Irishman, thank you for your polite message. I respect your right to disagree with me, as long as you keep itt civil, and not resort to name-calling like Princhester and his ilk.
However, I fear that you have misunderstood my position on a number of points.
In the first place, you have confused two seperate things, here, my comments about the lack of logic in cecil’s column, and my opinion about Randi.
Cecil’s column offers the theory of a dowser getting subliminal signals from the landscape causing the stick to move through ideomotor action. He then says that this proves dowsing is a fraud. That makes no sense at all. IF the theory is true, then the stick twitches when he moves over water, which he is unable to detect conciously. That seems like dowsing to me. If it looks like a duck… Rather than Cecil saying that its a fraud, he should say that it works, with a simple scientific explaination.
As to the part about “normal” versus “paranormal” the distinction is meaningless. What, exactly, is “paranormal” anyway? How edo you define what is paranormal?
Just as an example consider this: flowing water causes minute vibrations, someone might detect them subconciously, and the stick moves through ideomor action. Is that normal, or paranormal? What if flowing water creates a magnetic field, which some people might sense? Normal or paranormal? What if it makes a sound, below the level of concious hearing, but can be sensed subconciously? Normal or paranormal?
Paranormal merely means unidentified. Once you acknowledge the existence of something, it automatically becomes normal.
The issue should be whether dowsing works at all, by any method whatsover, with no distinction between “normal” and “paranormal”.
To be precise, I gave that as ONE example of how his test is unfair. I shall shortly be posting a detailed description of other reasons. Essentially, if psychics really do exist (which I doubt) I don’t think they could pass his tests. They are too difficult, and the pass mark is too high.
I think that Randi just says any old thing against his subjects. It isn’t that he intentionally misrepresents them, its that he simply doesn’t care whether he quotes them accurately or not.
I doubt it, you are just trying to make excuses for him. I still stand by what I sdaid in my original post. A few hundred years ago dowsers were known as twitchers, because allegedly the water caused them to twitch. The rod or pendulum magnifies the twitch.
You give the man more credit than he deserves. Those people that actually believe in dowsing (which I don’t*) pay no attention to Randi at all.
sigh. This is getting tedious.
Let me state YET AGAIN that I don not actually believe in dowsing* You keep wanting me to explain and justify every little thing that dowsers say.
I really can’t speak on behalf of those dowsers that think they can detect pipes. All I say is that a pipe and an underground river are DIFFERENT. Someone that can genuinely detect a river MIGHT NOT be able to detect a pipe. Claiming that one disproves the other is wrong.
Just look at anything Randi has wriitten, he will cite numerous examples of such. His articles are full of people who backed out of the test, or who failed the test, and complained afterwards it was unfair. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm for instance.
*except, possibly, by the getting subconsious clues from the landscape method, and I even doubt that.
Point one. Even if that is correct, Randi is STILL lying, since dowsers make NO SUCH CLAIM. When did you ever hear of a dowser saying that underground rivers are everywhere? They say the opposite, that underground rivers are rare, and only a dowser can find one. If you could hit an underground river anywhere, what would you need a dowser for?
Either way you look at it, its a lie.
Point two. you are talking nonsense. Nowhere does Randi say anything about underground rivers being everywhere, that’s something you made up to excuse him. He wrote about the notion OF underground rivers, ie underground riversw ARE the notion.
point three. I wouldn’t have bothered mentioning it at all, but for those sceptics claiming that underground rivers are fictional.
Miskatonic wrote : <<For the record, there are no “underground rivers”. The occassional creek in a large cavern complex is about it. Water sits in aquifers.>>
Priceguy said <<I can’t find where he says that. He does, however, say that underground rivers are fictional, and so pretty hard to find in the first place… Yes, there’s a difference between underground pipes and underground rivers. One exists, the other doesn’t >>
So you see, other people interpreted Randi’s words the same as I did. You had no complaint about them doing so when you thought it was true. Only when I proved that underground rivers DO exist did you start caring what Randi’s words mean.
Lets just say that Randi’s words are untrue in the sense in which Priceguy understood them.
I will respond to the substance when I have time. For now, just so that there is no lack of clarity on this issue in this thread, and for the benefit of those who have only read this thread alone, peter morris’s very first post on this topic and indeed on this messageboard, concluded thusly:
I will not comment on that here. I have already done so elsewhere. I will not enter into any slanging match regarding this topic here, either. I just wanted the facts to be clear.
I shall shortly be posting an article explaining in detail why my opinion of Randi is what it is. But here’s a brief summary.
Randi’s tests are unfair because a real psychic would have to be very lucky to pass them. Imagine a psychic who could get the 1 in 10 chance 20% of the time. Randi, however, would demand that they score 4 out of 5 in a test. If they only scored 2 or 3 they are dismissed as a failure.
A real, fair test would be to see if the psychic can maintain a 20% score over a long series of tests. Randi demands an 80% score over a very short test. And that is not reasonable.
I will shortly post an example of Randi doing exactly this, with detailed analysis. Watch this space.
peter, we WILL need evidence that supports your example of “Randi would ask for 4 out of 5 when a psychic can get 2 out of 10, where random chance would be 1 out of 10”?
It’s commonly known, or so I thought, that Randi does not arbitrarily set the pass/fail criteria on his own; it’s set by mutual agreement between JREF and the applicant. If you have any examples to the contrary, you’re going to have to remember to provide them. However, you’ll have to provide specific, documented evidence that the applicant suggested a REASONABLE pass-fail criteria that Randi rejected.
That’s all off the first page of Google, when I carried out the search that you yourself suggested. Seem to be a hell of a lot of claims out there that dowsers find underground rivers. None of them say precisely the words “underground rivers are all over the place” but given the frequency with which dowsers claim to find them, they must think that such rivers are comparatively common. Indeed, in the Australian Dowsing test page it is reported that two dowsers claimed to have found underground rivers (in different places) in a single non-descript patch of land. What an amazing day the dowsers had, finding two (of what you say they regard as) rare things in one day in one area?
So Randi is not lying, many dowsers do believe underground rivers are common.
We all know precisely what he said. You keep leaving out crucial parts, but we know what he actually said. I’m sick of quoting it.
Again, no, Randi does not actually say dowsers think that underground rivers are “everywhere”. You are taking my words over literally. However, Randi has mentioned several times that dowsers believe there to be underground rivers to an extent greater than, or of a nature not found in, reality.
Huh? Miskatonic specifically qualifies his comment that underground rivers are fictional by mentioning that there are rare underground creeks found in cave systems.
As to Priceguy and myself, I think that we all knew what Randi had written (the words “notion that dowsers maintain” were quite apparent to us) and we were all referring to that. It was only when you brought in your interpretation based on leaving those words out, that we had to spell out for your benefit that Randi’s words were about dowsers notions and not about there being no underground rivers whatsoever.
You are just so determined to find fault that it’s very difficult to discuss this matter with you sensibly because you are not trying to see the points we are making, you are just desperately seeking something, anything, that you can call a lie.
I see your point here. One could regard dowsing as “working” in the sense that the rod (or whatever) does twitch, and water very often will be found. And the dowser may well not have any conscious knowledge that the reason water is found. So on that basis, there may be a lack of intent to deceive and hence no fraud. Once again, you seem to be in agreement with Randi (despite your enmity for the man) in that he says that dowsers are often quite geniunely deluded and have no idea of the limitations of their "skills.
However, you would have to say that there is enough information on these topics out there that if you have an interest in the subject (as presumably dowsers do) you are at the least guilty of wilful blindness in failing to realise that your dowsing is a combination of self-delusion and the ubiquity of aquifers. And that it is hardly in your best interests to admit this to your customers.
The points that you raise are interesting philosophical questions. I would basically agree with you that paranormal to some extent means unidentified. As (I think) Arthur C Clarke said, (roughly) “sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from maqic”.
We have asked you previously why Randi should give a paranormal prize (ie for achieving a task using paranormal means) to someone who uses normal means? Substitute your definition. Why should Randi give a paranormal prize (ie for achieving a task using unidentified means) to someone who uses identified means?
