Well, the Florsheim folks decided that after the flood of inquiries and complaints they received - due to the JREF comments, those of CSICOP, and of the American Physical Society's Dr. Bob Park, they'd better make a response. Reader Matt Fields of the University of Michigan wrote: "Interestingly, [Florsheim] took down all the hyperbolic copy on their web site after I wrote back to them, not sure whether it had anything to do with me." Though they still have not replied to my letters - one of which offers the million-dollar JREF prize! - they did issue this statement:

Florsheim Group Inc. acknowledges the debate regarding magnetic therapy within the scientific and medical communities. Numerous clinical studies document the efficacy of magnets, while other studies declare the opposite.

Florsheim did not invent magnetic insoles and has not conducted or commissioned any clinical trials on biomagnetics, nor do we position ourselves as experts in magnetic therapy. Our only purpose is to provide a selection of fine quality footwear, several styles of which also incorporate magnetic insoles, in response to increasing demand from consumers who believe they benefit from this technology.

Hold on. Those "consumers who believe they benefit from this technology" are at least partly made into believers as a result of this Florsheim promotion! The company name is so powerful, such a household brand name, that no consumer should be expected to doubt a claim that issues from them. And note that Florsheim "has not conducted or commissioned any clinical trials on biomagnetics," yet they issued the very strong "scientific" statements to their consumers. Surely they had an obligation to research this matter?

The statement came from Mr. Bill Wirz, Florsheim's Manager of e-Commerce. Why he was chosen to respond, I cannot imagine. The displays at the Florsheim store outlets are extensive and well-attended, though we cannot discover what fraction of MagneForce sales take place on the e-market. Mr. Wirz can be reached at: bill.wirz@florsheim.com. You may wish to contact him with your own input . . .

I've not even mentioned here that the Dr. Scholl company, who make all sorts of foot-related devices from corn plasters to insoles, came out months ago with a "therapeutic" insole that touted the same virtues that Florsheim now claims, and with the same degree of authority. In Mr. Wirz's statement, that reference to "magnetic insoles" just might be a slick way of blaming good old Dr. Scholl . . . ?

Incidentally, a few folks asked about my use of [sic] following the word, "earth." Referring to the planet, it's Earth, not earth. The Earth has a surface partially consisting of earth.

I frequently mention the correspondence that I carry on via e-mail, and though most of it consists of brief references or responses, some of it gets to be rather involved. I'll share some of that with you here, so that you may have a brief taste of my personal involvement with correspondents.

Last week, a gentleman who will be un-named here, took me to task for my statements concerning dowsing. In the excerpts that follow, you'll begin to understand how difficult it is for me to bring people to an understanding of the JREF and of my personal philosophies. We'll begin with part of "Bill's" salvo. My responses will follow, in order, as they did in the original correspondence.

. . . Randi, who is to say that it is not the device, but the person that detects what ever he or she is detecting, that the dowsing rod or pendulum is just a tool for visualization of the tremors with in us. . . . I say if you have the slightest disbelief you will fail. You are so strong in your belief that this is fraudulent and hence no matter what people give you as proof or what they have experienced with it, you will not believe, and that is OK, it is your belief in something that gives it power, and the more people that believe in that one thing the more miracles you will have. So you see there may never be a scientific reason why something works, it just does because people believe it will work, and the more you fight it the less you will see of it in your life. So no one will ever get the million dollar bet, because you will never believe. You will always find what you are looking for. If you look for problems, even if there are none as of yet, you will find them, because you subconsciously manifest them in your search. And if you look for nothing but good you will find it because you will manifest it. So you are part of the equation of if dowsing will work or not in your research.

You misunderstand. We test the dowsers. They fail. It has nothing to do with what I'm looking for, or not looking for. They simply cannot do it, ever. That's not just a favored belief, it's a fact that I've witnessed after thousands of tests. I'm only looking for the facts. The fact is that the dowsers can't do it. In most cases, I'm not even in the same country where they're tested, so my attitude can have nothing to do with the results. What don't you understand?

It is not that I do not understand, it is the way you present your case on the net, it sounds like you have no faith or belief in dowsing or other unknown forces. But Randi, how do you account for their success at dowsing in general, I mean, they seem to have a strong track record throughout history. [Lots of tech stuff in here, theories on how dowsing works, snipped.] I do believe your testing may not have found anyone that can dowse, but does it mean it cannot be done period.

I have zero faith in dowsing. Every time it has been tested, it has failed! Every time! No exceptions! If I wait by my chimney for 60 years every Xmas Eve, and no guy in a red suit comes down it, I can safely say that I have no evidence - and thus no faith - in Santa Claus, regardless of the thousands of stories told by others.

" . . . or other unknown forces."

Forces of which nothing is known? "Unknown"? Right again! NO EVIDENCE EXISTS! Isn't that an EXCELLENT reason for having no faith in them? Same applies to the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny!

"Randi, how do you account for their success at dowsing in general . . . "

Bill, THEY ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL! They FAIL all the time!

"I mean, they seem to have a strong track record throughout history."

No. They have a strong background of anecdotal history - NOT factual history. There is NO track record for dowsing, just stories. Why do you choose to believe that it works? We have a million-dollar prize for a successful demonstration, and we have tested it hundreds of times. IT ALWAYS FAILS.

". . . if the human mind can think it, it can be done"

Okay. I think I can jump to the Moon on a pogo stick. This opinion you express is just so incredible! I can't imagine how a person who can tie his own shoes, can also hold such an opinion!

. . . because something is unknown to us does not mean it do's [sic] not exist, and as far as the tooth fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Clause, [sic] I never brought up, we are talking about force, or energy or frequency, not imaginary creatures. I am talking about not having the proper resources for testing so called unknown forces or energies or frequencies or even realities and dimensions. Just because we do not have the equipment to test these forces, we have no basis to assume that they do not exist, and until we completely exhaust the human imagination of every concealable [sic] combination, we cannot say that it cannot be done or that it do's [sic] not exist. We do not know.

I cannot say you must believe, that is not my place, but I say have an open mind. To go into an experiment thinking that something do's [sic] not exist until I find it or prove it is a wrong way of experimentation. Going in believing in what you are looking for and testing for it, searching for it, is the right way of doing it, and if you do not find it, that is ok, then it do's [sic] not exist for you, but it still do's [sic] not mean that it do's [sic] not exist. Because you are only one person testing, someone else may come along with a different way of looking and find what you were looking for.

Why do you choose to believe that it works? We have a million-dollar prize for a successful demonstration, and we have tested it hundreds of times. IT ALWAYS FAILS.

This may very well be the case, it fails, fine, I do not doubt you. It is not that I choose to believe in dowsing, I just do not dismiss it because no one can find that perfect medium needed to do it. So it do's [sic] not work for you. But I choose to experiment and learn by my mistakes, it never hurts to experiment, it hurts not experimenting. And if I find that I cannot do it, fine, then it do's [sic] not work for me. How many times did Edison try with the Light Bulb? Did he go in thinking it could not be done? I don't think so.

Okay. I think I can jump to the Moon on a pogo stick. This opinion you express is just so incredible! I can't imagine how a person who can tie his own shoes, can also hold such an opinion!

No you may not be able to fly, or to go to the moon, some people today still believe that no one has gone to the moon because they think that it is impossible. No matter how many times it has been proven to them. And how many times have people tried to fly and failed, but then the Wright Brothers come along and fly. People thought that you could not see the bones in a persons [sic] body without cutting them open somehow, but then X-rays. So all through history there have been Randi's [sic] out there being skeptical because he or she cannot prove something and then say that it cannot be done. But then someone comes by and proves them wrong. I may never ever find a device to dowse with, I may never find out how to travel through time and space at super luminal [sic] velocities, but it do's [sic] not mean that it cannot be done.

Bill, you state that ". . . we have no basis to assume that they [the forces] do not exist." I agree. I have never "assumed" they don't exist. I also never "assumed" that 2-headed giraffes don't exist, somewhere. I simply do not find any evidence whatsoever that they do, so I don't believe there are any. If someone were to claim that one exists, I would ask for good evidence that it does. If the evidence is not produced, I'm back where I started, and I still don't believe it. Is that not clear? I don't "assume." I come to a conclusion, based upon EVIDENCE and examination, but ALWAYS subject to revision upon the presentation of better or more complete data.

As for your belief in "powers" or "forces," just substitute those words for "2-headed giraffes," above.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF. NONE. Yet you choose to believe, regardless. This is called blind faith, and the same element has led to pogroms, holocausts, genocide, and massacres of all sorts, based upon unfounded notions of divine forces or powers that grant superiority or promise rewards. That devotion to blind faith is your privilege, of course. But the fact that you also vote, frightens me.

Your poor thinking process shows clearly when you amplify my "pogo stick" into a space rocket. If you really believe that a space rocket IS a pogo stick, we must abandon dialogue. I said, "pogo stick." I did NOT say, "rocket." Arithmetic is NOT mathematics. It is a basic branch of mathematics. A pogo stick is NOT a space vehicle. It is a very minor means of transportation. You cannot calculate a ballistic trajectory with arithmetic. With algebra and calculus, you can. You cannot jump to the Moon on a pogo stick. With a rocket, you can. No amount of wishful thinking or "visualization" or "wanting" can get you to the Moon on a pogo stick. That's a FACT, one of those dreadful realities that you seem to desperately wish to avoid.

You wrote, "To go into an experiment thinking that something do's [sic] not exist until I find it or prove it is a wrong way of experimentation." Absolutely. If you know anyone who takes this attitude, you know someone who is not logical or rational. And if you mean that I have that attitude, PLEASE stop inventing my opinions and my philosophy for me. Any experiment I design sets out to discover WHETHER OR NOT a claim is valid, and I will, and must, abide by the results. And I do. Those who are being tested, NEVER do. Dowsers, when they fail, invariably do two things: first, they find a reason for their failure that never allows for the possibility that dowsing does not work, or that they could not do it; and second, they avow that they will never again be involved in a test of their claim.

I'll re-phrase your statement: "To go into an experiment thinking that something exists until I disprove it, is a wrong way of experimentation." Yet that is EXACTLY what you propose. The real experimenter goes into the matter NOT KNOWING and NOT CONVINCED about the outcome, prepared to accept the result. You already "know" that the powers and forces are there, because you've chosen to believe that they are. I don't know, and I look at the evidence to find out.

Einstein said it: "No amount of experimentation will ever prove me right, but ONE experiment can prove me wrong." That one experiment has never been produced. The one experiment that proves me wrong in my belief that psychic/supernatural/occult powers or forces do not exist, has not emerged in the hundreds already done. Until that is produced, I'm justified in my belief, and the JREF holds onto the million dollars . . .    But I'm prepared to be shown wrong, as Einstein was. Are you?

........................................

At this point, "Bill" wrote me as follows:

I have a question, in your search for dowsers to prove themselves, have they used electronic devices as a dowsing machine. I do know that the military uses a long range sensing machine, and works like a dowsing rod, it has a single antenna, and it picks up sympathetic signals of what ever they are looking for, usually Iron, for land mines. Maybe the word dowsing is the wrong term for this device, I do not know. It works basically like a tuning fork, when you bring it close to something that is like it, as in the same frequency, it vibrates at the same rate and hence can be detected by modern electronics. Would this be classified as a dowsing rod, or a different kind of metal detector, except this detector can pick up a lot more things than just metal.

Here "Bill" is referring to the popularized accounts of the "Quadro Locator" and the "DKL LifeGuard" devices, both of them simply dowsing rods decorated with hi-tech phrases and gobbledygook. The Quadro people were put out of business by the FBI - with the help and encouragement of the JREF - but it appears that the DKL people have more money and connections, and they're still in business. This, in spite of the fact that Sandia Labs in New Mexico did a definitive double-blind set of tests that showed the LifeGuard to be useless - except as a means of making lots of money for the DKL people.
........................................

There, to date, the discussion sits. Now you will perhaps understand better just what I go through trying to put my points across. "Bill" is an apparently intelligent person who just desperately wants a supernatural world to exist. Too bad. It's a waste of a promising life, in my opinion.

I remain ready to be shown otherwise.

Last week's puzzle was apparently pretty easy. Dozens of correct answers came in. Hmm. Can't have that! Yes, the answer is - in my 19 words that I promised: Any two adjoining squares are opposite colors. There are not an equal number of black and white pairs usable.

Hey, did you just count those words? Good! Skeptical is good!

........................................

While we have a chessboard in front of us, and with apologies to those of you who don't play chess, I'll set this problem up for you:

Yes, Black makes one move to checkmate-- and there's NO QUEEN involved! There's a rule in chess which Hoyle mis-states, as does Webster's dictionary. The Encyclopædia Britannica has it right. In this layout, there's no trick. White is from your point of view, as traditionally. Black is seated across from you and makes one move, and you (White) are checkmated. But good. That is, if Black takes advantage of the four little words that Hoyle and Webster left out of their description of this chess maneuver, which is seldom used in its accepted form, anyway. Answer next week....

[The chessboard was INCORRECT on Monday! Very sorry! It has been corrected now. (8/22/00, 9:30am)]