Latest News
Randi agrees that non-paranormal claims can win the prize.
3rd Nov. 2006 |
|
What Randi Says
This section considers the things James Randi has been saying about my claims for twenty five years, showing that he considers them paranormal, even if I don't.
Here are the four claims I make.
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.
I do not think there is anything strange about these claims. James Randi does, however, and has often mocked those that believe in them. Here is a sample of the attacks he has made :
- All Wet? Dowsers search for water, respect for their ancient art.
Jerry Fink,
Las Vegas Sun,
May 29 2001.
- A report from The Paranormal Trenches
James Randi
Lecture delivered at Caltech
April 12 1992
- Australian Skeptics Divining Test,
James Randi, The Skeptic, Volume 2 no.1
- Divining Mom
Film reviewed by Alan Maurer, 2003
- James Randi: Modern Dowsing, (PDF document)
Helen E. Hesser-Ossa, Skeptical Eye
Vol 15 No 1, 2003
- Dowsing Delusions
James Randi, Swift, August 4 2006
Some sample quotes from the above articles illustrate how much Mr Randi disagrees with the Applicant’s claims.
- << I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because theyonly have a six percent chance of success. >>
- << To that, Randi says, ‘Find me a dry spot,’ because, as he points out, it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough. >>
- << Ninety percent of the surface of the earth has water within drillable distance, so I would like someone to find me that DRY spot.>>
- << 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.>>
- << Though diviners will continue to be hired by believers in such powers, and wells will be dug with great precision on spots located by forked-stick folks, these water supplies will not prove that dowsing works. They will only prove that there is a great deal of water down under the earth, and we do not need silly folks wiggling sticks to tell us that. >>
- << There are no streams of water flowing underground. 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. >
- << Besides, the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.>>
- << 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. >>
I think we can safely say that Randi does not believe that underground rivers exist, or that water flows through the ground. But I have previously attempted to correspond with him to point out his errors. I was hoping for a civilized discussion with a reasonable person. The actual response I received was hostile and dismissive to say the least.
Originally, I sent him a message by email, explaining that I think that his comments on geology were mistaken. I was hoping that he might discuss the matter, and maybe post an apology for his error. Instead, I got the reply "Just what IS your problem? I’ve no time for semantic games. I’m busy. If you want to pursue someone just to aggravate them, go after one of the dowsers! Please! " and a general unwillingness
to discuss the matter.
Some time after that, I discussed the same issues with him on the JREF message boards.
25th May 2004
I made some comments in the JREF Forum about Randi's frequent inaccuracy.
An hour later
James Randi himself made a rare appearence in his own forum and challenged me to provide examples of his errors. Randi promised to respond to each of the examples I presented, and should he fail to do so then his authority would be undermined.
28th May 2004
I presented an essay listing several of Mr Randi's scientific errors.
Later the same day
Randi responded to my list of his errors, dismissing them as "canards taken from the extensive attacks of the grubbies."
3rd June 2004
James Randi returned with a partial response to my essay. He addressed one point only, leaving four fiths of my examples unanswered. He totally dismissed any suggestion that he had been mistaken, and saw no reason to alter his "arguments and criticisms of the woo-woo world in any substantial fashion"
He never did respond to the other four points I made. 80% of my essay went unanswered, thus by Randi's own admission his authority is undermined.
And there you have it. James Randi says that my claims are "delusions," and has utterly rejected the suggestion that he might be mistaken. And he has carried on stating the same old canards. Thus, by his standards, my claim is "pseudoscience" and therefore a legitimate subject for the challenge. If he had discussed the matter with me civally, on either occasion that I stated my belief in his errors, I would not be making this application now. Instead, he chose to ignore it. So, really, he only has himself to blame.
|
