of a point. Both parties have to agree on the protocol. If what Gus is claiming is that he can walk over natural terrain and identify at least one spot that will produce some measurable water if you dig deep enough, Randy (and any reasonable scientist) will say “of course you can” and refuse to do a test. Likewise if he says he can only detect actual utility lines as long as you don’t try to hide any of the telltale signs from the actual terrain, or that he can do anything whatsoever as long as skeptical scientists don’t jinx the hoodoo. Those are all unfalsifiable claims, but also unimpressive to anyone but Gus. And the only reason they are impressive to Gus is that he knows he couldn’t be fooling himself and using subconscious clues. And he’s quite right that nothing he says will convince us (or any reasonable observer) and nothing we say will convince him.
Quite possibly certain things only work certain times for certain people and cannot be always replicated on demand, but it will still work occasionally. Science teaches us to have a set of circumstances and be able to consistently repeat them. What if stuff like this is on a tangent so far outside our realm of understanding? I’m a firm believer in the scientific method, and as sure I am divining rods/dowsing sticks are a load of shit, I can’t fully discount anything, at least not until i’ve tried it a few times, and even then, maybe only certain people can when the circumstances are in order.
Maybe I’ll buy some 8Ga copper wire and walk around my back yard for a few days.
If it only works certain times for certain people then we need to figure out what those times are, or how frequent they are if they are random, and which people. Science can test things that work occasionally as well as those that can be replicated on demand, it just takes more time and a more careful setup.
Since the people claiming the abilities here discussed usually claim they can do their thing on demand, and only fall back to “maybe it’s only certain times” when the initial testing fails it’s unfair to lay this on science testing the wrong thing. It would also make these abilities a lot less useful.
Speaking of things that supposedly stand in the way of testing, there is the claim of “negative energy” that some believers say skeptics put out that supposedly blocks psychic powers. When offers of neutral observers are made, they are often refused because they could be “secret skeptics”.
That’s a fair and useful clarification. My point was that, always assuming a fair and scientific test can be made in the first place, the JREF would not seek to make you prove something that you don’t claim to be able to do.
Cite one time this has happened.
Got to run for the bus, but here is one such cite.