• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dowsing by a Skeptic

Daylightstar said:
Go to your nearest tap and dowse some water. You'll have a meaningful result .... the water :rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

Oh, and SaskMick, you don't need to make a test out of it, you don't need to do this blindfolded.
It's not like you can see the water ... right? :D
 
SaskMick said:
Edited by Cuddles: 
Edited quote of moderated content.
Click to expand...

1. To whom does "he" refer?

2. How do you think your post ("spoilered" here, for space) responds to my question? Does it refer to the "dowser" on your video? Does it provide the success/failure ratio of whoever "he" is?

3. Does your video, in fact, show a "dowser" finding water without recourse to other ("real") methods, or even in contradiction of other methods?

4. Out of curiosity, to what "religion" do you refer? (Do you know what a "religion" is?)

I will be interested in your responses, in the morning. I hope you pass a pleasant night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaskMick said:
No sane person can argue with results like that, that's why I like it here. Insanity rules :)
Click to expand...


You do realize you're quoting the guy's own promotional materials and why there could be a problem with that, don't you, Mr. Skeptic?

Have you read up on the scientific method yet, BTW?
 
SaskMick said:
Edited by Cuddles: 
Edited quote of moderated content.


No sane person can argue with results like that, that's why I like it here. Insanity rules :)
Click to expand...

I wonder why you are continuing to avoid my actual question, to wit:

Slowvehicle said:
Again I ask: what do you, personally, think the "ideomotor effect" is? What would you, personally, consider "proof" of the effect?

As for your video: are you claiming that it demonstrates a "dowser" finding water without recourse to any other method? Finding water where other methods indicated there was none? Finding water in an area that had not previously been the subject of a public-record hydrological analysis?
Click to expand...

Is "Jack Coel" the "dowser" on your video? Does the video demonstrate him finding water in an area to which no other methods of locating water had been applied, or in contradiction of the methods that had, in fact, been applied?

Do you think that "Jack Coel's" self-promotional material answers my question about success/failure ratios, or about how often he has not been able to collect a fee for a dry hole?

Do you have any idea how desperate your continued evasions make you seem?

What do you, personally, think the "ideomotor effect" is?

What would you, personally, accept as "demonstration" that the "ideomotor effect" was not "just a theory"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My name is in the phone directory and I can USE UPPER CASE.
Am I a dowser now?

ETA: I'm also listed in " up to ten newspapers". :)
 
Last edited:
SaskMick: if a dowser dowses a large area, points to a particular spot to dig for water, a hole is dug and water is found, would you consider that evidence that dowsing works?

If it is then pointed out that the water table is such that digging a hole absolutely anywhere in the entire area would in fact find water, would you still be so impressed?

In order to conclude that dowsing finds water more often than would be expected by chance you first need to know what the chance result is, so you can then measure the actual success rate and see if is greater. The anecdotes told by you and the other dowsers you mention are worthless without such confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Fellow Traveler said:
I only want to report what I experienced and say this may not be repeatable which is mandatory for scientific experimenting but nonetheless: I worked with an old guy who located water pipes, using dowsing wires. The wires were those that used to be coat hangers which were straightened and then bent into L shapes. He walked in the suspected area with one part of either wire parallel to the ground. He thought they worked as a result of subtle changes in the earth's magnetic field or the like. He wasn't trained in science but he didn't make claims based on some paranormal BS. I, having some background in science ( College Physics etc.); scoffed at the idea and in reaction he challenged me to carry one wire in each hand over a known buried City water pipe and see for myself. I was amazed because I could feel the wires rotate and cross each other. To this day I can't really make sense of it. Some people have suggested that he secretly twisted the wires walking behind me but I don't think so.
Click to expand...
No, he didn't need to do that. The explanation is the ideomotor effect. Look it up.
 
SaskMick said:
There was no cheating by myself or my wife. The test was for my benefit, there was nothing at stake. There is no difference finding a bucket under which something is hidden, apart from that it would be impossible for my wife not to know which bucket she put it under. LOL:D
Click to expand...

