What are you talking about?
Yeah, so …
Other way around.
Someone claims to find thousands of gallons of water flowing underground, and is tested by asking him to find a jug of water in a box.
Someone claims to be able to jump 20 feet straight up, and is tested by asking him to jump over the Matterhorn.
The proposed change makes the test more difficult for the claimant, not easier.
How can you say that? No one has demonstrated the ability to do either task or even proposed a method to do so. Why would you assume one is easier or harder then the other and how would you justify that?
I’m talking about scientists not necessarily being the best test designers. I provided an example. You countered by saying that eventually the tests were determined to be flawed. So what? It seems to me that the tests need to be properly designed before the attempt is made, not after.
So does jumping to the top of the Matterhorn have anything to do with jumping 20 feet straight up?
Seems fair to me. Why would the absence of dirt and rock between the dowser and the water make it harder? Has any dowser claimed that they can only find it hundreds of feet underground, and not when it is right in front of them?
Sounds unfair. Both tests require jumping, but the second one is more difficult by several orders of magnitude.
The second one does, the first doesn’t.
Fixated? Hands up anyone who has ever registered a domain with ‘randi’ in the name?
It’s not the dirt and rocks, it’s the quantity.
“I can find water flowing at thousands of gallons per minute”
" I’ll test your ability to find a jugful"
Can you really not see the problem with that?
“I can jump 20 feet in the air”
“Right, I’ll test your ability to jump over the Matterhorn”
Same thing.
And yet you are the one who keeps on going ona and on and on about him.
I set up that website in response to YOUR obsession, (you aned other people)
If it wasn’t for YOUR fixation, I’d have no reason ever to mention him.
And you will remain obsessed with him, tyou will continue to worship your God, then scream “fixation” at anyone who challenges you.
Do you think you can talk about anything other than Randi?
No, honestly, it’s you, really.
I have no such obsession or sense of worship for the fellow, neither am I screaming. Get a bloody grip.
I happen to find him a little too abrasive for comfortable viewing, as a matter of fact.
It just happens to be the case that his declared aims are ostensibly fairly closely aligned with those of this message board - if he’s popular here, it’s for the same reasons as are others such as Dawkins and Penn & Teller - this should not come as a particular surprise.
It DOES come as a particular surprise.
I set up that website to prove a point, to show conclusively that Randi is lying. I thought that his fans didn’t understand that. The response I got was basically “We know he’s lying.
We like his lies. We support him for lying. He is welcome to our money”
The whole point of the Straight Dope is to fight ignorance. Turning a blind eye to his lies goes against the whole ethos. I am baffled by the people who support him even though they know that he’s a liar.
However, if it pleases you, I will demonstrate my lack of fixation by not mentioning the fellow again, at all, until after you have done so.
And I will not mention him again, until someone else does.
Given the obsessions of his supporters, that will probably be pretty soon.
There are a lot of different people out there - if everyone were to remain silent on the topic, it would be quite remarkable. Not so much a prophecy as a mundane statement of fact you’ve made there.
I can’t help wondering if you’re perceiving the comments of the group as a gestalt obsession. When one person talks about the same thing 100 times in a row, it’s an obsession - when 100 people each mention it once, it is not.
What topic would that be, exactly? I presume you are talking about Randi, right?
It only took you one post to break your promise. :rolleyes:
Talk about fixation.
Are you serious? Sheesh. If we’re going to be that kind of bloody silly, I could point out that you said:
AFTER you had declared:
Please tell me you’re kidding. The rolleyes doesn’t appear to make that very likely though.
I never said it was easy. I just think that someone who considers themselves to have the smarts to be able to extensively and vociferously criticise tests conducted by others should be able to say how a test should be conducted correctly.
For my part I’m happy with standard tests as done by Randi, and that German one. I, like Mangetout, would prefer to see the tests conducted with less grumpiness, so my design is “what Randi usually does, but less grumpily”. There’s no need for me to design one from scratch. I’ve already said that I think that the OP should be tested by Randi. It would have the added benefit of him not only proving his claims but getting a million bucks.
You are the one who is never happy with any dowsing test. Design one and we can propose it to the OP. You seem incredibly reluctant to do so. You’ve been dodging the task for well over a page. You don’t have to do it from scratch. Take extant designs and add and remove as you think appropriate.
I should add that I don’t think there can be a test in totally natural surroundings. At least, it might be theoretically possible if you had a friendly billionaire to fund it, but I don’t think it’s practically possible. I just don’t think you could control for the dowser picking up clues from the landscape as to where the water may be. And you’d probably need to drill dozens of test holes, the cost of which would be prohibitive.
If a dowser said to me that his powers absolutely only worked on actual underground water I’d probably just respond that I doubt he can actually do it and that he’s probably just fooling himself based on the fact that there is ground water in most places, but that his skill is probably not practically falsifiable.
I also think that since many dowsers say they can detect water in pipes etc and since they report that their powers do work on pipes in open tests, but find that they fail on closed tests in the same conditions, the logical inference is that dowsing is probably bunk and that there is no more reason to believe that dowsers can dowse for natural water underground than they can dowse for water in pipes. If they are fooling themselves in one circumstance they are almost certainly fooling themselves in the other.
Your exact words were " Someone who has done a lot of tests, and who has studied their particular subject matter, and who has a basic understanding of logic can do it. "
By that logic, nobody can ever do their first test. But that apart you have studied the subject matter and you have a basic understanding of logic. (Even if you don’t alwaqys apply it) According to your claim, that gives you the ability to design tests.
So go ahead, design your test. Show me how you would test the claim made by the OP. Give a detailed protocol. Don’t come back until you can do so. Put up or shut up.
:rolleyes: Bullshit. Randi cheats on his tests. That is obvious. I am entitled to condemn him for that.
Liar. I have no problem with many tests run by other people.
And someone who hasn’t may be able to do it. You don’t seem prepared even to try.
I’d just test the way Randi does, but less grumpily. You know how he tests, what is the point in me writing it out? Cut and paste a description of the Australian or German tests, but without any grumpiness. Assuming of course that the OP would agree that he can dowse under those conditions.
If you think it isn’t obvious that you are ducking the challenge to design a test that you would regard as satisfactory, you are wrong. You clearly don’t want to or can’t. You can write post after post about what others are doing wrong with their tests, but when you are asked to design something you duck and weave.
You can say what you like. Whether anyone would take any notice of someone who can write post after post criticising others tests but isn’t prepared to say what test they would use is another issue.
Let’s see you do it, since you think it’s so simple.
Yes, I know how he tests. Wrongly. You would just copy his mistakes.
Designing a test requires specialised knowledge. I freely admit that I don’t have that knowledge. I never claimed to have it.
The trouble is that Randi doesn’t have it either, but insists on doing it anyway.
You think it’s simple, Princhester, lets see you design a test for the OP.
Put up or shut up.
Just to remind you, Princhie, the specific claim made by the OP is that he can locate water lines ans septic tanks. Give me your protocol for testing that claim.
You admit that you don’t know how to do it, but you just know that the way the JREF does it is wrong.
You do, though, every single time you attempt to point out “mistakes” in the testing procedures that both the JREF and the testee have readily agreed to.
More speculation from someone who has already admitting he isn’t qualified in this area.
Already done multiple times to the satisfaction of those being tested over at the JREF.