To expand, you seem to think that the paranormal/normal issue somehow is an impeachment of the Randi Challenge: in fact quite the opposite. Why? Because Randi has said often and loudly that he doesn’t give a damn for what you say is how you are going to do what you do, you just have to do something that he regards as paranormal (ie for which he cannot identify any means).
So if you say to Randi you are going to apply for his prize by dowsing for water using geological clues he will say get stuffed, my prize is for paranormal (ie using your definition, unidentified) techniques. And that is fair enough.
If however you say you are going to apply for his prize by dowsing for water using subliminal vibrations (or whatever) he will say “fine, but don’t bother even telling me about how, just do it under controlled conditions that rule out identified means of finding water (such as chance, or geological clues).” If you then do so, there will no doubt be a flurry of research, and perhaps it will be discovered that you were right about subliminal vibrations. Too bad, how sad for Randi.
There is nothing in his agreement whatever about him being entitled to his money back if science subsequently catches up.
Obviously, when you find some convincing examples of this that don’t involve leaving out words, or strained interpretations, we will respond.
Actually, per Cecil:
So it is nothing or little to do with Randi: dowsers have had a couple of hundred years to try to think up excuses regarding ideomotor effect.
Sorry peter but you really are being extraordinarily obtuse about this. First let’s deal with the strawmen. We know that pipes and underground rivers are different. Secondly, we know that disproving one does not disprove the other. We know it, we’ve said it, Randi’s said it, you’ve even acknowledged that he’s never said to the contrary.
The issue, as we’ve made quite plain, over and over, is that you keep calling Randi a fraud and saying his tests are unfair, yet he tests dowsers who say they can find pipe, on pipe. There is nothing unfair about that. So why do you persist in mentioning such tests in the context of your allegations that Randi is a fraud and a liar? The only tedious thing is that you won’t answer this question.
Sorry peter you will have to do better. We want specific examples not airy vague references.
Firstly, however yes, there are no doubt complaints* about the tests being fair afterwards. Afterwards.
Do you actually believe those people? What did you expect? You’ve already said you think that dowsers are frauds and liars.
I just don’t understand. Randi and the contestant agree on the test beforehand, but afterwards when they fail the contestant tries to say the test was unfair, and this makes Randi a fraud and a liar?
Secondly, as to backing out beforehand, that doesn’t surprise me either, particularly as regards the type of potential applicant who knows they are a fraud. You will note if you read Randi’s site that the most common type of applicant is a dowser. Why? No doubt because they are genuinely self deluded, as above. They don’t know they can’t do it under controlled conditions.
The most uncommon applicant I would guess is the high profile psychic. Why? Because they know they are frauds. Sylvia Browne being of course the well known example of someone who says they will apply for the prize but never does. Such people either never actually apply, or apply but then realise that Randi is very good at designing tests that do not allow cheating, and so they back out.
When potential applicants back out, they usually mumble vague things about Randi’s testing being unfair and biased etc. They sound, in fact, just like you peter.
But when pressed, or when you try to get to the bottom of exactly why Randi’s tests are unfair, you just get vague nonsense and prevarication.
Find me a cite of someone who backed out, and can describe exactly what Randi demanded that was unfair.
I have never seen such a thing, despite the obvious newsworthiness of such a story. You would think that a psychic who had approached Randi and found that his testing was actually unfair would be shouting that from the rooftops. But for some reason, they just go very very quiet.
Yup for me. I worded my post badly. I didn’t know someone was going to interpret it as me saying that there was no water underground anywhere in the world. My bad.
Well, Curt, there could be people that think of themselves as skeptics who are, in fact, not skeptical.
peter morris, thank you for your reply. I look forward to your promised posting of specific situations. In the meantime,…
Except that the subtle clues from landscape are not guaranteed and do not occur all the time. The twitching also occurs any time the dowser is aware of what he’s looking for, and knows it is there. The ideomotor effect is the subconcious movements in response to the dowser’s expectations. Those expectations can be from environmental clues, preknowledge, or just self-generated expectation. If there’s water there and he didn’t consciously know it was there, there are other explanations. One is that there are some subconsious clues he’s picking up. That is suggestive that dowsing is mildly effective in an intuitive, non-trained way. Another explanation is that all actual hits are in fact coincidences, and there are lots of actual misses that are regarded as hits because either nobody actually verifies them (digging a well), or by the time they do the dowser is long gone.
You are correct, Cecil doesn’t spell all this out in longhand. He condenses it down. Maybe you don’t want the bottom line, but how he got there.
Another thing, you keep harping on dowsing for water as if it is something completely different than dowsing for gold, or dowsing for buried treasure, or dowsing for archeological digs, or dowsing for “ley lines”, or dowsing crop circles for signs of aliens. But dowsers themselves don’t make this distinction. That’s why skeptics (like Randi) treat all dowsing the same, and the explanation applies to water dowsing just like the above.
I think most people define paranormal as outside the bounds of the normal. This means some type of metaphysical explanation, vs. a physical one. Typically these are conditions that run counter to known science - not just unexplained things, but things that contradict what is known. I suppose something can move from paranormal to normal by becoming explained, and in the process losing the metaphysical explanation for a physical one. But doesn’t that change the very phenomenon, if you change the description of how it works?
There Randi agrees with you. He doesn’t ask for explanations, just demonstrations. My point in mentioning the distinction is to put criteria on the test applicants. If I claim to be able to make objects fall to the ground by letting go of them, how does that disqualify me from the challenge? Answer: the results are commonplace, expected, well-documented, reproducible, and explained. If I claim to be able to cure pneumonia with penicillin, again why should that be disqualified? Same reasons. What qualifies for the challenge is something that is bizarre, mystical, and outside the bounds of normal experience. What term would you use for that?
I said:
You replied:
Your cites did not prove your claim that dowsers were called twitchers. I’m sure people describe the rod movement as twitching, but your links did not show the rods themselves are called twitching rods, that the act of dowsing was called twitching, or that dowsers were called twitchers. The cites you provided that my comment was in response to is a fairly recent description of the status of dowsing. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the comments that support ideomotor action as part of the process are incorporating what skeptics have said, and not offering that as a historical explanation.
NO, I want you to justify what you said. You said that dowsers do not claim to be able to find water in pipes. But, in fact, they do. You’re just wrong. It doesn’t matter for this point if they can or cannot find water in pipes or water in the ground or water in cups, it matters that you said that they don’t claim they can, but in fact they do claim they can. Do you now admit that dowsers do claim to be able to find water in pipes? Or do you still maintain that they do not?
That’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which is what you said dowsers claim.
Look, how does one design a controlled test to look for underground rivers? It is a lot easier to control a test for water in pipes. So you ask dowsers if they can also find pipes, or only rivers. The dowsers say yes, they can find pipes, then you proceed with a test setup using pipes because you can control them.
To the dowsers, the claim is the same - they’re finding water, in the same manner. The tests show they don’t find water. Thus there’s something wrong with their belief. Does that mean that, in the strictest sense, it’s been disproven they can find underground natural water? No. But when you test different variations on the same theme (i.e. dowsing for anything else) and the results are negative, and you provide a scientific explanation for the visible effects, and you provide explanations for why it would appear to work, then it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that the process of dowsing itself is flawed.
Now if you find a dowser who claims they are only able to find natural water, because they are picking up subconsious clues from the environment (rather than mystical energy signals), then you have grounds to examine that claim and look more closely. But until then, it seems unimportant.
I said:
You replied:
You’re completely ignoring the rest of what I stated which is the point of what I’m asking for. The evidence is not just the existence of someone making a claim that it was unfair, but the substance of the claim. What was unfair about it? What documentation is there that Randi was being unfair? Are there written documents to verify the description of events? I can claim you’re being completely unfair because we met in secret where you told me you really are James Randi, and are just doing this thread for publicity. But can I prove that? Why should anyone else believe me? That’s what I’m saying about these folks. They need to state why and how it was unfair, and offer some evidence to confirm their story. Otherwise it’s just sour grapes.
Peter, I respect you for coming here to defend your statements in the face of a crowd of detractors and no supporters. But I’m still waiting for you to provide me something convincing.
Irishman you need to be careful to be very accurate in what you say. If I have learnt one thing from debating with peter morris it is that you cannot afford to be sloppy when someone is trying very hard to discredit you. (I will now no doubt be a victim of Gaudere’s law and be found to have said something really stupid above. Oh well :))
No Randi does not treat all dowsers the same. Randi tests each one on the basis of what they say they can do. Which varies.
The Australian tests were an anomaly in that Randi was testing a whole bunch of dowsers who all claimed fairly common powers. Usually, each test is tailored.
Have you actually read the terms of the challenge that you are so busy trashing?
If the claimant fails, it is because he did not perform as he boasted and expected. That’t pretty much my definition of failure. How can a test be any fairer than that?
Randi doesn’t demand anything. The claimant agrees to all conditions!
Reading between your lines, it seems like you feel that a claimant should not be required to perform perfectly. Is this because the claimed ability is not reliable? If the outcome of a test would be expected to be 10% accurate due to chance, and the claimant performs to the 10% standard, just how are we to tell the difference between special ability and random probability?
If claimant #1, claiming psychic powers, performs 10% accurately on a test, and claimant #2, NOT claiming any special powers, also performs to the same level, does this negate the psychic claims? Did #1 use his special powers, but #2 random chance? We cannot tell, but it strongly suggests that such powers are not in evidence.
It is a strong principle in scientific quest for the truth that if only one parameter is changed in a complex test, and the outcome is different, that parameter most likely contributed to the difference. For example, if you are testing a chemical in a beaker which is affected by pressure, heat and light, and altering only the pressure results in a different outcome, then pressure is most likely the cause of the difference.
To apply this principle to the dowsing tests, dowsers were shown where the pipes were and they agreed they could detect them 100%. When ONE parameter was changed (visual input) when the pipes were hidden, the results were significantly different. This strongly suggests that the visual input parameter was the cause of the initial success, and not psychic ability.
Seriously though, did Peter think he could make the same exact arguements in a different forum and get away with. Now he’s pointing to my words and reading them wrong as well.
In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend. This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test.
Peter Morris quote
Just look at anything Randi has written, he will cite numerous examples of such. His articles are full of people who backed out of the test, or who failed the test, and complained afterwards it was unfair. http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm for instance.
me-
The applicants are given a preliminary test before the real thing. Perhaps this is where the people backed out (or were asked to leave) before the actual test. The individuals that have supposedly taken the “test” have actually taken a preliminary test, of which no one yet has passed (as of the date the rules were released-has anyone gone on to the second test?). If they pass the preliminary test they still have to take another to get the million.
(Maybe Randi just doesn’t want to have walk around with a 10,000 check in his pocket.)
Peter, I also wanted to give you advance warning that if you do come up with some specific examples of people who took the test where you or they claim it was unfair, I DO intend to ask JREf/Randi himself to provide their account of the test. It’s only reasonable to do so to give us a fair chance at judging the merits of the test. So please make your examples specific.
To my understanding, its mostly a matter of convenience for both parties. Randi has waved the preliminary test for those who show up on his doorstep in Florida. The preliminary test is merely so those not in easy reach of the JREF can get a local ‘contact’ who will test them to see if they are worth any further investigation.
Musicat, I don’t think there is any point in dealing with peter’s promised cites about Randi till he’s provided them. He says he is going to give real examples of where Randi has demanded that psychics perform better than they themselves claim they can perform, and then dismissed them when they fail. OK, we’re all waiting.
I did think about that when I posted and debated leaving that sentence in. To clarify my intent I should rephrase:
That is why skeptics regard dowsing as a single phenomenon - because the dowsers themselves regard it so. Thus the explanation for why dowsing seems to work and what causes the stick or pendulum motion is the same for water as for the other targets.
But yes, Randi does look at the specific claims of the individual and test to those. Although it is certainly possible that he offers alternatives if they make the testing easier, so long as the changes do not conflict with the applicant’s stated parameters and the applicant agrees to the changes.
Mr. Miskatonic, I did put two mentions in the original thread, and at least one other person referred to it. I can’t help it if you can’t read.
