Dowsing

[chycarne]

Nose Ma,
yup looks good, I think a hosepie would work, installed by 3rd party. Trouble is the results any success will spoil the no vote as you cant state catagorically that the experiment is statistically a failure or a success. Any success will only encourage the yes camp (me included) and this is where the experiemnt has its first hurdle. if i can walk and guess where the hose is as often as I can dowse it then either I am psychic or I can do both equally well. doubt isnt possible. so would we all be able to agree to doing 4 dowsing runs one particular day and then pool the results. however this then creates the stress part so do we do it in our own time and pool whatever happens. the problem is i am stuck. if the results leave room for doubt then the experiment can only show that some people are btter tuned than others. ... how can we break this down... i guess we then try the can do group with tougher experiments... hmmmm tiz interesting indeed thank you!

 

[Nose Ma]

Well look nose ma, just read your previous post aimed at me.

Please do not take it personally, I was addressing everyone, but using your post as a framework. I find it too complex to address several posts as one. I meant no offence, and I caused any, I apologise. Imagine us in the pub all chatting over it.

“I think the confusion comes with proof. You can define proof but it is not static.”

I agree with that – the only true proof is in mathematics.

“However the accuser is the dowsing sceptic claiming liar against the accused/dowser.”
Nope, sorry. I’m not accusing dowsers of anything. I am asking them to show me, reliably, that they can actually dowse for water at a rate better than mere chance. That means more than a few tales of blokes digging holes and finding things.

I’m a big fan of analogies, but I am running out of them. Say I offered you a drug I had just invented. It will cure whatever ailment you have. It’s here. Take it. It’s only £1. Would you take it? Would you wonder if it had been tested? Would you wonder what was in it? Well, I make the claim, so I have to prove it works. Or, you are accusing me of lying and you have to prove it does not. So I assume you’d take it.

The problem here is that for generations people have said that a couple bits of wire can find water. It’s stuck. Much like (dangerous ground here) for generations the Norse were told there was a God under the earth who made volcanoes erupt. At some point, somebody questioned the whole Norse God thing, and now nobody (as far as I know) believes in them. Call the doubter a sceptic or a heretic. It matters not. I assume we should still believe in the god Vulcan because nobody has yet proved he does not exist? Back to dowsing. As a people we’ve been told about it – heck I was too – and it has stuck. Now we think it is the truth, because it’s been around a long time. So were the Norse gods. So it feels as if I am the claimant, when I am not.

“As for philosophy making it a rule. Er no. It makes it an opinion … that's just a point of view and could easily be different if the general consensus chose a different opinion.”
Yep, but one that has been debated and agreed upon for several thousand years, so I would submit it’s a pretty good opinion.

“Sceptics achieve add very little.”
I could insert a list of every scientist in the history of, well, history here to make a point that they do. But one will suffice: “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvellous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity” – Albert Einstein.

 

[Nose Ma]

Nose Ma,
yup looks good, I think a hosepie would work, installed by 3rd party. Trouble is the results any success will spoil the no vote as you cant state catagorically that the experiment is statistically a failure or a success. Any success will only encourage the yes camp (me included) and this is where the experiemnt has its first hurdle. if i can walk and guess where the hose is as often as I can dowse it then either I am psychic or I can do both equally well. doubt isnt possible. so would we all be able to agree to doing 4 dowsing runs one particular day and then pool the results. however this then creates the stress part so do we do it in our own time and pool whatever happens. the problem is i am stuck. if the results leave room for doubt then the experiment can only show that some people are btter tuned than others. ... how can we break this down... i guess we then try the can do group with tougher experiments... hmmmm tiz interesting indeed thank you!

That - for me - is the beauty of science and questioning. First, define the question. Nest work out how to test that question. As a rule, the more people who look at the experiment, the more problems they will spot. That's a Good Thing (really, it is) allowing things to be refined.

No slight on you - but I doubt anything you do will put this to bed!

 

[Storm™]

No it doesnt, and with all due respect it is quite difficult to debate this if you cannot grasp the logic.

We are not searching for some "thing" that might or might not exist, we are not searching for the best dowser on the planet.

We are simply trying to test if people can dowse for water, as they claim they can. Someone who dowses in a field and finds something cannot be sure themselves if they have dowsed it, or if they were lucky, or if some other subconcious cue caused them to subconsciously move the rods themselves. With the latter it actually doesnt matter here, as again we are not simply saying dowsing RODS dont work, we are saying dowsing doesnt work, whether it is electromagnetic interference, ley lines, subconscious twitching or whatever.

And to address your point about the experiment, which I see you still havent actually looked at yourself, they werent trying to show dowsing DIDNT work, they were trying to show it DID work. They werent trying to show if dowsing COULD work.

Again, this isnt some mystical art that only "special" people claim to be able to do, ALL the applicants for the experiment were self-professed dowsers. They ran a series of tests to just select the final group (they chose the best) who would take part in the experiment proper.

And, finally, it is MY interpretation that the experiment proves dowsing does not work, because it is MY definition of "work". My definition means that if you approached someone and offered to find 1 pipe in a 1 acre field, and ended up drilling 50 boreholes... in fact, scrap that, if you ended up drilling more than 1 borehole, by my definition you did not find the borehole using dowsing, cos if dowsing works the rods wouldnt have crossed when the pipe was not underneath.

I dont care if being watched, the wind, pixie tears or whatever mean dowsing is only 10% accurate, 10% accurate means it does not "work" in my book. if you tell me you can dowse for water, I want you to find water every time, just like if someone came in with an imaging system would.

I think you rushed through my statement. If you hadn't you would have understood that the experiment only applies to those tested. Not all dowsers. So until you test all dowsers you cannot say that dowsing works or does not work. By your standard or anyones. There is no logic involved, its a simple case of you making a broad sweeping statement based on a teeny tiny sample of the population. Hence the gold medallist analogy. Remember OUT OF THOSE TESTED. If you cannot grasp that. . .

I have not read the experiment no. A failing on my part but if it has been enough to convince you of the failings of dowsing and your statements from it are not enough to convince me then there seems little point. But time dependant I will. I fear like the "magnetism affecting bees is rubbish" study that was held up as be all and end all to that argument, it will be a very shoddy document riddled with get out clauses for pro dowsers.

Your final point that it is your definition of working I respect but it means little. An imaging system can fail, run our of batteries, or provide incorrect results. As can anything that relies on a set of values to provide results. It will only be as accurate as the programmed values. If something occurs outside of those values it will at best provide a best match, or at worst not reports its existence. Thats less than 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Let alone the human that will be used to interpret those results adding to the mix.

I notice we didnt bring up the great Randi again lol.

 

[Storm™]

There was no offence taken Nose Ma. And I have taken it in the vein you mention. But What I say still holds true and has not changed from your statements. If you were going to use any example you would have had to use god. Its the most compatible. However it isnt the point. The point is to say who is the claimant. And there is none or they are both the claimant. Thats the point I was making. Because whomever says starts saying something, someone else may come along and claim otherwise. BUT and this is really the main thing to bare in mind:

Whoever makes the claim only ever does so based on their experience or knowledge base. Whoever claims otherwise is also only doing so from their experience and knowledge base. They cannot say otherwise. So if they are both or either, less than informed or smart or experienced but still purport their claim as true they are potentially wrong.
Proof comes into play. But proof can only be held up as fact if there are no other facts to say otherwise. When one is all out of facts, the evidence is examined and "a" truth is reached. This is classed as fact. BUT it is not fact, but "a" truth to the people involved and not necessarily complete fact.

HOWEVER - as soon as more proofs come into play, years later, days later, or from another claimant entering the fray, the situation changes again.

How this relates to Man's point is that until he removes all possible's he cannot say scientifically one way or another, well no one can, that dowsing is bunkum. And even if he could, it would only be a best guess based on all the possibles he could imagine. If he left some out it makes his whole standpoint moot and he would have to start again.

Until ALL dowsers are tested, and all variables accounted for, its a moot point. I would say its best left alone. If it works for some, fine, not for others fine, works not all of the time fine.

I am cross sometimes and happy others. I like some people, love others and detest more still. No one tells me I am wrong. Thats just human nature. We accept this randomness of people without question but demand hard facts of things outside of our own behaviour.

And on a side note, why do we accept people on a beach in front of children wearing nothing but a thong or speedo. And yet if I did that in my own home I am supposed to close the curtains. And if a child saw I would be being inappropriate.

 

[MandF]

I think you rushed through my statement. If you hadn't you would have understood that the experiment only applies to those tested. Not all dowsers. So until you test all dowsers you cannot say that dowsing works or does not work. By your standard or anyones.

Well here we differ.

First, as i said before, dowsing isnt deemed to be a special gift, in that respect every person is as good a test subject as any other. Just like medicine for humans, they dont need to test a new medicine on every human being to prove it "works".

Second, given that every human CAN dowse (apparently) they could have legitimately just chosen 100 humans at random. They didnt, they skewed the test if favour of dowsing by not only choosing people who could dowse and said they could, but they then selectively picked the best dowsers from this group. Personally therefore, I take the sample that did this test as MORE than a representitive sample of those who could (apparently) dowse.

If someone said we can all be mediums, that there is no special gift, no need to have an attuned psyche, or whatever they actually claim, and then we conducted an experiment asking existing mediums to apply, then choosing the 100 best mediums, and then performing a simple test which has a black and white result, and they ALL failed to be better than someone simply guessing, I personally would conclude that mediums are fake.

What you ask at a pragmatic level is faintly ridiculous. Are you telling me that I could not possibly say I dont like mars bars unless I tried each and every mars bar? or that baths dont work as worm holes because I havent tried each and every bath? Are you suggesting sampling is useless and irrelevant and cannot possibly provide proof of anything? Are you suggesting that no criminal can be found guilty of murder with "only" 12 jurors believing they are?

 

[MandF]

How this relates to Man's point is that until he removes all possible's he cannot say scientifically one way or another, well no one can, that dowsing is bunkum. And even if he could, it would only be a best guess based on all the possibles he could imagine. If he left some out it makes his whole standpoint moot and he would have to start again.

Again, the point is not that "dowsing is bunkum", that cannot be proven. The point is that "dowsing works", and by "works" we mean is a reliable and repeatable way of finding water.

It has been tested, and it has not "worked". You may scoff, but the fact that $1million dollars remains on the table for anyone to prove it does work speaks volumes.

Conversely no scientific study/experiment has been conducted in which dowsing has ever "worked". In a field where if it did work there are huge commercial implications.

Right at the beginning I said this should be a fair debate as there were no faith systems tied up with dowsing - however it seems I was wrong.

Even if you guys said that dowsing can often or sometimes finds water, I dont think there would be anyone denying that was correct (just like throwing darts up into the air would sometimes land where water was below), but its the insistence that it always finds water (aka "works")..

 

[Storm™]

Well here we differ.

First, as i said before, dowsing isnt deemed to be a special gift, in that respect every person is as good a test subject as any other. Just like medicine for humans, they dont need to test a new medicine on every human being to prove it "works".

Second, given that every human CAN dowse (apparently) they could have legitimately just chosen 100 humans at random. They didnt, they skewed the test if favour of dowsing by not only choosing people who could dowse and said they could, but they then selectively picked the best dowsers from this group. Personally therefore, I take the sample that did this test as MORE than a representitive sample of those who could (apparently) dowse.

If someone said we can all be mediums, that there is no special gift, no need to have an attuned psyche, or whatever they actually claim, and then we conducted an experiment asking existing mediums to apply, then choosing the 100 best mediums, and then performing a simple test which has a black and white result, and they ALL failed to be better than someone simply guessing, I personally would conclude that mediums are fake.

What you ask at a pragmatic level is faintly ridiculous. Are you telling me that I could not possibly say I dont like mars bars unless I tried each and every mars bar? or that baths dont work as worm holes because I havent tried each and every bath? Are you suggesting sampling is useless and irrelevant and cannot possibly provide proof of anything? Are you suggesting that no criminal can be found guilty of murder with "only" 12 jurors believing they are?

Your first point - correct ish. In my experience I have seen everyone introduced to dowsing - do it. I am crap at it but I learnt to be better. I was the last to pick it up in the group of 24 of us that had a go. I can do it with coat hangers but not so great with a piece of Y shaped hazel. I dowsed for a possible ley line using bent coat hangers.. I just gave it a go near my home after being introduced to it by friends. I dowsed. Found a line. Curious now I bought a book on local leylines. In this book were maps of lines dowsed by "professionals" in my area. I would love to know how I found that without the knowledge of where it was. I would love to show facts. But sadly all you have is my word. Worth nothing I know. But I did find a line that ran through my home, already mapped by others. SO I think because you are dealing with humans, its fair to say that some can do it, others not at all. After all thats not unusual. Some can draw, sing, run fast, not get fat and others not. So we are all different and we are all different on different days hence variable skill sets. Thats one important thing to bare in mind.

The second point is kind of covered by what I already said. BUT the subject were I assume not tested for psychiatric illness, likewise the examiners. Also the security of he results, what was that arrangement. Beyond reproach I would hope if not thats a huge important variable right there and one you already have used as a possible threat to integrity of results "but what if someone released it when they took pity on it" remember.

Your third point - quite simply YES. It is a fact. A fact that chemical/cosmetic/medicinal companies adhere to as if their very wallets depended on it. "OUT OF THOSE TESTED (quote number here), THEY ALL SAID THEIR FACES BECAME SHINY/TIGHT/20 YEARS YOUNGER. Test numbers have to be given by law now because they can imply a greater success rate than they actually had. If the test number was 2 would you buy that product. How about 100. A thousand. What number would make you happy. Until you say EVERYBODY all you have at best is this product worked great on most of us. But factually it cannot be all. As for Mars Bars, I am saying you can say you dont like them if you wish. What you cannot say is that they taste crap to me because you dont like them based on a survey you saw of a few hundred people. You can only say you dont like them. Nothing more.

Oh and can we please stop using THE LAW as a paragon of virtue. The law is just a load of old claptrap. It is unfortunately the best we have but is in no way, not in a million years accurate. Truth and Justice. Rubbish. Thats why jurors have to be screened. The results you see in a courtroom are not the truth. They are what is shown to be the best possible truth based on what can be found out. And that depends on the skill of the lawyer, not on the truth. So please dont go there.

 

[Storm™]

Stop using Randi, thats a rubbish defence. You cannot know if he has paid anyone off etc... sweeping statements without full knowledge of the facts is beneath you. Heaven forbid you should ever look at the details in that million. I have. It states "To our satisfaction" - another get out clause. Its a publicity stunt and you were hooked.

And you keep moving your values. Works = 100% in your definition but then works in your statement is - "The point is that "dowsing works", and by "works" we mean is a reliable and repeatable way of finding water." Well thats not 100% either by statement or implication. Make your mind up. Which is it. And the "we" is that the same we as "they say"...

"Conversely no scientific study/experiment has been conducted in which dowsing has ever "worked". In a field where if it did work there are huge commercial implications."

Sweeping statement you cannot say that and be taken seriously. Really. Every single one eh.....

"Right at the beginning I said this should be a fair debate as there were no faith systems tied up with dowsing - however it seems I was wrong."

Belief in anything is a good place to start from when getting involved. If you start from a place of full on sceptic your special place would need a lot more rubbing to get you going than if you started from a place of neutrality.

The last statement seems a bit muddled but I agree thats chance. Greater incidence than chance supposedly means success. But how many times have you got to repeat it until its fair.

 

[chycarne]

MandF
you missed the point being created here, the fact that the experiemnts sometimes work demonstrates the possibility of a working "something" some people are better skilled than others the same as some are good at maths soem are good with animals and so on your tuning makes you. so picking the select few is right. however eatign a mars bar simply tells you wether you liked that bar or not. do all bars taste the same? so in truth the generalisation i tried one mars bar didnt like it therefore i dont like mars bars is true however if that bar was "off" then you would need to try another one ... and so on though i agree one taste of something does tell you wheter you like it or not.
Nose Ma, yup i agree and i would liek to work out how it could be done and tested to give a final answer... hmmm anyway my experiment will be done and i will supply the results.
Storm, belief and faith often get confused, here there are some that believe dowsing works whether from undeniable personal experiance or from those they trust telling them it is so. Faith is having someone you dont know tell you "it" is so... just being pedantic oh and for the record i think dowsing works as several works and people have told me so, i am curious as to whether it would work for me and how it could work and why it works if it does. and as a word of warning there have been many experiments that were not repeated but we take the results on belief. Radars first steps as seen recently were weak at best and yet they persisted because of belief... penicilin- the wrong experiment produced the right result and could not be repeated easily. if soemthing happens in an experiment that produces a result and on repition produces a different result then the experiment is at fault not the thing being worked on. if dowsing works for some people a lot of the time then we also need to know why it doesnt work all the time as the other part to the experiemnt. we have to know why something does not work as an alternative to why something does work. becasue it does sork some of the time but not all the time then we also need to understand both results. because soemthing does not work all the time is not a good reason to say it does not work at all. and in fact cannot be justified, it does work some of the time. if both questions can be answered we would be on they way to seeing how it works (if indeed it does)
so we now have two experiments to devise...

 

[The Apprentices]

Now dowsing for the old black gold, that's really worth while I would think.

 

[chycarne]

i thought Guinness was created in Ireland? dont tell after all thsi time i could have found streams of it here ... darn!!

 

[For want of a better word]

for generations the Norse were told there was a God under the earth who made volcanoes erupt. At some point, somebody questioned the whole Norse God thing, and now nobody (as far as I know) believes in them.


Mystesism is often corroborated by scientific fact....... just that the scientific approach replaces the mystic ideas, but without the mystic ideas man would not develop a scientific approach to prove a hypothesis in the first place !
QED

PS There isn't a tooth fairy !

 

[victor meldrew]

PS There isn't a tooth fairy !

There are toothy fairies !
VM

 

[Hivemaker.]

Perhaps a test to find out if dowsing works is to use a pendulum,ask it if dowsing works.....swings one way for YES,the other way for NO.

The tooth fairy is definately real,sometimes takes on the Easter Bunny to help out at busy times.

 

[oliver90owner]

swings one way for YES,the other way for NO.

What about if it swings in a circle? Then if clockwise or anticlockwise?

Regards, RAB

 

[newportbuzz]

Big bang theory....so what was before this big bang...it will never be known.

it began with the BIG striking of the holy match
followed by the holding of the holy match to the blue touch paper of destiny
and bang it happened

 

[TBRNoTB]

There are toothy fairies !
VM

Another Good-un!

 

[TBRNoTB]

it began with the BIG striking of the holy match
followed by the holding of the holy match to the blue touch paper of destiny
and bang it happened

naw naw naw! the paper was wet, the match went out and apathy set in... and and and.....eventually some bright spark said....what we need is a gas lighter...

 

[Hivemaker.]

swings one way for YES,the other way for NO.

What about if it swings in a circle? Then if clockwise or anticlockwise?

Regards, RAB

Yep thats about it,the only real proof you need,scientifically very accurate.