Latest News
Randi agrees that non-paranormal claims can win the prize.
3rd Nov. 2006 |
|
Latest News
01) James Randi agrees: non-paranormal claims can win the prize.
Negotiations havew begun. James Randi has acknowledged receipt of mt application. He was initially reluctant to accept it, on the grounds that "it's not paranormal" Of course, I never said it was.
A discussion followed, where we talked about the nature of the challenge. I reminded him that he describes it in his FAQ as a dare, issued to people that he does not believe. To win the prize, one has to accept the dare and prove Mr Randi wrong in his disbelief.
For example, the makers of the wine magnets say their product works through scientific means. James Randi does not believe their explainations, and has challengenged them to prove them true. I put a question to him: What if the product actually does work, through some scientific principle that is known to scientists, but outside the personal understanding of James Randi? In such a scenario, would they win the prize, given that they had not done anything paranormal? James Randi agreed that they would win.
I have put it to Mr Randi that my claim falls into exactly the same category as the wine magnets. If someone can win a million by proving Randi wrong about the wine magnets, then they can win a million by proving Randi wrong about underground water too.
Mr Randi is presumably considering his response. Certainly he has many other demands on his time, but will no doubt get around to it soon.
Peter Morris 3rd November 2006.
Date : 16 October 2006
From : James Randi
To: Peter Morris
Mr. Morris:
Your application has been received at this office. Twelve pages is rather longer that the two paragraphs we require, but sufficient information was contained that we can clearly see that you still do not understand the simple premise of the JREF challenge.
Three points: 1. Proving me wrong is not proving a paranormal claim; I am often wrong. 2. You state that “there is nothing paranormal about [your] claim”; it is thus ineligible. 3. My statement, “prove me wrong and win a million dollars” was made to a man who claimed that his device would age wine; you were not mentioned, nor were you in my mind at that moment, I assure you. Your application is thus rejected.
James Randi |
Date: 18-October-2006
From : Peter Morris
To: James Randi
Mr Randi,
I understand the premise of the JREF challenge perfectly well. I've read your FAQ, eg section 2.6 "It all comes down to the very nature of a challenge. It's not a contest; there are not two parties competing for the same prize. It's a challenge. It's someone who, as a result of extensive experience, doesn't believe you can do what you say you can do, daring you to do what you say you can do. It's a dare."
Well, Mr Randi, my claims are
1) underground channels exist, and some of them may be called rivers
2) water flows through various structures underground
3) that water is hard to find
4) Anyone drilling without a proper survey is likely to hit a dry spot Y
Your extensive experience means that you doubt my claims, and to dare me to prove them. "Find me a dry spot" you have demanded, so many times. I have merely decided to accept your challenge, and your dare.
Take what you said in Swift a few weeks ago. http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/080406move.html#i6
"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. "
e pur si muove, Randi.
If my claim is a delusion, as you think, then why not test it? According to your stated beliefs, I shall be unable to show an underground channel, or water flowing.
To answer your three points :
1) Yes, you are frequently wrong, and that is the point. You have put your money where your mouth is. If your mouth is wrong, then you lose your money.
2) Yes, I say that my claim isn't paranormal. So what? Penta Water, the Wine Clip and the Tice Clock all say that their claim isn't paranormal either. Are they inelligible for the prize?
3) "prove me wrong" has been the basic nature of your challenge since the start. Not in those precise words, but in terms that mean exactly the same thing. FAQ 2.6 means the same thing. |
Date: 19 October 2006
From: James Randi
To: Peter Morris
My original reply, applies. |
Date: 19 October 2006
From: Peter Morris
To: James Randi
Mr Randi, a simple question for you:
The makers of the wine clip claim their product works through NON-PARANORMAL means.
If they prove their claim to be true, will they win the million? Given that it's not paranormal
|
Date: 19-October-2006
From: James Randi
To: Peter Morris
If the wine clip worked, that would be paranormal, by definition – whether they think so, or not. Why do you have such a difficult time understanding such obvious matters…? |
Date: 19 October 2006
From: Peter Morris
To: James Randi
Is possible that you are simply mistaken about that? That it actually works by perfectly natural, non-paranormal methods that are known to expert scientists, but not known to James Randi.
So, I repeat my question. They say their product works through non-paranormal means. Suppose they step forward and PROVE that their product works, through means that aren't paranormal, but merely outside the knowledge of James Randi. In such a scenario, would they get the $1,000,000 prize?
After all, you think that underground channels are a "delusion" maybe it's just that you are equally misinformed about the effects of magnets on wine. |
Date: 19 October 2006
From: James Randi
To: Peter Morris
Yes, and yes. I’ve already handled all that. |
Date: 19 October 2006
From: Peter Morris
To James Randi
Good.Fine. Glad that we've got that sorted out.
You don't believe in magnets changing the taste of wine. You challenge believers to prove it. And if they can prove it true, (but not paranormal), then they can claim a million dollars. Right?
So, you ALSO don't believe in my claims. According to your articles, my claims are "a delusion" and "a fiction not supported at all by geological research" I say that my claims are true, but not paranormal. You of course don't believe they are true at all. If the wine clip is elligible, then so is my claim. |
| awaiting response ... |
|
