Latest News
Randi agrees that non-paranormal claims can win the prize.
3rd Nov. 2006 |
|
A "pseudoscientific"claim
I, Peter Morris, The Applicant, make the following statement:
Applicant does not have any magic powers to demonstrate. Applicant does not claim the ability to read minds, see the future, heal the sick, bend metal, talk to the dead, conjure spirits or dowse. Applicant particularly emphasizes that he cannot dowse. This is not a dowsing claim
Instead, this is a “pseudoscientific” claim: it falls into the same category of paranormal as the Plug-in Magnetizing Dispenser, Water Memory or the Tice Clock. Applicant has certain scientific theories that he is willing to demonstrate. James Randi does not believe those theories to be true.
Applicant declares that there is nothing supernatural or paranormal about his claim.
Applicant states that the claim is perfectly “normal” and already known to science. The only unusual thing about the claim is the fact that James Randi has repeatedly expressed disbelief, has called it a "delusion" and has issued a challenge to prove
it true.
A successful demonstration will not show any "paranormal" abilities. It will only
demonstrate that James Randi is mistaken in his disbelief. However, James Randi
describes his challenge as "prove me wrong and win a million dollars." (Swift,
June 9th, 2006) Applicant's only claimed ability is the power to prove Randi
wrong.
1. Brief statement of claim (in two paragraphs)
Every claim requires a two paragraph description. This is mine.Applicant will do the following:
- Applicant will make four statements about geology.
- Applicant will show various comments by James Randi, in which Mr Randi describes applicant’s statements as “fiction” and "delusion".
- Applicant will present data to a panel of suitably qualified geologists, which demonstrates the truth of applicant’s statements.
2. Success and failure defined
Success in the test shall be demonstrating any ONE or more of the applicant's statements to be correct. Failure shall be if all four of the applicant’s statements are proved wrong.
3. Applicant makes four statements
i) Some underground water exists in channels that run many metres under the surface.
There are several different types of channel, some of which can be correctly classified
as "underground rivers."
ii) Water flows underground through various different structures.
iii) Underground water is hard to find. Locating a suitable spot for a well requires
someone with an expert understanding of geology after making a detailed study of
the area. Random drilling by someone without proper expertise is highly likely to hit a dry spot.
iv) Water supply is extremely variable over a short distance. It is perfectly possible to locate a well that produces several hundred gallons per minute (GPM) while another
well just a few metres away can produce very little or nothing at all.
4. James Randi’s disagreement
Comments made by James Randi show that he disagrees with each of Applicant’s statements: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm
Applicant states that water flows along narrow underground channels.
James Randi says these are “sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.”
Applicant says that water supply is extremely variable over a short distance, and the exact spot for a well must be carefully selected.
James Randi mocks the idea of wells that are dug with “great precision” on exact spots.
Applicant states that underground water is hard to find, and dry areas are common.
James Randi states that “more than 90% of the world’s land mass [is] above reachable supplies of water,” and states that an ability to locate dry spots would be a “better test.”
These disagreements are the basis of the Applicant’s claim. The mere existence of these geological phenomena is paranormal, within Mr. Randi’s definition. In the 25 years since the article was written, James Randi has made similar comments many times. On numerous occasions he has issued the challenge to “find me a dry spot” or described belief in underground rivers
as a “delusion.”
5. Suggested test protocol
Applicant’s first and second claim is that water flows in narrow channels underground. James Randi disputes this and says that there are no underground streams and that water does not flow underground except in caves. To demonstrate his claim successfully, Applicant merely has to show ONE example of water naturally flowing underground, that isn’t in a cave.
Applicant’s third and fourth claim is that water is fairly rare and hard to find. James Randi disagrees and says that there is a great deal of water almost everywhere. Mr Randi himself has suggested an appropriate protocol to test this claim: “find me a dry spot.”
Applicant will therefore find dry spots for Mr Randi, under the following protocol:
Applicant will use a totally random selection process to select spots within the test area. James Randi has stated that there is a 6% chance* of hitting a dry spot. Applicant states that purely random selection will hit dry spots with a minimum 24% success rate. That is FOUR TIMES the rate Mr Randi expects. Applicant will select 200 spots at random, of which at least 48 will be dry.
* http://www.skepticfiles.org/skmag/randipt.htm
The area for the test will be a map of the continental United States of America,
excluding Hawaii, Alaska and outlying islands. Only locations without surface water will be in the test. Any spot which is a lake, river, pond, marsh, swamp, glacier or any other type of surface water feature will be excluded from the test area.
The randomization process will be as follows. A map of the test area will be divided into a grid of 10,000 squares. The squares will be numbered from 00000 to 99999. Applicant will generate 5-digit random numbers by means of a set of random number tables as in statistical research. These tables should be supplied by an independent
third party, and unseen by either the applicant or the JREF prior to the test. The spot selected will be at the exact centre of the square whose number matches the random number generated.
We can then consult existing geological surveys of the area to determine if each spot selected is “wet” or “dry.”
6. Definition of a dry spot
James Randi issued a challenge to “find me a dry spot.”
It is therefore necessary to define precisely what the term “dry spot” means.
Applicant has previously corresponded with Mr Randi attempting to establish what Mr Randi meant by “dry spot.” Mr Randi did offer a few comments including: “A dry spot would be a spot at which water is not to be found in a practical sense, in an area wherewater might otherwise be expected to be found.” That is therefore the definition we shall use
- Where there is water found in only minute quantities. A well that yields less than one half of a gallon per minute (0.5 GPM) would be insufficient for any domestic, industrial or agricultural purpose. If the yield is too small to be of any use, then it would not be water “in a practical sense.”
- Where there is a large amount of water, but tightly bound to the particles of the soil. If the water is tightly bound to the ground, and cannot be extracted, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”
- Where the water has been contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants, or has a too high mineral content, or is seawater. If a well produces seawater, or
toxic sludge that is too badly contaminated to be of any use, then it is not water “in a practical sense.”
- Where the water is underneath a deep layer of very solid rock. Drilling through this layer to reach the water would be very expensive, if not impossible. If watercannot be reached, or can only be reached at great expense, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”
|
