Well, it’s like this. There’s this guy called Peter. He really hates James Randi. Totally detests any mention of him. He hates him so much that he has dedicated his life to attacking him any damn way he can. And, boy, he spews out the vitriol.
The trouble is, he’s not all that bright. He really doesn’t know a lot. So he makes up a lot of crap. He posts endlessly on the same stuff, telling people that it is informed and accurate.
There’s nobody else who supports Peter. His shoe-size IQ is obvious.
Peter wants to attack Randi. He wants to show dowsers finding water. He doesn’t know much, so he makes a lot of stuff up.
So, to continue his attack on dowsing, Peter pops up on various Internet boards. He declares how he has challenged Randi. He brags about how he has achieved something, but normal people laugh at him.
So, I call bullshit on his sordid little tales. I tell him that Randi is a distinguished illusionist and lecturer who has raised $1,000,000 for a prize. Sadly he doesn’t listen…
Peter Morris, why is it so important to you that James Randi be wrong about geological statements? I seriously doubt that JREF is where the U.S. Geological Department goes to recruit employees, and I doubt that Randi would ever want to argue such a point with any reputable geologist or water expert. His claim(s) on this subject may have merit, they may not. And some may have been so off-the-cuff that no serious point was ever intended to be made.
But JR’s major claims about the paranormal ARE something he is an expert on. Designing a test for dowsers IS something he does very well. Testing outlandish claims in a manner where cheating or self-delusion is a non-factor is most assuredly his specialty.
As an analogy, If you wanted an electrician to wire your house, would you care much about his knowledge of animal husbandry? Conversely, if you wanted advice on dog breeding, would you care much about that person’s knowledge of electrical theory?
As a non-psychologist, I would say your rabid ranting about the wrong topic reveals more about yourself than it does about Mr. Randi. But then, IANAP, I just play one on SDMB.
No, its something he does badly. He is dishonest and incompetent. His tests for outlandish claims are not properly designed, or carried out fairly. He has neither the scientific knowledge nor the willingness to conduct a test properly.
Oh, and don’t give me the3 usual crap answer that they are designed with the assistence of the applicant. As I have shown, Randi’s aggressive and childish behaviour makes it impossible to discuss the matter with him. Applicants must take the test he imposes on them, or not have a test at all. His way or no way. No discussion possible.
now, one thing I will say for him. He knows a lot about conjuring tricks. He can spot the ones that try to cheat. That does not mean he is qualified to recognise a true ones, if he ever saw one.
If the test was designed by a real scientist who knew what he was doing, with Randi watching for cheating, then I’d approve. A test designed by Randi himself is worthless. He really has no idea what he’s doing.
False analogy. Dowsers claim to detect underground water. Testing that claim needs someone that knows a little about underground water. An effective test to check the validity of the claim CANNOT be made by someone with Randi’s level of ignorance.
Rabid? Exposing the lies of a charlatan does not make me rabid.
Look, this is all because of Randi’s lies that I exposed. He boasted that he offered a particular test to dowsers, and they refused to accept. He used this story to discredit all dowsers as being unwilling to prove their claims. His boast makes them seem deluded, and him seem big. But just one problem. He was lying. It was a piece of fiction. A mere figure of speech. It never really happened. Bullshit in fact.
Do you really not understand why I object to the man’s lies?
And next time you read Randi’s boasts of defeating cheats and cranks, have a think. Maybe that’s another of those figures of speech. Or lies, as most people call them. How is it possible to trust anything he says about anything?
About geology, perhaps. But I’ll bet he can fool you with a magic trick. And I’ll bet he can recognize when someone is cheating on a test designed by non-magicians. I’m pretty sure he knows how people (yes, that includes both you & me) can be fooled and can help design tests that avoid those pitfalls. At least that’s what you just said:
So, Randi is an ideal person to call in if you want to avoid cheating. Thank you for confirming that. I certainly would want to avoid cheating on MY tests. And since the only way anyone has ever “passed” a paranormal test so far is by cheating, I would rate that ability very high on my list. Number One, even.
But scientists are not magicians, either. Well-meaning “scientists” have shown that they can be blind to simple tricks. Is a scientific test well-designed if the testers can be easily fooled?
It appears you either [ul][li]have not read the actual wording of the $1Mil Challenge, or []you don’t understand it, or[]you choose to call it “bullshit” no matter what it says.[/ul][/li][quote]
If the test was designed by a real scientist who knew what he was doing, with Randi watching for cheating, then I’d approve. A test designed by Randi himself is worthless. He really has no idea what he’s doing.
[/quote]
Some tests certainly do need the advice of an expert on cheating, but they might not need the advice of, say, a geologist, water expert, or physicist. The 10-bucket test, for example. This test (where 1 bucket has wet soil and 9 have dry) should be very easy for a dowser who claims to be able to detect exactly that. Do you really need a geologist? No, but you do need a magician and perhaps a statistician. Some tests are so simple that a large panel of experts are simply not needed, and that is exactly how the JREF tests are designed.
If I wanted to design a test for the quality of N-doped silicon, I would desperately need a semiconductor chemist, who knows all about such matters. To design a test for someone’s psychic powers, I would defer to a magician, who “pretends” to perform psychic powers frequently by fooling audiences.
It’s hard to design a test for underground water. (Although Randi did do one in Italy once.) It’s easy to design one for 10 buckets. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT NO TEST IS CONDUCTED UNTIL THE APPLICANT IS [ul][li]100% SURE HE CAN PERFORM AS CLAIMED AND []HAS DONE SO WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUCKET CONTENTS.[/ul]Only ONE variable is changed. The contents become randomized and therefore unknown to all parties. It is VERY CLEAR that a different outcome, i.e., no better than chance, is totally due to the ONE VARIABLE. This is the cornerstone of ALL science. James Randi did not invent this concept and he is not the only one in the world that uses it; it is behind every good scientific test in the entire world.[/li]
If brief, here is the concept. [ul][li]Design a repeatable test. []Change ONLY ONE thing.[]Repeat the test.[]If the outcome is significantly different, THE ONE THING CHANGED IS THE REASON WHY.[/ul][/li][quote]
Look, this is all because of Randi’s lies that I exposed. He boasted that he offered a particular test to dowsers, and they refused to accept. He used this story to discredit all dowsers as being unwilling to prove their claims. His boast makes them seem deluded, and him seem big. But just one problem. He was lying. It was a piece of fiction. A mere figure of speech. It never really happened. Bullshit in fact.
[/quote]
What never happened? Some tests were done, all results negative. Other tests were offered, the applicants did not accept. Do you know of any others that we haven’t seen?
JREF is not entirely a one-man show, but just for the sake of argument, I’ll agree that JR is a bald-faced liar (now don’t take that out of context, now ). NEVERTHELESS, the $1Mil Challenge exists, the money exists, and anyone may apply for it. If you don’t feel you have any such power, I suggest you ally yourself with someone who does, and pursue it doggedly. Otherwise, you come off as a strident whiner, not a scientist. It matters not a whit how “honest” Mr. Randi is or isn’t.
And just to cut you a little slack, Peter Morris, I would call myself a major fan of the man, yet he has acted in an brusque and slightly insulting manner to me personally on a few occasions. Humiliating, to be sure – diplomacy may not be his strong point – but it doesn’t change my opinion of the JREF cause, which will outlive JR, I’m sure.
Because you have failed completely to demonstrate or prove any of these alleged ‘lies’. You’ve whined, complained, acted with behavior that is far worse than what you allege Randi does, but none of this has proven anything of what you claim. What you allege to be ‘proof’ is invariably nothing of the sort. Screaming “Liar liar Liar” does not make a person a liar, and that is effectively all that you have done.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Is a scientific test well-designed if the testers can be easily fooled?It appears you either [ul][li]have not read the actual wording of the $1Mil Challenge, or []you don’t understand it, or[]you choose to call it “bullshit” no matter what it says.[/ul]Some tests certainly do need the advice of an expert on cheating, but they might not need the advice of, say, a geologist, water expert, or physicist. The 10-bucket test, for example. This test (where 1 bucket has wet soil and 9 have dry) should be very easy for a dowser who claims to be able to detect exactly that. Do you really need a geologist? No, but you do need a magician and perhaps a statistician. Some tests are so simple that a large panel of experts are simply not needed, and that is exactly how the JREF tests are designed…[/li][/QUOTE]
I’ve read the challenge, and i call it bullshit because it is bullshit.
The “10 bucket challenge” might be a good test for someone claiming exactly that.
But it is a very crap test for someone NOT claiming exactly that.
I claimed the ability to find dry spots in the ground. The 10 bucket test does not test that claim accurately.
It seems you are determined to call “fair” no matter what. no matter the lies Randi tells, no matter the absurdity of the tests he sets, you will make excuses.
Randi has admitted lying. Of course, he uses the phrase “figure of speech” but he has admitted his tale was a fiction. He never made the challenge to dowsers, and they didn’t turn him down. It didn’t happen at all.
Wonder how many of his other stories are “figures of speech” and never actually happened.
I’ve checked the OP, and we seem to still be on topic. How on earth (!) did we manage it?
Then we may have reached an impasse. I fail to see what you see.
Good point. But anyone taking that test IS claiming exactly that.
Then I invite you to propose a test that WILL test the claim accurately. That meets statistical, scientific and logical requirements, and, BTW, is cheap and easy to administer. Oh, and is “self-evident,” and doesn’t require any expert analysis, just like the JREF test. (“All tests [are] designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required.”) That can distinguish between water and non-water by paranormal means only. What say, Sir?
That’s a big excuse. Yes, it hard, and Randi is incapable of it. But that’s what has to be done.
If someone claims to find underground water, that is the claim that should be tested. If Randi finds it too difficult to design such a test, then he’s unsuitable to be running the foundation.
Setting the bucket test, because Randi finds it easier is just plain wrong.
Simple. Randi issued the challenge to “find me a dry spot” and said there’s only a 6% chance.
The test design. Agree on a location to perform the test, with landowners permission. I select 20 spots on the ground. We drill at those spots. According to Randi, we should only find 1 dry spot, 2 if we’re lucky. But idf my claim is true, we should hit dry spots far more often than 6%. Let’s just say that I can get 8 out of 20, thats 40%.
How about this for a lie: “I consulted geologists”
I wonder how you manage to justity saying that putting a single inquiry on USENET, and getting ambiguous replies, and not following through with proper clarification does even begin to resemble ‘consulting with geologists’. In fact, its a lie, bordering on being an academic lie.
You are very quick to find faults with Randi, most of them entirely imaginary or involving pedantiry beyond belief. But the acts you commit in your blind hatred go way beyond even the imagined faults your invent about Randi.
How deep do you drill and how little water do you need to be considered “dry”? What kind of land are you planning to do this on? These are major concerns you know, and you have failed to address them.
Oh, and just who the flip is apying for this? Do you know how much it costs to drill a well? That’s before your fairytale free land use.
Doesn’t sound reasonable to me unless we have Bill Gates’ Bux to play with.
How far should we drill? How much water is “water”? A drop? A lake? Is this a well-designed test? (no pun intended )
The last time I drilled a well, 10 years ago, it cost $20 per foot, and the driller expected sand for much of that. Rock would have been most more costly.
How far do you propose to drill before reaching a conclusion? 1000 ft? Lessee, that would be 20 X 1000 X 20, ummm, carry the nine, add the three, borrow the two…which adds up to exactly…uhmm…a whole shitload of Shinola, my friend.
Yes, I agree that this kind of test should be done. Absolutely. If a simplier test shows any promise at all. If your claim is to find water underground, a bucket of it would be a gosh-darn good start. Easy, even. Duck soup. A slam dunk. A bird in the bush. If you can find water in a bucket paranormally, that is, thru dowsing, the funds to do the expensive test would be gushing into your hands, believe me.
Can’t find the bucket at your feet, eh? How likely is it you can find ten buckets a hundred feet down?
Well, that’s exactly the point isn’t it? Both the Dowser and Randi have no real knowledge of the working principle that this phenomenon is based on. How can an accurate test be performed? Perhaps the dowser is getting “false” hits on subterranaen water below a dry planter. Testing parameters and variables are not well known for the unknown or paranormal by definition. Randi’s tests are not so much skeptical as consistently, entirely imposssible because of his equally biased criteria and purposeful construction (his intent is always to disprove not prove.). His scientific tests are about as fair as scientific studies done by any others with vested financial interest (i.e. tobacco company studies vs. anti-smoking group studies, petro-chemical company studies vs. environmentalist studies.).
I sympathize with both sides of this argument (and definitely see {b]Peter Morris’s** point.) Randi is not an unbiased clearing house of information and seems to have a need to be right regardless of methods…this alone makes me distrustful and skeptical of him, for he who knows all, knows nothing.
Firstly you don’t need to understand the ‘working principle’ to observe a phenomenon.
We had no idea what caused gravity when we first saw it in action. ‘Common sense’ suggested that the heavier the object, the faster it would fall. But Galileo did a useful test.
If someone claims they can dowse, then we can test for it.
Your allegations about Randi’s tests are rubbish.
I already posted one example - let’s examine it using your claims:
‘Randi’s tests are not so much skeptical as consistently, entirely imposssible’
Here the dowser scored 20/20 in practice and declared himself satisfied with the conditions.
In the actual test, he scored 1/10. The only change was that the targets were concealed.
Do explain how this test is ‘entirely imposssible’. :rolleyes:
‘his intent is always to disprove not prove.’
Wonderful. So if one dowser fails a test, this proves all dowsing doesn’t exist? Do you have any idea of scientific method? :smack:
‘His scientific tests are about as fair as scientific studies done by any others with vested financial interest’
Does it matter to you that both sides agree on the test before the claimant takes it?
When did you last hear of e.g. tobacco companies and thier opponents agreeing on a test?
‘for he who knows all, knows nothing’
I think you have demonstrated that ‘he who knows nothing, knows nothing’.
I’d sympathize, but the fact is that when Randi runs tests similar to the bucket experiment, the dowsers invariably score 100% during the ‘open’ portion of the test.
