# Peter Morris and Randi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 2, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164 "2011-03-02T04:36:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/41 "2011-03-02T20:05:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Pick one. I gave you an example, with x-rays. Push a little closer to the edge with lie detector tests. There are zillions of phenomenon which have some actual correlation but far less than 100%. > > Do you disagree with this? Actually yeah, I do. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/42 "2011-03-02T20:13:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1000 applications is not the same thing as “100s or 1000s of these contests”. You’re not that good at math, are you? You made a claim (“I don’t believe Randi has done 100s or 1000s of these contests.”), that was disproven with a simple search. I suggest you follow the first rule of holes, and stop digging. Or at least do some googling before posting shite. You are looking increasingly foolish. You’'re making blanket statements about things that you obviously know nothing about. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/43 "2011-03-02T20:14:01Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Please answer hotflungwok’s questions. I don’t recall specific tests and I’ve not looked at this recently. I have looked into this in the past, and this was my conclusion at the time. If you look at the dowsing test in the Wiki link cited in this thread, you’ll see that the terms were 2/3 of pegs within 10cm of a pipe randomly located in a 10m x 10m area. And if that wasn’t enough, the applicants had to be successful 2 out of three tests before passing. There could be a lot of validity to dowsing that would nontheless fail that type of test. I’m hesitent to get bogged down in arguing about that test, because as noted in the article, all the dowsers in that specific test failed miserably, and had to concoct excuses afterwards. My point is that the tests themselves are constructed to require such a high level of precision that there could be a lot of room for valid phenomena to ostensibly be shown to be untrue. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > It’d be terrific if the number of posters having this misconception could be diminished. > > Woo is not “disproven” on the basis of a single test, or even a series of them. Believers can always hold out the hope that someday, some way, Science will vindicate them. On the other hand, people with critical thinking skills will look at fantastical claims that have never been proven and/or debunked under controlled conditions and conclude that they are nonsense not worth further study and debate. There’s a difference between that and saying “it’s conclusively disproven”. But if something has a 20% success rate (or correlation), you can make a 1000 tests that test for 90% correlation and it will fail them all. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to it. It just means you haven’t tested for it in a meaningful way. > [@](#): > > If paranormalists want respect (and many indisputably do, or they wouldn’t have such fascination with getting vindication by something with the trappings of science), they need to meet the same criteria as those who propose far more realistic theories - _and_ do it reproducibly. It’s not a matter of “prove me wrong”, it’s “prove yourself right”. > > From what I’ve seen, Randi’s challenge rules are fair, unlike those of woo-ists ([example](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=322)). Who cares about what paranormalists want, or about comparisons of scientific tests versus tests of “woo-ists”? This whole us-versus-them mentality and peronal focus is itself unscientific, and a logical error. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/44 "2011-03-02T20:16:57Z")
Randi has stated multiple times that his tests do not disprove anything. They, at most, state that “under controlled conditions, the phenomenon failed to be shown beyond chance levels.” That being said, Randi has also stated that there’s only so many reindeer you need to toss off a roof before you can say that they probably don’t fly. Neither of these positions are unreasonable in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/45 "2011-03-02T20:17:45Z")
I think this pit thread is too nice. Peter Morris should be banned, the fucker. In contrast, Fotheringay-Philips, even though I firmly believe he is wrong, isn’t a problem. He didn’t hijack that other thread to hell and gone. What does PM contribute to this community? Why do we continue to keep him? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/46 "2011-03-02T20:18:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > For example, suppose a phenomenon (ESP, dowsing, whatever) is succesful 10% of the time, while the laws of chance would suggest it should be successful 1% of the time. That is a real phenomenon. But suppose Randi insists on a test that is judged to be a success if the phenomenon is successful 99% of the time, and the participant is actually successful 20% of the time. Randi does not owe the guy the money, but he also has not proved that the phenomenon doesn’t exist. Do you have any background in statistics? I ask because this statement doesn’t seem to match my understanding of statistics. A result of 10 percent when 1 percent was expected does not support the conclusion that a phenomena is _real_, so far as I understand statistics. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/47 "2011-03-02T20:20:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My point is that the tests themselves are constructed to require such a high level of precision that there could be a lot of room for valid phenomena to ostensibly be shown to be untrue. Then why did the very people who claimed to have the dowsing (or whatever) abilities agree to those criteria for a successful demonstration? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/48 "2011-03-02T20:24:04Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Then why did the very people who claimed to have the dowsing (or whatever) abilities agree to those criteria for a successful demonstration? A: Because they are **totally** confident of their abilities going into the tests. They know that dowsing works. All of them are very surprised when they fail, and then come up with lots of _post hoc_ rationalizations for their failure. I remember reading somewhere that of all the paranormal folks, dowsers are probably the most “honest” in that they really believe in the phenomenon, and very few of them are hoaxers. (in contrast, say, to those who contact the dead for a “contribution” of $$) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/49 "2011-03-02T20:26:48Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > I think this pit thread is too nice. Peter Morris should be banned, the fucker. In contrast, Fotheringay-Philips, even though I firmly believe he is wrong, isn’t a problem. He didn’t hijack that other thread to hell and gone. > > What does PM contribute to this community? Why do we continue to keep him? His massive Order of the Stick knowledge? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/50 "2011-03-02T20:45:32Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > What does PM contribute to this community? A stark lesson about the perils of obsession? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/51 "2011-03-02T20:46:09Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > … Randi has also stated that there’s only so many reindeer you need to toss off a roof before you can say that they probably don’t fly. … :eek: No wonder people hate Randi! CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/52 "2011-03-02T20:51:32Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > A: Because they are **totally** confident of their abilities going into the tests. They know that dowsing works. All of them are very surprised when they fail, and then come up with lots of _post hoc_ rationalizations for their failure. Quoted for Truth. The lay-science show Galileo (of private TV station Pro7, and at the low end of serious science shows) did their own version of the dowsing test some time back: they invited a guy who sincerely believed that he could find water with his rod. They told him how the test\* worked beforehand, and he agreed he would have no problem at all with it. They showed how he tested a bucket full and empty, with lid on and off, and he was completly convinced that having a bucket full of water with a lid would be no problem at all for his rod. Then he was tested and failed miserably, just the chance you would expect for guessing, and as the science advisor had predicted before. And immediatly dowser guy started making excuses, although before he had been sure that water in a bucket would be no different. - The test was: 10 black rubber buckets, covered with lids, some of them filled randomly with water. The procedure was that the guy walked into the lab, saw the empty buckets, everybody walked out, a seperate person walked in, filled a few with water, walked out, the dowser guy and camera team came back and dowser guy tried to find which buckets had water in, and which were still empty, without touching, just holding his rod above the buckets. So people suggest the protocol to Randi, Randi suggests the necessary precautions and what counts as suceess, e.g. finding more than 5 out of 10, if 8 are filled, the testee agrees because they are convinced … and when they fail, they claim the conditions were unfair. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/53 "2011-03-02T20:53:37Z")
You can watch the video [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eamPOsxwJJg&playnext=1&list=PLC198C0B90CF1DAB2) and [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2arJ6_tX3lA&playnext=1&list=PLC198C0B90CF1DAB2), even with German language, the test results should be obvious. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/54 "2011-03-02T20:54:03Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m not interested in debating Morris: he’s mentally ill and it would be a good thing in my view if others stopped baiting him and if he was banned (Handy style) from posting about Randi. > > However, [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13522767&postcount=47)concerns me. > > Whenever dowsing (or similar) comes up, someone says a reason they don’t believe there is any substance to it is because if there were, someone would have won Randi’s prize. Whatever you think of Randi’s prize, it’s existence and what it implies is at the very least a fair point to bring up. Then of course Morris arrives and launches into his bizarro Randi bashing crusade which usually results in the thread getting locked. > > It would be grossly wrong if it became impossible to mention something as pertinent as Randi’s challenge in the linked thread (or indeed in effect on the board) because it causes one of our local loonies to start a screaming match so loud it drowns out sensible debate. As you will see from the linked post, Morris delights in the idea that simply by being a jerk every time Randi’s challenge is mentioned he can effectively censor Randi’s challenge out of the debate. > > The guy needs to be shut down on this issue. For similar reasons, I propose as friendly amendments that **FinnAgain** can never again post on anything related to Israel or the MENA, and **brazil84** and **intention** are barred from posting on climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/55 "2011-03-02T20:54:51Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Randi has stated multiple times that his tests do not disprove anything. They, at most, state that “under controlled conditions, the phenomenon failed to be shown beyond chance levels.” That claim could be true but it’s not supported by the mere fact that the participants failed the test. In the dowsing example above, each peg had not more than a 2% random chance of being in the target area based on the ratio of 20cm/10m(the 2% is assuming that the pipe has to cross from one side to the other, is could be less if it could go out the side). The chances of this happening 2/3 of the time by pure chance is almost infitesimal, even if a guy did the minimum number of pegs. (It’s hard to model out precisely, since the different pegs are not independent, due to the pipe’s continuity.) But there could easily be something to dowsing that would nonetheless allow them to fail these tests by a wide margin. And again, even with these infitesimal chances, Randi requires that the participant do it 2 of 3 times. > [@acsenray](#): > > Do you have any background in statistics? Yes (actuary). > [@](#): > > I ask because this statement doesn’t seem to match my understanding of statistics. A result of 10 percent when 1 percent was expected does not support the conclusion that a phenomena is _real_, so far as I understand statistics. I don’t know if we’re disagreeing about statistics, so much as about the nature of phenomena. Same as with Bosstone. I’m not sure why. I’ve given some examples earlier. Here’s another. The weatherman’s predictions are not accurate 100% of the time. Does that mean that there’s nothing to meteorology? Now suppose I set up a test to test whether meteorology is a bunch of bunk. I insist that you have to be right 99% of the time in order to win the prize - or something along those lines of the dowsing test. Say, you have to predict the high and low temperatures to within .2 degrees 2/3 of the time, and have to repeat that in 2 of 3 tests. Most meteorologists won’t take this test. But a few - whether out of foolishness or hubris, or just because they have nothing to lose - take me up. Of course, they all fail. Have I proved that meteorology is bunk? If not, why not? > [@spark240](#): > > Then why did the very people who claimed to have the dowsing (or whatever) abilities agree to those criteria for a successful demonstration? See post #27. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/56 "2011-03-02T20:57:31Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > That being said, Randi has also stated that there’s only so many reindeer you need to toss off a roof before you can say that they probably don’t fly. As Santa is my witness… ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/57 "2011-03-02T21:02:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Same as with Bosstone. I’m not sure why. I’ve given some examples earlier. Here’s another. The weatherman’s predictions are not accurate 100% of the time. Does that mean that there’s nothing to meteorology? One, there’s a difference between predicting the future and determining whether or not that bucket, right there in front of me, has water in it at this very moment. Two, while I did say you might expect 90-100% correct guessing, that’s not what the tests look for. The tests only look for statistically-higher-than-chance success. If a test has a 10% chance of success when blindly guessing, then 50% is notable. 20%, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/58 "2011-03-02T21:04:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Have I proved that meteorology is bunk? If not, why not? Are the kinds of claims that meteorologists make about their abilities analogous to the kinds of claims that dowsers make about their abilities? Are the phenomena that meteorologists relying on to practice their profession observable, confirmable, and explainable in terms of understood physical phenomena? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/59 "2011-03-02T21:14:06Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > One, there’s a difference between predicting the future and determining whether or not that bucket, right there in front of me, has water in it at this very moment. For purposes of the validity of these tests, I don’t see any difference. > [@](#): > > Two, while I did say you might expect 90-100% correct guessing, that’s not what the tests look for. The tests only look for statistically-higher-than-chance success. If a test has a 10% chance of success when blindly guessing, then 50% is notable. 20%, not so much. That’s simply untrue. As I’ve posted several times by now, in the dowsing example, the tests had a chance of success that was close to zero of succeding by chance. Like one in hundreds of millions, maybe zillions (since it needed to be repeated). Do the math. > [@acsenray](#): > > Are the kinds of claims that meteorologists make about their abilities analogous to the kinds of claims that dowsers make about their abilities? No. But again, the whole point I’m trying to make in this thread is to separate the specific claims being made by these specific testees from the general abstract question about the existance of the phenomena. > [@](#): > > Are the phenomena that meteorologists relying on to practice their profession observable, confirmable, and explainable in terms of understood physical phenomena? That has a strong bearing on whether you or I should accept these phenomena. It has no bearing on the validity of these tests. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164/60 "2011-03-02T21:16:37Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > The tests only look for statistically-higher-than-chance success. If a test has a 10% chance of success when blindly guessing, then 50% is notable. 20%, not so much. Really depends on how many runs were performed. A positive result of 2/10 is not notable. A positive result of 200/1000 _is_ notable. Obviously, Randi doesn’t have the time to set up a dowsing test with 1000 buckets for every crank that requests the challenge, which is why he has to require a much higher success rate than chance in order to have confidence in the data. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peter-morris-and-randi/573164.md?page=4)