# The flaws in Randi's tests **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746 "2003-05-02T23:23:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/101 "2003-05-10T21:43:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Yazhi \* > \*\*This demonstrates, _to any rational person_, that the control applied was the crucial variable. \*\* [my emphasis added] You’re overlooking one vital fact: in this thread, you’re dealing with someone who has proven to be completely impervious to logic. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/102 "2003-05-10T21:58:11Z")
Welcome to the SDMB, **Yazhi.** You’ll fit in here just fine. And what you said is what most of us have said time & again; so join the chorus! ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/103 "2003-05-11T00:24:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidhorman \* > I came here to read the stuff about Randi but the Chess thing was interesting too, so sorry that this is a bit OT, but there is a way that anyone can play two chess games blind, one as white and one as black, and (with a couple of conditions placed on the order of moves) definitely win one of them 🙂 > > But I assume Glee can do just as well, if not better, playing a single game, for which there’s no clever shortcut system. > > David Of course you mean that the blindfold player merely acts as a conduit between the two sighted players, passing their moves to each other. Ah, but we chessplayers know that one! (Also you might draw both games, rather than win…) But my feat is genuine. There could be several moves in one game while the other game waits. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/104 "2003-05-12T02:06:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Welcome to the SDMB, Yazhi. You’ll fit in here just fine. And what you said is what most of us have said time & again; so join the chorus! Yeah, a lot oof you have said that, but none of you are particularly clear on why you think it makes a difference. Well? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/105 "2003-05-12T02:37:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > If that were true it _would_ bother me, but scientists keep on agreeing with my conclusions. Doesn’t it bother YOU that nobody with any knowledge agrees with you? Hordes of scientists, millions of them, just keep agreeing with you. It’s such a shame so few of them have been shown by you to do so openly. Then you could provide a cite to them. It’s so annoying when people secretly support you but just won’t come out and say it. > [@](#): > > That is rubbish. The only possible interpretation of his words is that he was denying the EXISTENCE of underground rivers. Even if we accept your rather desperate reinterpretation of his words… Excuse me if I interject here. Disputes about what words mean are rather common around here. But you, Lekatt, (sorry, what am I saying?) Peter, are the only person who I have ever heard describing an interpretation of a sentence that involves the whole of the sentence as a “desperate reinterpretation” while suggesting that an appropriate interpretation is one that involves leaving out four words. Extraordinary. Sorry, carry on… > [@](#): > > …you have not yet shown ONE dowser who makes the claim that “underground rivers are a common phenomenon in all types of terrain” so Randi is STILL wrong on that count. Randi never said precisely that, nor do dowsers say precisely that. Randi does believe in broad terms that dowsers believe underground rivers are common. In the pit thread, you suggested that we Google on dowsers and underground rivers to prove Randi wrong. Two of us (me included) did just as you suggested, and posted long lists of cites which clearly show that dowsers believe exactly as Randi says they do. You have never responded to those posts. You just switched threads, ignored our posts, and make the same argument in this thread as if the other thread never happened. Can you see how your behaviour in this respect might get an eensy weensy bit tiresome? > [@](#): > > To **Princhester** : > Read again. Clarke agrees with my main point, which is that Randi’s conclusions are way out. The remark I made that there is a difference between underground rivers and pipes was NEVER my main point, only a passing thought. YOU have made a big deal of it. Clarke backs my main points completely. Your main point is a moving target. Your thread title is “The flaws in Randi’s tests”. You quote Clarke as saying “The experiment was well-designed but I don’t quite agree with his conclusions.” > [@](#): > > To **Princhester** : Actually, all you lot did was spew abuse and invective, calling me disgusting names like ‘fuckwit’ and ‘shitforbrains’ and ‘princhester’. A total lie. There are four threads in which you and I have been involved. Most of them many pages long. I have made dozens of posts, some of them running to hundreds of words, consisting of point by point refutation, backed by cites. Due to certain behaviour I perceived on your part I called you names in one pit thread (out of four threads, three non-pit). peter I am genuinely interested in something: If I was to post something to the following effect: “peter morris has never made out any arguments at all against James Randi. All he has done is call sceptics putzes” what would you say would be an appropriate description of me? > [@](#): > > to **Princhester** : > Not a bad analogy, Princhester, except for a couple of things. First of all, lets say that he never makes his 10 mile flight, he keeps landing after 2 or 3 miles, thus fails to claim the prize. Then it is a good analogy. > > Other than that, you have got the roles the wrong way round. I would be the one saying that setting a 10 mile minimum is unfair, that the flights of 2 or 3 miles show some flying ability even though its not enough to win the prize, and that it merits further study, to see if Randy can make the 3 miles EVERY time. I would be saying that if he can do a 2 mile flight several times, that should qualify him for the prize. > > YOU would be the one calling Randy a deluded fool and a fraud, calling the 3 mile flight an abject failure, and declaring that if flight is possible, why is nobody claiming the prize. You would be screaming about why would Randy agree to a 10 mile minimum if he knew he could only do 2 miles. You would be saying that the two mile flight is just a fluke, that Randy just got caught on the wind, and it’s not really flying at all. You would be saying there’s no need for further tests, he tried and failed. > > In fact, take those things you attribute to me, add some name-calling and a few straw men, and it’s EXACTLY what you have been saying all along. Good analogy, which clearly demonstrates the flaws in your own arguments. Thank you. Another 19th Century would be aviator, a chinese guy by the name Dow Sur, claimed that he could take the Edwar prize and fly ten miles. On the day of his test, almost all observers were standing at the ten mile line. Check observers were set up along the route at three mile intervals. Dow Sur never showed at the ten mile line. Search parties were sent out and he was found in his plane 2 miles from the starting line. No one was quite sure how he got there. The spacing out of the check observers meant that they hadn’t seen the alleged flight. One unofficial observer said that he had seen the flight, but he wasn’t sure, and so the results of the test were somewhat inconclusive, but many agreed that they were interesting. Edwar offered an alternate prize to Dow Sur: an open test with conditions to be designed by them both, as long as they were a fair test of flying ability. He suggested that the test be of any flight at all, as long as it could be performed consistently commensurate with length (eg 50 flights of 100 yards, or 10 flights of a mile). Strangely, for someone who so loudly proclaimed his ability, Dow Sur never applied for a prize under these conditions. Indeed, Dow Sur belonged to two large “Aviation” organisations which, strangely, publically proclaimed that they would never be involved in scientific tests of their abilities. Needless to say, Peter Morris complained loudly. He said that Edwar was a fraud and a liar and that he should have given the prize to Dow Sur on the basis of one short unrepeated unconfirmed flight, or at the least that Edwar should acknowledge Dow Sur’s potential abilities. Most observers have some difficulty understanding Peter Morris’s complaints, given his self proclaimed scepticism and Dow Sur’s strange lack of interest in attempting Edwar’s second prize. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/106 "2003-05-12T04:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Hordes of scientists, millions of them, just keep agreeing with you. It’s such a shame so few of them have been shown by you to do so openly. Then you could provide a cite to them. It’s so annoying when people secretly support you but just won’t come out and say it. Well, for a start Arthur C. clarke, world renowned scientist, agrees with me. when I point out the flaws in Randi’s maths. He, like me, can see that Randi adding together the results of three totally different tests is totally misleading. Then there’s all the people on Sci.stat.maths who agreed that the 22% result IS significant, despite Randi claiming it as a failure. Then there is the review of dowsing tests, which finds flaws in many tests made by Randi and others. The Randi lovers desperately try to p[resent this as biased, ignoring the fact that it is equally critical of pro-dowsing tests. This is a scientist who has concluded that Randi aint worth much. Then, Randi’s statement about underground rivers, no geologist agrees with that. I have posted > [@](#): > > Randi never said precisely that, nor do dowsers say precisely that. Randi does believe in broad terms that dowsers believe underground rivers are common No. Randi claimed that underground rivers dont exist. They do. He’s wrong. End of story. > [@](#): > > A total lie. There are four threads in which you and I have been involved. Most of them many pages long. I have made dozens of posts, some of them running to hundreds of words, consisting of point by point refutation, backed by cites. Due to certain behaviour I perceived on your part I called you names in one pit thread (out of four threads, three non-pit). So, its a lie to say you insulted me, just because you admit insulting me. That’s just typical of your logic. And just look at the insulting nature of the quote at the start of this message. And, no, you have not refuted my points in any way. I point out various things that Randi has got wrong, and you desperately try to twist his words to make them appear right. Even if we accept your bizzare interpretation of ‘underground rivers are fictional’ Randi’s words are STILL wrong, since you haven’t shown ANY dowser who maintains that notion. The notion that dowsers have about underground rivers is that they exist. Randi denied their existence. He lied. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/107 "2003-05-12T04:07:54Z")
> [@](#): > > I have posted That should have read “I have posted numerous examples of scientists who disagree with Randi. All you do is ignore them.” ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/108 "2003-05-12T04:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > Well, for a start Arthur C. clarke, world renowned scientist, agrees with me. when I point out the flaws in Randi’s maths. He, like me, can see that Randi adding together the results of three totally different tests is totally misleading. > > Then there’s all the people on Sci.stat.maths who agreed that the 22% result IS significant, despite Randi claiming it as a failure. So so far we have one named scientist, and some anonymous newsgroupers who agree with one of your conclusions in one particular way (which I agree with also, as I have said). That does not constitute “scientists agreeing with your conclusions”. > [@](#): > > Then there is the review of dowsing tests, which finds flaws in many tests made by Randi and others. The Randi lovers desperately try to present this as biased, ignoring the fact that it is equally critical of pro-dowsing tests. This is a scientist who has concluded that Randi aint worth much. I must have missed this one. Where? Which thread and page? > [@](#): > > Then, Randi’s statement about underground rivers, no geologist agrees with that. What statement is that? You mean the one in which he says he denies the notion of underground rivers maintained by dowsers, or some other statement? Assuming the former, find me a geologist who agrees with the notion of underground rivers maintained by dowsers. Actually, tell you what. Post the links found by myself and errrm, I think it was Pheonix Dragon in the pit thread in a geology forum and see what they think. When they get up from rolling on the floor laughing, maybe they’ll post something you can use. You do realise that on the first page of Google links that I found (when I did the search you suggested) there were links to dowsers who maintained that underground rivers arose due to spontaneous creation of water from rock, don’t you? As a sceptic are you sure you want to be associated with the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain? > [@](#): > > No. Randi claimed that underground rivers dont exist. They do. He’s wrong. End of story. Keep yelling it, bro. There are people out there that haven’t read what Randi says, who may believe you. > [@](#): > > So, its a lie to say you insulted me, just because you admit insulting me. That’s just typical of your logic. And just look at the insulting nature of the quote at the start of this message. WTF? When did I say I didn’t insult you? I did. I stated that quite openly. My point, as I’m sure you know (obtuse as you are pretending to be) was that I have done much, much more than just insult you. Though I can see why you might like to pretend otherwise. > [@](#): > > The notion that dowsers have about underground rivers is that they exist. There have been any number of instances in our debates where I have wondered if you actually read any cites that we provide. This is yet another of them. Go back to the pit thread and _read_ the links to dowser sites. They do a lot more than just believe underground rivers exist, peter. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/109 "2003-05-12T07:32:54Z")
**bnorton** said: > [@](#): > > Well, one would assume that the students would have been selected at random to represent the population as a whole. Otherwise it’s not science at all - it’s more of a morality lesson. What Randi did was a demonstration to a group of students, not really a test. > [@](#): > > Keep in mine that the OP had to do with questioning the scientific legitimacy of Randi’s tests - at least that’s how I saw it. Actually, the OP was a follow on from two previous threads - the first in Cecil’s columns and the second here in Great Debates. The first was Cecil’s column on dowsing, where the OP started complaining about James Randi, saying he was a fraud and a liar. The second thread was to discuss Randi as a fraud and try to find evidence. That thread was abandoned, and this one was subsequently started. The OP’s point is that Randi is unfair with his JREF challenges and his testing in general, that Randi misrepresents the claims of dowsers (and everyone else) so that he can disprove his own misrepresentations rather than the actual claims, all for publicity and to sell books. The OP claims that Randi makes unfair tests, then requires the applicants to sign forms saying it is fair against their will. This is the context for the discussion. The class demonstration above was modeled on actual psychology tests. This was the original demo Randi duplicated: Forer, B.R. 1949. “The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility.” _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, 44: 118-23. Follow up tests: Sundberg, N.D. 1955. “The Acceptability of ‘Fake’ versus ‘Bona Fide’ Personality Test Interpretations.” _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_, 50: 145-57. Snyder, C.R., and R.J. Shenkel 1975. “The P.T. Barnum Effect.” _Psychology Today_ 8: 52-54. **glee** , thank’s for the elaboration. **Libertarian** , I reviewed **peter morris** ’s posts regarding Arthur C. Clarke, and I concede his first mention or two is not appeal to authority. I do, however, feel his continued lauding of Clarke with titles as bordering on fallacious behavior. But that’s just my opinion. As for blind faith in Randi, I have yet to see any evidence for why I shouldn’t trust Randi. He’s a high profile person with a controversial position and a confrontive style. I would expect to see contention. I have yet to see positive, confirmable evidence of him misrepresenting himself or others. **Princhester** explains why I trust his book account over **peter morris** ’s memory. **peter morris** complained that Randi’s stated reason for limited testing based on patience of the dowsers was unbelievable. I replied with an explanation that accounts for the time to perform the test, to which he responded: > [@](#): > > Exactly, this is why Randi won’t take the long tests. But a couple of observations: a) I dont see any reason why several people should not test simultaneously, b) why not stagger the test over several days, no need to have them all waiting throughout the test. Randi could set up long tests if that is what is required to evaluate the claim. Long tests are not required when the pass/fail criteria as claimed and agreed to by the applicants is at 80%. a) Each is testing individually, not the collective efforts of everyone. Remember the point is to claim the prize. Testing invididually precludes cross-contamination. Also, in precludes dowser A from afterwards saying the dowser B interfered with his ability. Note the incident of the dowsers identifying any possible interferences, such as underground rivers. Two of them found rivers none of the others did, and the rivers were not the same. b) Staggering over several days could be done, but adds complexity to the controls. Note the part about keeping the untested dowsers separate from the ones who have tested, to prevent discussion and cross-contamination. Having the dowsers come and go raises the possibility of sharing information. While it might not provide any useful ways to cheat, the point of the test set up is to prevent any ability to cheat, not just hope it won’t happen. Sure wouldn’t look good for one of them to Win the challenge, then Randi point out there was a possibility of cheating. Kind of like that TV show situation you cited, where the studio had the map around where the dowser could have snuck a peak. Not to say he did. Test set up should eliminate possibilities for cheating so there can’t be any disclaimers later. It protects the winner as much as Randi, and keeps Randi from being able to explain away successes. **patchbunny** said: > [@](#): > > I read your statement as the saw was one of the items she picked, that Randi said was incorrect. Which does bring up another question. If you claim that Randi didn’t reveal anything about the objects, how do you support your claim that you know the background of one of the items? I don’t think **peter morris** was claiming to know the background of the items. The examples he gives appear to be made up to show the type of information that should be given, not actual information. **davidhorman** , thanks for the links. You’re the first person to try to provide the requested information. I took a look at the thread linked - reading most of the first page. There appears to be a previous thread that this was a continuation of, which I didn’t look up. I read down far enough to see some of the reasons claimed by the dowser (Edge) for the failure of the test. His main complaint seems to be that the test was done inside an office, rather than outside in a field. He does not state that he requested that the test be conducted outside at any time prior to taking the test. He does state (now) that he noticed some interference, but thought he could perform anyway. In other words, he agreed to the test under the conditions given. He did not tell Randi at the time of the test that the conditions were not appropriate, that he would prefer to be outside in a field. He only says this after the test. The interference he states comes mainly from electromagnetic fields from a copier in the adjacent room and other sources. However, he does not blame Randi for this as a deliberate act (well, at least at one point he does not - other places his remarks suggest otherwise), he even admits that he had interferences when dowsing inside his own home. Clearly if he’s previously had interferences inside, he cannot claim he was not aware that being inside could interfere with his ability. Yet he did not inform Randi, or insist the test be conducted outside. He does not even appear to understand the point of doing a preliminary set of runs with the controls removed. He thinks the open case is worthless and a waste of time, despite others explaining that it allows him to calibrate and make sure there are no interferences preventing him from reading correctly. In short, I see nothing there for a reasonable person to justify the claim that Randi was unfair or rigged the test. **Yazhi** said: > [@](#): > > Randi not only restricts his test to what the psychic claims, he restricts his test to what the psychic **can actually perform** - without any controls. Then Randi applies a simple contol, like for instance not telling them which pipe has water, and they fail, fail, fail. This demonstrates, to any rational person, that the control applied was the crucial variable. **peter morris** replied: > [@](#): > > Yeah, a lot oof you have said that, but none of you are particularly clear on why you think it makes a difference. Is his statement really that unclear to you? How can you not understand? The conditions are identical in the two phases of the test, except for the change of one variable. That’s basic testing method - make the two cases identical except for one variable and record the differences in results. What’s so hard to grasp? > [@](#): > > The only possible interpretation of his words is that he was denying the EXISTENCE of underground rivers. > [@](#): > > Even if we accept your bizzare interpretation of ‘underground rivers are fictional’ Randi’s words are STILL wrong, since you haven’t shown ANY dowser who maintains that notion. That’s just not true. The actual quote again: “Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.” Notice the dependent clause, “that dowsers maintain”. That clause modifies the word _notion_. It is an integral part of the statement. If Randi wanted to say underground rivers do not exist, why didn’t he just say “Underground rivers are sheer fiction…” The fact that he instead included the phrase “that dowsers maintain” is crucial to the statement. **Princhester** and one other ( **Phoenix Dragon**?) have already provided several cites from web searches where dowsers make claims regarding the prevalence of underground rivers. While they do not quite come out and explicitly state “underground rivers are everywhere”, the frequency and number of examples listed in their own pages shows that they believe underground rivers to be widespread. ---
**Author:** ![patchbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dc4da7/32.png) [@patchbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/patchbunny)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/110 "2003-05-12T14:18:23Z")
[QUOTE] **don’t think peter morris was claiming to know the background of the items. The examples he gives appear to be made up to show the type of information that should be given, not actual information.** [QUOTE] Hmmm… Could well be. The way he presented it, though, made it sound like he was specifying something that he witnessed. –Patch ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/111 "2003-05-12T16:57:17Z")
No, Irishman has it exactly right. Thanks Irish. My point was that Randi didn’t mention (on the televised show) what the involvement of the tools in the crime actually was, and this was important to assessing the degree of her failure. > [@](#): > > That’s just not true. The actual quote again: > > “Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.” > > Notice the dependent clause, “that dowsers maintain”. That clause modifies the word notion. It is an integral part of the statement. If Randi wanted to say underground rivers do not exist, why didn’t he just say “Underground rivers are sheer fiction…” The fact that he instead included the phrase “that dowsers maintain” is crucial to the statement. Rubbish. If that were true, why doesn’t he actually specify what IS the notion that dowsers maintain. Why leave it to the imagination of the reader to specify what the notion IS? There is no Print out the article, highlight the phrase, show it to 10 of your friends, and ask them what they think the sentence means. Princhester, you do the same with 10 of your friends. Miller, you do the same with both your friends. Miskatonic, ask a couple of people you know. You will find that nobody sees that meaning in the words. Anyone reading it will see that Randi is denying that underground rivers exist. Note also that two Randi fans in this forum quoted the passage, and stated unambiguously that underground rivers don’t exist. \<\< Randi says underground rivers are fictional\>\> We all know what they said, and what they meant. Princhester only came up with his strange interpretation of the words when I proved underground rivers DO exist. And you have yet to come up with ONE cite where a dowser says that there are underground rivers all over. The reverse is true. Dowsers say that underground rivers are HARD to find, and need a dowser to find them. Randi himself points out that the dowsers speak of the rarity of underground rivers. He made them test for the presence of underground rivers before they took the Australian test, and ALL BUIT TWO said there was NO underground river nearby. RANDI’S OWN ACCOUNT shows that dowsers maintain that underground rivers are RARE. Let’s examine what Miller has to say on the subject \<\\> Well, lets check the website he posted. There is no mention of underground rivers at all. What it actually says is \<\\> Miller posts this as an example of what Randi meant by ‘the notion of underground rivers.’ And of course, Princhester has cited the same site, indicating his agreement. So, according to Miller & Princhester, “underground river” is Randi-speak for ANY underground water. A geologist does not consider veins of water to be true underground rivers, but according to Miller, Randi says they are. If we accept that Randi meant this, as Miller & Princhester claim, then in fact Randi is STILL wrong. In some types of terrain (karst), you get true underground rivers, in others you really do get the veins of water described in Millers cite. If Randi does consider them to be underground rivers, as Miller says he does, then by Randi’s definition, underground rivers ARE everywhere. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/112 "2003-05-12T17:48:12Z")
Its patently clear to me what Randi meant. The very fact that two dowsers found rivers belies the claim that underground rivers are considered rare by dowsers. True underground rivers are in fact extremely rare. Randi has been a little more clear on this matter in another case: [http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html](http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html) > [@](#): > > One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground. > “There are no streams of water flowing underground,” he said. “There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers.” So one can argue that Randi could have been a tad clearer, but he was in no way wrong. Except to the obsessed. I also would give you these sites as evidence that, yes, dowsers do have quite the delusion about underground rivers. [http://www.geomancy.org/ezines/ezine\_4/ezine\_4a.html](http://www.geomancy.org/ezines/ezine_4/ezine_4a.html) [http://www.paranormaldimensions.co.uk/experiment0001.html](http://www.paranormaldimensions.co.uk/experiment0001.html) [http://www.vastuworld.com/Dowsing.htm](http://www.vastuworld.com/Dowsing.htm) (same article, actually) [http://www.consumerhealth.org/tothealth/tot00/speak35.html](http://www.consumerhealth.org/tothealth/tot00/speak35.html) [http://www.irishwizards.com/about/comments.html](http://www.irishwizards.com/about/comments.html) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Knight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Knight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knight)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/113 "2003-05-12T18:19:20Z")
Just to let you know the link to this thread was posted on the JREF forum Randi’s site. > **[Home](https://web.randi.org?s=&threadid=19311)** > > JREF ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/114 "2003-05-12T18:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > True underground rivers are in fact extremely rare. Wrong, they are extremely common in karst country, which is about 20% of land on Earth. > [@](#): > > One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground. > “There are no streams of water flowing underground,” he said. There are NO streams of water flowing underground he said. Randi said there are NO underground streams. None. They don’t exist, says Randi. What more do you need than this? Randi is CLEARLY denying that underground streams EXIST. > [@](#): > > There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. Wrong. I grew up near to a river called The Mole, so named because along its length it tunnels underground, then pops up again some distance away. This is NOT a river in a cave. > **[River Mole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Mole)** > > The River Mole is a tributary of the River Thames in southern England. It rises in West Sussex near Horsham and flows northwest through Surrey for 80 km (50 miles) to the Thames at East Molesey, opposite Hampton Court Palace. The river gives its name to the Surrey district of Mole Valley. The Mole crosses the North Downs between Dorking and Leatherhead, where it cuts a steep-sided valley, known as the Mole Gap, through the chalk. Much of the catchment area lies on impermeable rock (includin Du... Who are you going to believe, the encyclopaedia, or Randi? Randi is denyimng that this river exists. Do the makers of the encyclopaedia suffer then same delusion as dowsers? Or are they right, and Randi wrong? > [@](#): > > There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. This statement is simply wrong. > [@](#): > > So one can argue that Randi could have been a tad clearer, but he was in no way wrong. Except to the obsessed. In fact, one can argue that Randi could have been a tad more honest, but he was in no way right, except to the obsessed. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/115 "2003-05-12T20:07:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peter morris \* > Wrong, they are extremely common in karst country, which is about 20% of land on Earth. Cite please. > [@](#): > > There are NO streams of water flowing underground he said. > Randi said there are NO underground streams. None. They don’t exist, says Randi. > > What more do you need than this? Randi is CLEARLY denying that underground streams EXIST. You are obviously only seeing what you want to see. There are qualifying comments > [@](#): > > Wrong. I grew up near to a river called The Mole, so named because along its length it tunnels underground, then pops up again some distance away. This is NOT a river in a cave. > > [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/River\_Mole](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Mole) > > Who are you going to believe, the encyclopaedia, or Randi? Randi is denyimng that this river exists. Do the makers of the encyclopaedia suffer then same delusion as dowsers? Or are they right, and Randi wrong? A dissappearing/reemerging stream is a far cry from what dowsers have claimed. Things like the mole are a result of topography and porous rock. If I pile a few rocks on top of a stream to cover it, and the water still flows, I have not created an “underground stream”. You have merely shifted definitions, again. Even worse for you, these kinds of streams are due to the stream water enteringto an aquifer, then reemerges, due to a change in the surface. This is by no means “naturally flowing”. as Randi stated. Even if they weren’t the result of porous material, they were still hardly “naturally flowing”. If these were true “underground rivers”, then people would not be concerned with such rivers contaminating the ground water. So who’s right? You, or the [Geologists?](http://www.napa.ufl.edu/99news/sink.htm) Dowser have proclaimed that there are rivers flowing beneath us. Criss-crossing the world. Flowing like water in a pipe, only without the pipe. This is simply not true, hence the qualifying statements. Nothing yoiu have produced so far has proven Randi wrong. > [@](#): > > This statement is simply wrong. Got proof? > [@](#): > > In fact, one can argue that Randi could have been a tad more honest, but he was in no way right, except to the obsessed. \*\* IKYABWAI ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/116 "2003-05-12T23:29:52Z")
Peter the short points (your desperate twistings and selective quoting aside) are that: 1/ the underground water that dowsers describe on their websites and the type of underground water described by geologists are very very different things. Picking out certain select comments from dowser websites, while ignoring the fact that their sites contain much that is absolutely potty will not convince anyone of anything. 2/ Randi said that the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is false. At the absolute most you could accuse him of simplifying slightly, in that he does not go into details of the precise way in which the notions maintained by dowsers are erroneous, or pick out the very few areas in which dowsers’ notions may have an element of twisted truth. peter ask yourself this: does saying something that is slightly inaccurate make one a fraud and a liar and incompetent, and does doing so constitute grounds for dismissing everything that person says and does as valueless? Think carefully about yourself and the threads on this topic before you answer. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/117 "2003-05-13T00:05:05Z")
Of _course_ being slightly inaccurate makes one a fraud and a liar. Being a fraud and a liar makes one a sophisticated skeptic, too. Right, **peter morris**? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/118 "2003-05-13T21:36:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Peter the short points (your desperate twistings and selective quoting aside) are that: Show me ONE occasion on which I have twisted any words. I have quoted Randi as meaning exactly what he says. When Randi says \<\\> I quote him as meaning exactly that. (Thanks to Miskatonic for providing that quote) You, pal, are the one desperately twisting words. You twist Randi’s words, adding atuff that wasn’t in the original. Then you twist dowsers words, so that they match YOUR twisted version of Randi’s words. And even after all your twistintg, Randi is STILL wrong. > [@](#): > > 1/ the underground water that dowsers describe on their websites and the type of underground water described by geologists are very very different things. Actually, they have it mostly right. Randi has it entirely wrong. You cited a dowser as saying that water is created by underground chemical; reactions. This is wrong. But the rest of what the dowser said, about how water flows through cracks in the rock is right. Randi is wrong to deny it. > [@](#): > > Picking out certain select comments from dowser websites, while ignoring the fact that their sites contain much that is absolutely potty will not convince anyone of anything. I agree. You are the one doing it, not me. When have I ever “picked out select comments from dowser websites” in relation to underground rivers. I have, of course, done so on different isuues, such as proving that dowsers admit the ideomotor action. You are picking out select comments, and twisting them to fit your reinterpretation of Randi’s wrong comments. > [@](#): > > 2/ Randi said that the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is false. At the absolute most you could accuse him of simplifying slightly, in that he does not go into details of the precise way in which the notions maintained by dowsers are erroneous, or pick out the very few areas in which dowsers’ notions may have an element of twisted truth He is not ‘simplifying slightly’ he is totally wrong. The notion that diowsers have is that underground riverzs exist. They are right, geologists agree with them, Randi is wrong, geologists disagree with him. Its that simple. > [@](#): > > peter ask yourself this: does saying something that is slightly inaccurate make one a fraud and a liar and incompetent, and does doing so constitute grounds for dismissing everything that person says and does as valueless? If Randi had said one thing that was slightly inaccurate, I could accept it. The sad fact is that virtually EVERYTHING he has said is complete rubbish. His geological pronouncements are WAY off base. He misrepresents the position of dowsers in general. He fudged the figures, making them appear worse than they really are. His conclusions are insupportable. The problem is that Randi has a totally closed mind. He already is certain that dowsing does not work. He wants to convince others of that, and does not care how he does it. He is willing to say any old thing to score points, and just does not care if its right or wrong. He tells his readers that underground rivers dont exist. He doesn’t give a damn about whether they exist or not, just as long as he makes dowsers look foolish. Result, many of his readers don’t belive in underground rivers. He is misinforming them. He writes that the dowsing rod moves not by some strange force, but by ideomotor action, thus giving his readers the impression that dowsers say that some strange force moves the rod. Actually, most dowsers say that the rod moves through ideomotor action, but Randi doesn’t bother about reporting them accurately. He just says any old thing to make them look wrong. That’s what makes Randi a liar and a fraud. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/119 "2003-05-13T21:46:10Z")
Oh brother. Currents in the water table aren’t “underground rivers”. Talk about grasping at straws… ---
**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:** [May 13, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746/120 "2003-05-13T22:28:15Z")
Its is obvious now that peter morris is living in his own world. Geologist do not agree with him, as I cited in the UF article. Underground streams do not exist in the manner he states, nor do they exist in the manner dowsers claim they do. Evidence for this has been provided. Peter’s counter evidence has been to cite ariver in his area that doesn’t really do what he claims (Again referencing the the UF article). Dowsers do have quite the opinion that there are underground rivers, and they claim to find them everywhere. Dowsing books contained maps showing the routes of these underground rivers. It might be that more recently dowsers have gotten away from the underwater river concept, or at least stretched is definition to include aquifers, but this is a modern happening, not relevant to comments made by Randi in 1981. Randi’s (adn Cecil’s!) explanation about eh idoemotor effect is totally misread by Peter. I honestly don’t have a clue as to where it comes from. Peter makes several claims about dowsers crediting the ideomotor, but one is hard pressed to even find a dowsing site that even mentions ideomotor (there area handful). The ones that do, get it very, very wrong. peter states that Randi is wrong to claim that dowser claim some strange force causes the rod to move. However, to talk with dowser you will find plenty of them have thei rown theories as to why they move. Magnetics, attunments, vibrations, teh list is endless. Peter is deliberately ignoring this. Ther’s really not much more peter can say. His present complaints are squirmings and massive twisting of words that show his depseration to hate Randi than any wrongdoing by Randi. I would note again that Peter promised in the other threads that he would come back with “serious flaws” in teh Randi test. In fact he has found absolutely none. He’s spent most of this thread whining about something Randi said, and over the averaging of two failing scores on the tests. These are hardly the ‘flaws’ that he claimed he was going to produce. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-flaws-in-randis-tests/172746.md?page=7)