Cool. Then there's no reason for you not to do the following test:

Your wife is in a room with 6 upturned buckets, you are in a separate room from which you can see nothing. Your wife rolls a fair, 6-sided die and places an object that you can successfully dowse for underneath whichever bucket is indicated by the die. Your wife also picks up and puts down the other 5 buckets, to ensure that all 6 buckets are disturbed just a little bit. She then leaves the room by a different door, ending up in a different from to you, from which she can also see nothing of the buckets. She calls to you that the test is ready. You go into the room with the buckets and find the object.

That's a fair, double-blinded test, and you will be under exactly the same pressures/lack of pressure as you were for a test which you claim works. So, if that test works, then you know that a double-blinded test works and that you have nothing to fear from a double-blinded test, which means that you have nothing to fear from a test conducted in front of independent witnesses. If it doesn't work, then you need to re-think what exactly works and why.
 
Daylightstar said:
Read my post this time. Read it again and again and again. Read it till your gray beard is 3 meters long.
If you don't understand it by then, no problem, it won't matter to you anymore by that time ....
Click to expand...

I understand it fine. Saying something is "self explanatory" is declaring something to be so, rather than a cogent argument.
 
SaskMick said:
I'm not interested in scientific method, I'm only interested in meaningful results.
Click to expand...
The only meaningful results are those produced using the scientific method. The scientific method is essentially a set of techniques for carefully and methodically eliminating all of the ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves. If we don't use it the probability that we are inadvertantly fooling ourselves is high.

SaskMick said:
I will be convinced that dowsing is BS when the ideomotor effect is a proven fact rather than just a theory.:)
Click to expand...
Have you ever driven a familiar route (home from work say) and realised when you reached your destination that you were thinking about something else entirely and not consciously turning the wheel/pressing the accelerator? Have you ever riden a bycicyle or sight read music?

We (ie our conscious minds) hand over control of our muscles to our unconscious minds in all sorts of circumstances. If the ideomotor effect was not real you would have to consciously think about what you wanted every muscle in your body to be doing all the time.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Cool. Then there's no reason for you not to do the following test:

Your wife is in a room with 6 upturned buckets, you are in a separate room from which you can see nothing. Your wife rolls a fair, 6-sided die and places an object that you can successfully dowse for underneath whichever bucket is indicated by the die. Your wife also picks up and puts down the other 5 buckets, to ensure that all 6 buckets are disturbed just a little bit. She then leaves the room by a different door, ending up in a different from to you, from which she can also see nothing of the buckets. She calls to you that the test is ready. You go into the room with the buckets and find the object.

That's a fair, double-blinded test, and you will be under exactly the same pressures/lack of pressure as you were for a test which you claim works. So, if that test works, then you know that a double-blinded test works and that you have nothing to fear from a double-blinded test, which means that you have nothing to fear from a test conducted in front of independent witnesses. If it doesn't work, then you need to re-think what exactly works and why.
Click to expand...

When these words are arranged in this specific order it causes blindness and a lack of understanding in dousers.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm addressing your post directly. That it doesn't provide a cogent argument is your issue, not mine.
Click to expand...

Oh, give it up. This is off-topic at best, unless the OP explains himself (which was the whole point of the first post questioning his apparent contradictions).
 
Last edited:
Can someone dowse me up an answer to the math here. (They promised me no math in GenSkepPara.)

Here are Jack Coe's numbers.

Apparently he finds 215 wells a year. Wow! That's one for each working day of the year.

See below:
My mission in life is to find water. I have provided over 8,300 well sites the last 39 years, dowsing. I regularly and consistently outperform any technology, science, or part-time dowsing amateur in locating water. Large municipal or agricultural locations as well as domestic sources are identified.
Click to expand...


But that's nuttin'! He apparently averages more than 1 per day, every day, according to this blurb.

Jack has been Dowsing for over 38 years and does over 400 locations a year.
Click to expand...

Now, assuming that he isn't just pulling those figures out of his butt, that could mean 215 successful wells out of "over 400" sites. That's about 50/50. How does that relate to the chance of finding water at any given location?
 
Last edited:
SaskMick said:
Not at all, the fact that it works is proven by dowsers who guarantee to find water or no fee.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. You could make a nice profit by guaranteeing that babies will be of a particular sex, or no fee.

AdMan seems to have violated causality:

AdMan said:
Try learning about the scientific method before making inane comments like that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom