Randi's test

[Pete]

Moderator's note: I decided to bump this thread out of historical interest. The "proverandiwrong" website has long since dissappeared. I've no idea what happened to Pete Morris' challenge, but Randi still has his million.

I have decided to apply for the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. Go tell all your friends. Spread the word.

People making claims are challenged by James Randi to prove them. Some of the claims are mental powers, such as telepathy. But note that some of the claims are "pseudoscience" i.e. scientific theories that Randi does not believe. An example of this may be seen here where someone claims that a magnetic clip will change the flavour of a bottle of wine. Randi does not believe the theory as stated, and issues the challenge "prove me wrong and win a million dollars." The thus challenged person does not have to show a paranormal power, they have to prove the truth of their theory, and show that Randi is wrong in his disbelief.

My claim is in the same category as the wine clip. I don't claim any mental powers. It's a theory that Randi does not believe. I state that certain geological phenomena exist. Randi does not believe me, and calls me "delusional" for believing in them. In a recent column he said "This is the most pervasive of the delusions that dowsers have and promote endlessly, that there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped. There are large reservoirs of water there to be accessed, it's true, but they are certainly not “'flowing'; they're pretty well stationary." He has been making similar comments for at least 25 years.

My claim is a simple one. I say that water does in fact move underground (e pur si muove) and a few related things. James Randi does not believe my claims, he says that I am "delusional" for believing them, and has challenged me to demonstrate them. His comments and others like them put my claim into the same category of paranormal as the wine clip.

Note that I don't claim this is paranormal ... Randi does, though, and the fact that he thinks so makes my application legitimate. A successful demonstration will not prove that I have any magic powers, it will only prove that Randi is wrong. But under the terms of his challenge, that is enough.

You can follow the progress of my claim at http://www.proverandiwrong.net(link broken)

[Richard L. Farr]

Good luck in your efforts but really who cares if a fanatical jerk like Randi believes he is right or wrong?? He'll never pay off on any of his "challenges" any way, why bother to prove anything to this idiot, why spend a second of time on this fool?

[Ian Pegler]

This is the most pervasive of the delusions that dowsers have and promote endlessly, that there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped. There are large reservoirs of water there to be accessed, it's true, but they are certainly not flowing; they're pretty well stationary. They're often under some pressure due to the mass of impermeable material lying over them, thus when tapped into by drilling, the contents emerge vigorously and an artesian well has been established. The notion of an actual underground river connecting the 20-mile gap between the mainland of France and the island of Jersey, is simply ridiculous.

Randi seems to imply that dowsers don't know what an artesian flow is. He also seems to imply that for an artesian flow, the mass of the overlying impermeable material is responsible for the water coming up under pressure. This is, to use the technical argot, "complete and utter bollocks".

In actual fact the water is under pressure in an artesian flow because the water table is replenished at a higher elevation than the head of the well.

Here's the Wikipedia definition.

If he'd read George Applegate's "Complete Guide to Dowsing" he would have known that, so clearly we know more about artesian flows than him.

As pointed out by a Jersey resident in a subsequent edition of Private Eye, the distance between Normandy and Jersey at its closest point is 12 miles, not 20 (see this thread).

I find the timing of Pete's post most interesting. Randi is about to change the rules of the challenge so that in the not too distant future unsolicited applications (like Pete's) will not be allowed. All challenge applications are logged on their website, as are all e-mail communications between JREF and the applicant, but it only goes back as far as 2005.

Looking at the information on Pete's website it seems that you, Pete, have been communicating with Randi since 2004. But the application you reproduced on your website is not dated as far as I can see. When did you submit it?

P.S. Why on Earth would we "spread the word" about Randi's challenge?

Ian


Edited for spelling 9.11.06
Edited by I.P. 8.8.11 - removed spurious characters

[Pete]

P.S. Why on Earth would we "spread the word" about Randi's challenge?

Ian

spread the word that I'm applying, that I've got a valid and winnable claim in terms of his challenge. Let everyone see how he reacts.

If he tries to wriggle out of it, then show everyone what he does.

[Ian Pegler]

So when did you submit your application?

Have you successfully negotiated a test protocol with them?


Ian

[Pete]

Application submitted 11 September
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Applying.aspx (link broken)

Randi is trying to wriggle out of it already. Let's see what he does if my site gets some publicity.

Suggestion for publicity welcome.

[Ian Pegler]

Hi Pete

Reading your application on your website and your comments on the JREF forum you say that you are not making any claims for dowsing.

Fair enough, but in that case, what has any of this to do with us?

Even if you won the challenge it would not benefit dowsing or dowsers in any way. It would merely go some way towards proving one theory which some but not all dowsers care to espouse. Even then, it would probably do little to change the stance of the academic mainstream.

Ian

[Sig]

Pete

I would urge you in any way that I could to reconside taking on this stage magician and professional debunker of anything that does not fit in to his very limited paradigm of reality.

His history of "testing" of dowsers in the United States starting over two decades ago led the ASD to urge its members never to have anything to do with him.

While I do not choose to state why this is so here on this public forum, if you want to email me <sig@geomancy.org>, I will tell you why the Trustees of the American Society of Dowsers came to this decision.

Be VERY careful. As with any stage magician, all is not how it seems.

}:-)

Sig Lonegren

[Pete]

Hi Pete

Reading your application on your website and your comments on the JREF forum you say that you are not making any claims for dowsing.

Fair enough, but in that case, what has any of this to do with us?

1) I'm not a dowser, but I'm taking a challenge that he has issued to dowsers many times "find me a dry spot"

2) Just thought you might find it fun to watch the S+++ hit the fan

3) thought you might like to help spread the word. The more attention it gets, the harder it will be for Randi to explain away.

I would urge you in any way that I could to reconside taking on this stage magician and professional debunker of anything that does not fit in to his very limited paradigm of reality.

Indeed, I've seen the way Randi cheats, and my claim turns his own fraud against him. I think he's going to look foolish trying to debunk the existence of flowing water underground.

Still, I'll email you about it. All info will help.

[Ian Pegler]

Hi Pete

Reading your application on your website and your comments on the JREF forum you say that you are not making any claims for dowsing.

Fair enough, but in that case, what has any of this to do with us?

1) I'm not a dowser, but I'm taking a challenge that he has issued to dowsers many times "find me a dry spot"

2) Just thought you might find it fun to watch the S+++ hit the fan

3) thought you might like to help spread the word. The more attention it gets, the harder it will be for Randi to explain away.

I'm sure some skeptics may take pleasure in the humiliation of some dowser failing some so-called "scientific" test, but personally I don't take any pleasure in the humiliation(?) of some skeptic just because they make a schoolboy geology error, embarrassing though it is to read about.

Most people in this country haven't even heard of James Randi, or at least he's not very prominent in people's consciousness. There seems little point in drawing attention to the man just for the sake of a bit of point-scoring. Publicity is the very thing he craves.

Watching the S+++ hit the fan is best done from a distance.

Ian

[Ian Pegler]

Adam Hart Davis, Britain's best known TV scientist, wrote a response to a skeptic recently. The skeptic passed it on to Randi who put it up on his website. When it comes to respecting privacy of communications the skeptics are not too hot, however, seeing as it's already in the public domain, here it is:

The added emphasis is mine:

Dear Chris Oldman,

Thanks for your jaw-dropping letter.

I am no sort of believer in the paranormal, but I have seen too much dowsing success to dismiss it out of hand, and I have seen a sensible professor of engineering set up a successful investigative test.

Yes I do know about Randi's cheque, and I have also looked critically at the footage of a massive dowsing test he carried out in Australia. In that test he bamboozled the contestants with muddled statistics. They did indeed show a significant effect, but he managed to flannel his way out of it.

So I am not prepared to deny dowsing out of hand.

Adam Hart Davis has worked with Arthur C. Clarke and the late Magnus Pike (remember Magnus Pike?) and is married to the well known skeptic Susan Blackmore.

Ian


Edited by I.P. 8.8.11 - removed spurious characters, fixed link