Peter Vs Randi

Aussie Thinker said:
My predictive powers are unbelievable…

I predicted Peter Morris would produce NOTHING of substance in regards to his claims against Randi…

Here we are 4 pages later and I am SPOT ON !
Click to expand...

Ummmm . .no . . .you predicted he wouldn't respond at all. So you were hopelessly wrong.
 
Peter Morris said:
So, Randi instructed them to "dowse the area for natural water " Then described their findings as "natural streams running underground "

I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...

You are being utterly obtuse. You said that Randi instructed the dowsers to look for underground streams. You are utterly unable to support that, but you have so much ego behind this whole thing you can't admit it, so you keep going on about an entirely different thing, namely what the dowsers subsequently found.

Randi made an error by calling them "natural streams" rather than paleochannels. I could let that pass.
Click to expand...

And so you should, given that you have no evidence at all that this was Randi's description. What he said was that the dowsers said that they found underground streams.

Do a google on dowse or dowsing and paleochannel. Now do a google on dowse or dowsing and underground stream or river. What you will find is that there is not a single dowsing site that even mentions paleochannels, and thousands that mention underground streams or rivers.

And yet when Randi says "dowsers reported finding underground streams" you immediately assume that is his description and his error, and not just accurate reportage of how the dowsers themselves described what they say they found. Why is that? Are you biased in some way? Possibly?

But Randi made a much bigger error when he denied that they exist at all. [/B]
Click to expand...

No, he said they exist in caves. But besides that, you yourself say that there's no such thing as underground streams.

So what's your point?

Peter Morris said:
If people see a claim on Randis page saying that water does not flow underground, well the average person is likely to believe him without question.
Click to expand...

If they saw a page saying that, they wouldn't be seeing any page that Randi has written. What he has denied, subject to one exception, is underground rivers and streams, in the context of dowsers claims. And I've given you several cites showing that dowsers do believe in some weird form of underground rivers and streams (which you've never commented on or denied, although you continue to assert that underground rivers and streams are Randi's idea, despite all evidence to the contrary).

And you accept that there's no such thing as underground rivers and streams of the type dowsers postulate.

So what's your point again?

And the bad arguments tend to crowd out the good ones. You Randi fans meet a dowser who claims that he can find water flowing underground. You wish to refute his claims, so you tell him - water does not flow underground except in caves. It's a dud argument that fails to change anyones mind, and if you read Randi you have no others.
Click to expand...

Firstly, if he says he can find water flowing underground, I'd have no complaint with that description, even if I based all my knowledge of underground water on what Randi says (which I don't). After all, Randi says water flows underground. He says it in the quotes in your OP for goodness sake.

If the dowser said he could find weirdass underground streams and rivers (of the type dowser do in fact claim to be able to find) I'd tell him there was no such thing, according to Randi. And I'd be right.

Secondly, your whole above point is predicated on the notion that sceptics understand Randi to mean what you misundertand Randi to mean. No one, no one except you Peter, misunderstands Randi in the way you do. Ponder that for a moment and think what that might mean.

Peter Morris said:
The fact that this is the biggest objection that you can find shows the sheer desperation of your position.
Click to expand...


It's not the biggest objection. Its just that you ignore any big objections, because you can't deal with them.

You accuse me of a minor misquote, that nobody with any sense would object to.
Click to expand...

Minor misquote? Earlier, you were seeking to suggest that the idea that dowsers believe in underground rivers and streams was merely Randi's own overlay or construct. And in support of that tosh, you said that he "instructed" them to check for underground streams in a dowsing test, as if he were imposing his beliefs and terminology upon them. If that were true, it would strongly support your argument. It is not true. Randi never said that. If this error on your part was minor in the first place due to a memory lapse, then fair enough, we all make mistakes. But then you continued to assert that you were not in error even when shown the facts over and again. Minor misquote my arse.

Major and sustained attempt to lie and mislead to shore up your sagging argument, more like.

Randi said : go look for underground water .... they found some underground streams. Underground streams dont exist.

Peter quotes Randi as saying : go look for underground streams. Underground strreams don't exist.

Desperate Randi fanatics scream that this is a 'lie' and that it outweighs Randi's scientific blunder claiming that underground streams don't exist.
Click to expand...

They don't exist. You said so yourself. And I asked you several times whether your error was a mistake or a lie and you refused to answer and continued to defend the indefensible. So if your first error was just a mistake, your defense of that error and continued claim that your error was the truth even after you'd undoubtedly checked the sources can only have been a deliberate lie. If the cap fits, wear it.
 
Aussie Thinker said:
My predictive powers are unbelievable…

I predicted Peter Morris would produce NOTHING of substance in regards to his claims against Randi…

Here we are 4 pages later and I am SPOT ON !
Click to expand...
Inane Ian fails again.
 
Peter Morris said:
It comes a little later in Randi's description.
Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But—and it’s a very big "but"—they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed, and thus also disagreed with all the others who said there were no streams! Besides, the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.
Click to expand...
So, Randi instructed them to "dowse the area for natural water " Then described their findings as "natural streams running underground "

I stand by what I said. Randi made an error by calling them "natural streams" rather than paleochannels. I could let that pass. But Randi made a much bigger error when he denied that they exist at all.
Click to expand...
I have highlighted your first issue in red for you. The way it is written, clearly Randi says that it was the dowsers who used the term "natural streams running underground". It seems rather clear to a rational person that Randi did not invent this term; that he was merely reporting what geological phenomenon the dowsers claimed they discovered.

I have then highlighted your second issue in blue. I partially agree with you: as a general statement about geology as a subject, Randi is incorrect. However, at that particular location, what Randi said is actually quite true. His statement is somewhat ambiguous as to which situation he is referring to, although I suspect the former.

However, in regard to the testing procedure for dowsers, both then and today, these statements and this nitpicking make not one whit of difference at all. Nor do they negate any of the results obtained. Nor do they automatically negate or correct anything else that Randi has said or done of import. As others here have previously said of this, so what?

Frankly, that you would even bother to (poorly) nitpick that Randi did not clearly write a comment in a news report precisely as a professional geologist might have done in a PhD thesis indicates your paucity of argument, and also your personal bias. Would that some current reporters were as accurate and fair with their "facts" these days as Randi is!
 
Zep, I have to disagree with you about the sentence in blue. Read it more carefully. It says, in relevant part:

"the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction" [my emphasis]

The notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is (and I have provided cites ad nauseum on this) completely whacko. They talk of domes of water spontaneously created below ground and of underground rivers flowing out like spokes of a wheel. They talk of free flowing underground streams (not just in Karst areas) with sharply delineated edges crossing over one another.

Total fiction, not a whit of geological support.

Peter's basic error is to take Randi's comments about the non-existence of underground rivers and streams every one of which is given in the context of what dowsers maintain and not as a stand alone geology lecture out of context.

In context it is clear that Randi is denying the existence of the type of underground river and streams that dowsers believe in.

And Peter himself denies the existence of those, so where's the problem?
 
princhester said:
Zep, I have to disagree with you about the sentence in blue. Read it more carefully. It says, in relevant part:

"the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction" [my emphasis]

The notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is (and I have provided cites ad nauseum on this) completely whacko. They talk of domes of water spontaneously created below ground and of underground rivers flowing out like spokes of a wheel. They talk of free flowing underground streams (not just in Karst areas) with sharply delineated edges crossing over one another.

Total fiction, not a whit of geological support.

Peter's basic error is to take Randi's comments about the non-existence of underground rivers and streams every one of which is given in the context of what dowsers maintain and not as a stand alone geology lecture out of context.

In context it is clear that Randi is denying the existence of the type of underground river and streams that dowsers believe in.

And Peter himself denies the existence of those, so where's the problem?
Click to expand...
On review of the wording, that's a good point you make. And I never had a problem with it anyway, as I noted.

If this type of thing is all that Morris has to sustain his arguments against Randi then I maintain that these word-games do not amount to a pinch of possum's poop in the big scheme of things. It's teeny tiny wording nitpicks is all. This particular point, for example, is something that, if Randi were publishing a dissertation or treatise, I would suspect might perhaps require a very slight clarification.

Otherwise, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can see what a crock Morris has created... :s2:
 
He's been posting the same refutable garbage in a few places for at least a year. I'd almost hazard to say he's religious about it...:D
 
princhester said:
The notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is (and I have provided cites ad nauseum on this) completely whacko. They talk of domes of water spontaneously created below ground and of underground rivers flowing out like spokes of a wheel. They talk of free flowing underground streams (not just in Karst areas) with sharply delineated edges crossing over one another.
Click to expand...

Okay, Princhester, lets see you produce a cite for that then. Which dowser has talked of underground streams crossing over each other.

In order to support your claim you must show:

1) The dowser described it as an "underground stream" or "river" , rather than a spring, a paleochannel or a dome.

2) The dowser claims the stream or river has "sharply delineated edges"

3) The dowser describes underground streams "crossing over one another" or indicates such on a map. Indicating two streams in different places does not count, there must be specific indication that they "cross over."


I know you will have no trouble finding such a quote. After all, you attack me and claim I misquote Randi, so I'm sure you are being careful to quote the dowsers extremely accurately. And of course, given that you have provided "cites ad nauseam" to support your claims, you should be able to produce it right away.


Note - I'm sure this ISN'T a misquote of the Australia article. One of the dowsers said there was a stream in one place, another dowser said there was a stream in a different place, and everyone else said there was no stream at all. I'm sure you have read and understood it properly, and realise that none of the dowsers thought there was two streams there. But then I'm sure you knew that anyway, clever man that you are.


Since you attack me for misquoting Randi, I'm sure your quotes are true and exact. I'm sure you will reply with a cite right away.

tick tick tick......
 
Peter Morris said:


Okay, Princhester, lets see you produce a cite for that then. Which dowser has talked of underground streams crossing over each other.

In order to support your claim you must show:

1) The dowser described it as an "underground stream" or "river" , rather than a spring, a paleochannel or a dome.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend:

http://www.geo.org/dowse1.htm
"...M. Louis Merle and Reginald Allender Smith in the 1930s. Both these men were dowsers, or diviners of water; they could locate underground streams and springs..."

http://www.britishdowsers.org/about_dowsing.html
"Whilst most people have some idea of water lying underground as a water table dowsers are also able to pinpoint water lying in underground streams..."

http://www.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
"To discover the depth of a water stream underground some dowsers use a long rod, made of either iron or a fresh cut poplar pole."
2) The dowser claims the stream or river has "sharply delineated edges"
Click to expand...


http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/dowsing/d02a.htm
...A dowser we watched explained this as the edge of the stream, and he continued from that point to the deepest water flow. In this case the stream was about twelve feet wide, tapering to nothing at the edges and quite deep in the center and 85 feet deep into bluish granite.

3) The dowser describes underground streams "crossing over one another" or indicates such on a map. Indicating two streams in different places does not count, there must be specific indication that they "cross over."
Click to expand...


http://www.geo.org/dowse1.htm
"...Merle established that ancient monuments were situated over the crossing of underground streams. "

http://www.britishdowsers.org/EEG_site/articles/awb1999_issue_15/stephBolton1_clean.htm
"If we look at Drombeg, you will see the energy pattern of a major ancient sacred site. First, you can see four underground streams crossing (diagram 1,)."

I know you will have no trouble finding such a quote. After all, you attack me and claim I misquote Randi, so I'm sure you are being careful to quote the dowsers extremely accurately. And of course, given that you have provided "cites ad nauseam" to support your claims, you should be able to produce it right away.


Note - I'm sure this ISN'T a misquote of the Australia article. One of the dowsers said there was a stream in one place, another dowser said there was a stream in a different place, and everyone else said there was no stream at all. I'm sure you have read and understood it properly, and realise that none of the dowsers thought there was two streams there. But then I'm sure you knew that anyway, clever man that you are.
Click to expand...


Here's the quote from the Australian Sceptics site:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm
Only two dowsers said there were natural streams running underground in the area and both agreed these would not interfere with the tests. But, and it’s a very big "but", they also disagreed with one another about where these streams flowed"

Note the plural of streams, indicating that two dowser said there were streams and could not agree where these streams flowed.

Since you attack me for misquoting Randi, I'm sure your quotes are true and exact. I'm sure you will reply with a cite right away.

tick tick tick......
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite that contradicts the Australian Sceptics' summary of the dowser's statements?
 
I never said I was quoting exactly. The sentence you quote is a conflation of comments that can be found on these three pages and on the pages I linked to a few pages back which I won't bother linking to again because I know that you take other people's posts seriously and will already have looked at them.

http://waltonfeed.com/old/dowse.html

http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/Divining.html

http://www.alexklouda.com/gs.htm

I see on preview that EHocking has done much of my work for me.
Peter you really ought to get more familiar with the way out claims that dowsers do actually make. If you did so, you would realise just how accurate Randi's statements taken in context actually are.

I notice you haven't responded to the bulk of most of my last few posts.
 
EHocking said:

Did you read the articles at the links?

What do you define as "true dowsers"?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion - I'd consider them true dowsers but I had a premonition that at least one other poster wont.
 
Peter Morris said:
Okay, Princhester, lets see you produce a cite for that then. Which dowser has talked of underground streams crossing over each other.

In order to support your claim you must show:

1) The dowser described it as an "underground stream" or "river" , rather than a spring, a paleochannel or a dome.

2) The dowser claims the stream or river has "sharply delineated edges"

3) The dowser describes underground streams "crossing over one another" or indicates such on a map. Indicating two streams in different places does not count, there must be specific indication that they "cross over."
Click to expand...
My slowness makes this redundant to EHocking's cites... (Now I notice that Princhester has already responded too), but what the heck, it's doubtful Mr. Morris will read any of them anyway.

Here's a guy discussing a bit of dowsing history who makes a claim quite similar to the one you demanded, Peter. Although you may argue that he does not say outright, "sharply delineated edges", He does lay them out exactly North/South etc. <blockquote> Very little is mentioned of dowsing by ancient scribes and historians as this art was a well kept secret of the Temple priests. The Egyptian Queen, Cleopatra, had at least two dowsers with her at all times, not looking for water but for gold. Druids no doubt dowsed for the correct site for Stonehenge and personally I have found underground water streams crossing exactly North South, - East West at the centre of nearby Woodhenge.</blockquote>
 

Darat said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EHocking

Did you read the articles at the links?

What do you define as "true dowsers"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the confusion - I'd consider them true dowsers but I had a premonition that at least one other poster wont.
Click to expand...
That's OK - I replied in haste, checked your other postings, thought about adding a smiley (which I generally despise) then thought better of it (twice).

Having had this discussion on usenet, I have little reason doubt your conclusions.
 
Peter Morris said:


No I did not.

I have no objection to semantic errors.

When, for instance, Randi said that we should have the same Y-chromosome, that is a FACTUAL error. Its not a case of mistakenly using the wrong word.

An obsessive Randi fan tries to justify Randis statement by claiming that "same" means "almost the same" I reject that interpretation. If Randi had merely used the wrong word, I would ignore that.



Go read my original post. I made it quite clear that the common ancestor lived much longer ago than Noah.

I was mistaken in my statement of quite how long ago. I stated that he lived several million years ago, which I see now was a bit of an overestimate.
Click to expand...
All I wanted was some tea (Earl Grey, hot), but how can I get that with this tempest in here?

Geez, boiled down to it the guy said (not Randi, but Randi agreed) that genetics shows that we do not have some dude with a boat from 4000 years ago as a common ancestor. Everyone in this thread seems to agree with that. Where is the controversy? Why all the semantic arguing - and that is all it is?
 
princhester said:
I never said I was quoting exactly. The sentence you quote is a conflation of comments that can be found on these three pages and on the pages I linked to a few pages back which I won't bother linking to again because I know that you take other people's posts seriously and will already have looked at them.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, its acceptable for you to do this, but not me.

You are allowed to take "underground streams" from one article, "sharply delineated edges" from a different dowser, and "crossing over one another" ifrom someone else again, then run all three of them togrther into a statement of 'what dowsers belive' Each dowser you quote has only made half that statement, yet you feel entitled to run them together into a version of 'what dowsers think.'

So, its acceptable for you to "not quote exactly" but you throw a tantrum when I do the exact same thing?


Randi fans are a strange bunch.
 
Peter Morris said:


So, in other words, its acceptable for you to do this, but not me.

You are allowed to take "underground streams" from one article, "sharply delineated edges" from a different dowser, and "crossing over one another" ifrom someone else again, then run all three of them togrther into a statement of 'what dowsers belive' Each dowser you quote has only made half that statement, yet you feel entitled to run them together into a version of 'what dowsers think.'

So, its acceptable for you to "not quote exactly" but you throw a tantrum when I do the exact same thing?


Randi fans are a strange bunch.
Click to expand...
Now you are playing at semantics after accusing others of the same sin. You asked for cites where dowsers stated claims about being able to differentiate underground streams precisely and especially those that crossed each other. These cites were provided and now you deny their claim.

Read the cites, more can be provided. They state the dowser's position you wished us to demonstrate to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom