What exactly about that article do you fantasize that disafgrees with me, and agrees with Randi?
I have twisted nothing. I have quoteed Randi on what he said. The obsessed Randi fans twist his words, desperate to make his lies seem not to be lies.
I have produced many. But like a fundamentalist claiming the Bible completely disproves evolution, you claim Randis words disprove the the words of scientists and mathematicians I have cited. No matter what the flaws, you will always go on believing Randi, rejecting truth, facts and logic.
[sub]Caution, what follows is what most people would regard as misquoting. peter morris would however regard it as straight interpretation and since this post is aimed at him…[/sub]
peter, earlier you said you didn’t believe in dowsing, yet in your last post, you said:
The dowser in question claimed to be able to dowse under all sorts of conditions, for all sorts of things, and you say he is right? So you do believe in dowsing after all.
And earlier you quoted Arthur Clarke as supporting your position, but then you said of Clarke:
So if he’s not an authority on dowsing, why do you quote him?
Also, I don’t see why you believe Clarke supports your position, since you also said
So you are saying that Clarke also added the results of the three tests, and his opinion has some weight?
The part about the “underground rivers” not being anything more than aquifer drains and rises. Your assertion in previous posts was that “the Mole” river disporved Randi and proved dowsers correct. However, this is simply not true. The water is not free flowing, Randi has pointed out where water does move underground, and what you have is quibbling,a tbest. By your post, one would think the The Mole water flowed freely underground. This is simply untrue. The articel in question proves that point.
Umm, no, you haven’t. Your first post finds many complaints about the man, and a few very poorly thought ‘criticisms’, which devolve to you complaining about some stats and the nature of testing dowsers with pipes instead of ‘underground rivers’. The first is ridiculous since both stats were failures and were announced to the participants. The second might have some merit had the dowsers not agreed that it was a fiar test.
As for twisting words, I give you exhibit A:
You make the claim about Rnadi:
Wheras the full quote states:
This is where you are deceptive. Lying by ommission is still lying.
Your hyperbolic and hysterical attempt to paint us as bible-thumpers is merely a symptom of your ever shrinking basis in reality. Nothing you have done has convinced anyone but yourself. Do you recall the “Ask About Cecil” thread that started this? There were random people walking in saying that you were dead wrong.
I’m sorry your ego can’t deal with it, but you are decidedly and complete wrong about this.
I asked some geologists for their opinions on Randi’s geological statements. As usual, the scientists were not very complimentary towards Randi. One stated of Randi << In my opinion, the author had no interest in being accurate; he was more concerned making sure his sarcasm does not pass unnoticed. >> Which is a typical comment from scientists examining Randi’s work.
There are (at least) four different types of underground water. The first and most common is aquifers, where a deposit of porous rock has water flowing slowly through it.
The second is true underground rivers. These only occur in karst country, which is about 15-20% of land on Earth. Within karst country true underground rivers are very common indeed.
Third, there are ancient river beds that have been buried deep underground by geological processes over tens of thousands of years. Water flows along these ancient river beds at far higher rates than the surrounding rock. These are not counted as ‘true’ rivers, the distinction is of interest to a geologist.
Finally, non-porous rock may be fractured, and water can flow through the flaws.
Now, let’s assess the accuracy of Randi’s statements.
Randi says <<Besides, the “underground river” notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.>>
When I asked the geologists what they thought the statement meant, they all thought it meant that Randi is claiming that underground rivers do not exist. They unanimously rejected Randi’s claim.
But let’s be generous to Randi, and accept Princhester’s interpretation of his words. That Randi is merely saying that underground rivers aren’t common in every type of terrain. And it is still wrong. Miller and Princhester both cited a dowser talking about water flowing through cracks in the rock, claiming that this is what Randi meant by ‘underground river.’ If Randi did indeed include cracks in rock as underground rivers, then you do get underground rivers (by Randi’s definition) all over the place. By any possible interpretation of his words, Randi is wrong.
Randi says << Having a string of successful wells to which one can point, proves nothing. A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult.>>
This is wrong. Here’s what one professional hydrogeologist has to say on the subject
<< You drill two wells. One hits a small aquifer in the old lalke
deposits, and you get 10 gpm … Then you drop another well 20 meters away, but this one hits those old streambed deposits, and you wind up getting 800 gpm. >>
The statement that “90% of the world’s land mass [is] above reachable supplies of water” is baseless, and the geologists don’t agree with it. In many places you would find only a tiny drop of water that simply wouldn’t make a well. The 90% figure quoted by Randi has NO support among geologists.
In another article Miskatonic quotes Randi as saying << 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. >>
This is wrong. Water does in fact flow (slowly) through porous rock, and more quickly through sand and gravel.
Have a read what geologists say on the subject in the newsgroup I posted. You will see how inaccurate Randi is. Randi really should learn to check his statements with people who know what they’re talking about. But if he did that, he would never publish anything.
first of all, note that this is stated as an unproved theory, and goes against what the majority of geologists believe. The article makes that very clear. See the terms "offers new evidence " , "the water MAY come from a large area ", "The results suggest " and so on. Have a think about what it means.
Secondly, the article refers specifically to ONE location, it does not extend that to ALL underground rivers. It says that it might apply to other states in the southeast, butnot beyond there.
Thirdly, and this one is really priceless, you quote randi as saying <<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.” >>
But the article you post says <<new evidence that much of the water that feeds the springs in the region flows through tiny pores in the rocks>>
See that, Misk? Randi says that water does not flow underground except in caves, but the article you post says that water flows through pores in the rock.
Which one should we believe?
And yet you are unable to cite a single lie.
I have pointed out dozens of serious flaws in Randi’s methods. I have shown scientists and mathematicians who agree with me. All you have done in return is change Randi’s words, change dowsers words to match Randi’s nonsense, then insult me.
Look don’t worry about rehashing the second and third dozen serious flaws, just remind us of say the first dozen.
I must have missed them.
peter consider these points:
1/ During the Australian test two dowsers claimed to have “found” underground rivers.
2/ Above, you say:
3/ Sydney (where the Australian tests were conducted) is not karst country
4/ Therefore, according to your own quote above deriving from geological research, the inescapable conclusion is that the notion of underground rivers maintained by the dowsers concerned (ie that they could be found outside of karst country) was wrong.
5/ In the context of the same report, Randi famously said that the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is not supported by geological research.
You seriously think, in the context of of points 1/-4/ above, that Randi’s statement at 5/ was so inaccurate that he is discredited in any real fashion?
On the contrary, YOU, princhester, and Miller too, have posted links proving that Randi extends ‘underground river’ to cover other types of underground water. Remember, Princhester, that you referred to this website http://www.spiritofchange.org/fa091001e.shtml as an example of what Randi meant by ‘the notion of underground river.’ If as you claim Randi really considers fractures in the rock to be the same as underground rivers (which is wrong) there COULD be underground rivers (by Randi’s reckoning) under Sydney.
All you’re doing is blaming the dowsers for Randi’s mistakes.
And you haven’t commented on Randi’s geological errors, attested to by expert geologists.
And you are familiar with the current theory? You beleive that it supports free flowing underground streams/rivers?
[QUTOE]
Secondly, the article refers specifically to ONE location, it does not extend that to ALL underground rivers. It says that it might apply to other states in the southeast, butnot beyond there.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it is an object lesson. THis area may be different, but others still fail to support your allegation of ‘underground rivers’.
“Feeds through tiny pores” <> “Flowing water”. Your comparing a stream or creek with the equivelant of a saturated sponge. Hundreds of hydrologists have run dye tests to show that your asertion simply is not true.
What you are claiming is that if fill a bucket with water. Punch a hole below the a water line, and then add water with a hose from the top of the bucket. Ytou are claiming that the convenction of the water in the bucket is the equivelant of the hose spray. The water in fact does not move in the manner you desire. Randi’s comment about there being no freeflowing water besides in caves stands.
So you have this unny definition of ‘priceless’. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I just did. You aren’t reading.
No you have not. You had some nitpicks, at best. Hardly serious flaws in the least.
You have a single scientist quibbling about mxing of two failed results, and that one had to be pointed out my me. Even that scientists foudn nothing wrong with the test itself. This is where you lie.
OK, you think you’ve got another scientist besides Clarke? Name him.With his proper criticism.
Sorry, we saw that sci.skeptic thread. Some folks thought it odd to mix the results, that’s about it. They all pretty much agreed that it was a failed test by the dowsers.
Actually, all we have done is quote him fully, instead snippets.
Maybe had you avoided the “gullible skeptics” line from your first post, you might have had a better reception, hypocrite.
In the Sydney tests, the dowsers claimed to find underground rivers. Underground rivers only occur in karst. Sydney is not karst. There were no underground rivers. The notion that the dowsers in question maintained to the effect that there were such rivers under the Sydney test area was wrong. Randi said that the notion of underground rivers maintained by dowsers was wrong. This statement was accurate, or at the very worst, accurate in the context in which it was given. It was not and is not ground for Randi’s vilification.
It’s that simple.
As to your geologists, I don’t have the time right now, but I may be able to get to them this evening. From reading the first few posts (which is all I’ve had time for so far) you are distorting what they say and the extent to which they support you grossly. Surprisingly enough.
But sadly for you, the article says FLOWS through tiny pores.
Not “feeds” but FLOWS.
You, dishonst Randi-lover that you are, change what it says to suit your obsession.
So you ignore the article that you posted yourself. The article says that water FLOWS through tiny pores. Read it.
Princhester
In the first place, the majority of dowsers said there was NO river there. You are taking the word of two dowsers and claiming they speak for all dowsers.
In the second place, outside of karst country, there are two other types of underground water flow, ie ancient river beds and fissures in the rock. You, Princhester, have said that Randi counts fissures in the rock as BEING underground rivers. He is wrong to do so, but you can’t blame the dowsers for HIS error.
Randi is wrong, again.
Miskatonic said :
Read the thread I posted on geology. You will see that geologists disagree with you.
-Several miles outside of town, where a friend of mine lives, is an old ex-gas-station. It was closed due to leaky underground tanks.
Since the station was closed, about two years ago, the “pool” of contaminated groundwater, according to the test wells, has moved approximately 800 feet. The substrate around there is predominantly gravel down to a considerable depth.
So by your standards, is groundwater flowing at approximately 400 feet per year considered a “river”?
Gadzooks. When it comes to being picky, you pull out all the stops, don’t you peter? We’ve gone from a simple comment by Randi, with a good general basis in fact (that’s what the geologist said peter) to a desperate last ditch battle over the difference between water “flowing” through or “feeding” through pores in rock.
No, I didn’t. My point was that given what two dowsers had claimed to find, and given that their claims were purest BS, Randi’s comment was justifiable.
But the dowsers said they found underground rivers and you said they only occurred in Karst country.
No I haven’t. This is a gross simplification and distortion, which, were it made by Randi, would cause you to label him a fraud and a liar.
You suggested that dowsers didn’t believe underground rivers were all over the place. I then posted four links to sites. Three of those sites don’t use the term fissure at all. They refer however to dowsers’ regular claims of finding “underground rivers” or underground streams.
One refers to veins, and one mostly refers to underground streams and rivers, but also refers to water flowing through fissures. However, they describe the water as flowing up from “mothers belly” (where it is created, they say, interestingly enough) and then hitting an impermeable layer where it flows outward in veins or fissures, in a spoke-like pattern.
You say above that there are four types of underground flow. Aquifers, karst, old river beds and fractured rock. Veins or fissures spreading out in a spoke-like pattern do not fit any of these.
I can only stand so much before their talk of ley lines and spontaneous creation of water before my head threatens to turn to mush, but of the sample of sites on dowsing that I saw:
1/ three referred to rivers and streams underground and certainly did not refer to those phenomena occurring only in karst country
2/ two referred to veins and fissures in a spoke-like pattern in a manner entirely unknown to geology
The inescapable conclusion is that the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is fiction, just as Randi says.
By the way, on a page published by the Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division of the Missouri DNR (presumably written by a geologist, or with their input, it is stated:
So we have yet another geological authority who says that dowsers have misguided ideas regarding underground rivers.
How much of this stuff is it going to take before you accept that Randi pretty much nailed it?
I really don’t understand why you think that is what I am doing. I am not blaming dowsers for anything. I am saying they claimed to find underground rivers in a place there was no underground river (and, according to you, could not be an underground river) and Randi commented on this.
You are now trying to wriggle out of this by saying that there could have been fractured rock. So what, fractured rock is not an underground river and neither I nor Randi have ever said that it is, despite your lies to the contrary.
You are happy to hear from geologists when they say something that holds out a glimmer of a thread of a smidgen of a possibility that a statement by Randi might contain an element of generalisation. When they 95% disagree with you, you just don’t want to know.
I’ve now had a chance to look through the geologists response to your posted questions.
Your questions were:
Can I start by saying that I see absolutely no reason to think that geologists have any particular ability at english comprehension. So why you would think that how they believe a particular sentence should be interpreted holds any particular weight I’m not sure. Secondly, they are not experts in what dowsers claim. Randi would know more about them than geologists, he makes a profession of testing their claims. Hell, just from reading a few websites I can see that many dowsers are far more kooky than the geologists you found seem to realise.
So we come to the first response. J.F Cornwall straight off says that:
So he disagrees with dowsers notions. He doesn’t really answer your second question, although he confirms that water wells will vary. Note that he says that while some wells have huge flows, others may have very little, but the point to note is that he still refers to them as wells, and if a dowser had found them, he would no doubt say that he had “hit”.
Then there are enormous hijacks about which US state has bigger caves, and how one measures porosity.
Then there is the comment from Mircea about Randi not wanting his sarcasm to go unnoticed (which is probably true) but Mircea does not say that Randi was wrong as such (is he suggesting that Randi was exaggerating? Possibly.)
Then Cornwall responds to your prodding by saying that dowsers do not necessarily believe in underground rivers. That may well be correct, although my above troll through a few websites suggests otherwise. And furthermore, all Randi was saying was that the notion of underground rivers maintained by dowsers is incorrect, not that every dowser has that notion.
Then we have “George” who, like you, chooses to ignore the words “notion that dowsers maintain” and treats Randi’s comment as being absolute. However, he once again confirms that underground rivers are common in karst but mostly very uncommon, so you have to conclude that if you put to him the evidence that I have provided as to dowsers notions of the ubiquitousness of underground rivers, he would confirm they are wrong, at least as regards 85% of the time (karst being 15%).
So he only agrees with you in terms of his interpretion of Randi’s words, in relation to which he’s not especially qualified, and like you, very much in the minority.
George then tells a series of anecdotes that don’t answer the 90% question.
And then we come to your interpretation of your responses, from which you would think that you had received a tonne of replies, all of them favourable.
Which is a typical exaggeration of a few ambiguous responses into what you would have us believe was some sort of chorus.
What you quote does not contradict Randi. Your quote confirms that some wells are bigger than others. Elsewhere (see above) the same guy confirms that 10 gpm would count as a well. So, if the dowser just guesses, and merely hits the 10 gpm spot, he still gets a well and claims he has ability. Just as Randi says.
This is just according to you. Despite your attempt to mislead us into thinking otherwise by inserting your own comments into your report of what the geologists said. The geologists you found did not say this.
This is another misleading comment, basically a lie. Quite simply, none of the geologists of the three (yes, folks, a whole three) put a figure on this percentage. One made a cryptic comment that Randi didn’t want his sarcasm to go unnoticed. That’s it. And you say that this means that Randi’s figure has no support. Actually, the geologists you found just don’t say, one way or the other.
Since Princhester has done a marvelous job of debunking Peter Morris’ claim that “geologists support me” I shall now tackle his claim that “mathematicians support me”.
The thread in question is located here. The original post is too long, but the first 4/5’s of it consist of Peter asking people to check his stats gathering in regards to the odds of scoring 22%. This is important, since there is nothing wrong with Peter’s math, but it doesn’t mean anything against Randi either.
Peter’s last paragraph is where he hopes to gain support:
It is notable that very few responded to this last paragraph. It is also notable that this post was x-posted between four newsgroups, and that not everyone that posts is going to be a mathematician.
First to reply is Herc, who confirms that Peter’s math is apprently correct. No great revelation. The thread continues from there but does cover Peter’s complaint.
Next we have a Mike, who says that Peter’s math is accurate. But does not comment on the mixing of the stats. Hardly agreement.
Netx we have a Bryan. Same story. Confirms the stats. Does not comment on Peter’s last paragraph. We see this as a pattern, Mathematicians are in fact agreeing with him, it just not over what he would have us beleive, namely that James Randi was and evil mean person for mixing the results.
Next we have another Peter, who finally gives an answer to PM’s critical last paragraph. Is he full of support for his fellow Peter? his reply is presummed with the phrase “Well, yes and no.” not exactly the resounding endorsement that Peter Morris would have us beleive. The thread spins away after that. Not much relevant to Peter’s complaint.
Some ways down we have a Richard. Richard supports Peter! Golly! Except it seems that Richard has already got it in for Randi, calling him a debunker, and there’s no indication of Richard’s qualifications. The replies to Richard’s comments spin to way-off target. Peter tries getting one of the tangets back on course, here Danny gets a little support from a guy named Danny, but not very strong support, and not over what Peter initially was dicsussing.
Next we have another Rich, who basicly isn’t terribly imrpessed with the odds of the event, but does say that Peter’s math. He does not comment on the all-important last paragraph.
Next, a Randy (not Randi) who adds comments, but does not say anything about Peter’s critical last paragraph.
Finally, a Matt. Who adds very little.
From this and a handful of comments, Peter concludes that “Mathematicians agree with me”. Its pretty dang weak as you can plainly see. Hardly the swelling of support that Peter claims is behind him.
The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, “We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail.” No details were given of these tests.
I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.
I am a sceptic and have believe that the Randi side-show is just a carnival type hustle. I am amazed at how many so called ‘skeptics’ hand money over to this guy! Don’t get me wrong, he’s good at filtering other hucksters out ( he’s been a carnival huckster himself ), but when it comes to proper science and unbiased and proper reportage, he just goes and blows it and makes us real skeptics look like idiots. Here’s an example from Dr Rupert Sheldrake:
"I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place “years ago” and were “informal”. They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: “I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so.”
Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: “Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.” This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape."