Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[BillyJoe]

Seriously, can I have some? I have no idea what you mean by this, but it is clearly nothing to do with anything I have written.

Here is the sequence:

BillyJoe:
Edge is doing the only sensible thing which is prove to himself that he can do it with sufficient success to suceed in a re-test before he actually re-takes the test. To do otherwise would be foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

Cuddles:
So he knows exactly what he can do and how he does it, but in 30 years he hasn't managed to prove this even to himself? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

BillyJoe:
I don't want to impair you any further, you already cannot read.

You did not read the bolded bit.
Edge knows (or "knows" if you prefer) what he can do but he does not know if he can do it sufficiently well to pass the JREF re-test. Therefore he is testing himself before wasting everyone's time on a re-test.

The post you quoted was simply stating what Edge himself has said. He says he knows exactly what he can do. He says he knows exactly how he does this. He says he has been doing this for 30 years. And yet despite all this you say that he hasn't managed to prove to himself what he can do.

I let you correct this one yourself.

Perhaps it is you who should read what Edge has actually written.

Return to server.

 

[EHocking]

(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?

If it is a claim that he thinks he could succeed at yes. Plenty have tried in this thread to clarify some of the details of protocols he's suggested in the past.

 

[BillyJoe]

Until Edge knows exactly what he needs for the test, I don’t see what the JREF would have to say to him. Was there a specific question that he asked and didn’t get a reply to?

Edge sent in his protocol about three months ago and, besides a belated acknowledgement, after some considerable urging by forumites, that it has been received, there has been no further communication by the JREF.

 

[Spektator]

Gzuzkryzt wrote:

Originally Posted by EHocking
Ah. Post 529: From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

So here he claims to have measured the force using a set of balances but is unable to reproduce this claim.

have I got this right, edge?

Originally Posted by edge
Wrong.
I think it would have gone farther but scale was at it's limit.
It is reproducible any time.

Originally Posted by Spektator

I'd think that if edge could demonstrate that his divining rod could exert a measurable pull on a scale--without anything touching it--that would be a perfectly good test. I may have misread or misremembered, but I think he said that he has done that.

(Bolding by me.)

@Everyone: Would edge presenting his set-up to this forum benefit his chances for a suitable Challenge protocol?

Fantastic! There's no need to search for clear ground or worry about targets touching the ground. All we need will be edge, his dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales. He will have to show that, without touching the scales in any way, he can use the rod to exert a 1/4 pound or greater force on one side of the scales ten times in a row. Since the effect can be reproduced at any time, edge can be tested next weekend.

 

[BillyJoe]

The thing is, we don't need to be proficient with and electron microscope to be able to observe the results of one who is. Similarly, we do not need to be proficient in dowsing to observe that proponents, to date, have NOT shown any reasonable results to show that it works.

All I am saying is that, even if it is true that no other dowser knows how to use a dowsing rod, doesn't necessarily mean that edge also cannot. If he is convinced through 30 years of using a dowsing rod that he can make it work for him, and if he is preapred to put himself to the test, we must be prepared to set aside our prejudices or otherwise and see if he is able to do so. Shouting "DOWSING DOESN'T WORK" is less than useful.

While it is admirable that you are playing Devils Advocate here, there does come a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that you can take a position with a high degree of confidence that something is or is not feasible.

On the other hand, I'm talking about what position you should take if you are engaging a particular individual in a test. A dismissive attitude is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

This is the problem with most dowsers, though. They don't quantitate, every "hit" reinforces their belief and every miss they dismiss as being from some other cause...

As I said, edge cannot be expected to answer for all dowsers. If edge is convinced that he can dowse successfully, if he is prepared to take a test (or initially test himself to see if he could succeed in a test) we must be prepared to set aside our assumptions about dowsers and dowsing in general and engage him in his endeavour.

You don't know this. In fact, if you go back to the start of this thread you will find a great number of posters attempting to help edge sort out a successful protocol - he keeps chooting off on tangents. The levitating key and anti-gravity copper seam just being the latest.

I was talking about the JREF, not posters on this thread or forum.

 

[Paulhoff]

Every test of dowsing ability has so far found no effect from dowsing.
Tentative conclusion: Dowsing does not work.
This conclusion is tentative because if evidence becomes available that dowsing does work, you will be prepared to change your conclusion.

This is not a tentative conclusion in any sense, where is the theory by which dowsing is supposed to work by. These rods only so-called move in the operator’s hand, they never, ever, move by themselves. An open mind is open to evidence, where is this tested evidence.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

This is not a tentative conclusion in any sense, where is the theory by which dowsing is supposed to work by.

Everything is tentative in science.
Some things are almost certainly true because of the vast weight of positive evidence gathered over long periods of time.
Doubt can diminish almost, but never quite, to zero.
For practical purposes you take such conclusions to be true.
But when faced with an individual who claims to have contrary evidence, you must be sufficiently open-minded to engage this person in order to evaluate this evidence.

These rods only so-called move in the operator’s hand, they never, ever, move by themselves.

They may never ever have moved by themselves as far as you know.

An open mind is open to evidence, where is this tested evidence.

That is the subject of this thread.

 

[Paulhoff]

Everything is tentative in science.

Not like you say, there is a time that you stop throwing rocks up into the air from the surface of the earth to see if they will can back down. There has been no power source shown outside the the dower, that makes the rod move. If the rod moved by itself you would have something. It is the dower who moves the rod. If you don't understand this point, we have nothing more the talk about.

Paul

 

[EHocking]

All I am saying is that, even if it is true that no other dowser knows how to use a dowsing rod, doesn't necessarily mean that edge also cannot. If he is convinced through 30 years of using a dowsing rod that he can make it work for him, and if he is preapred to put himself to the test, we must be prepared to set aside our prejudices or otherwise and see if he is able to do so. Shouting "DOWSING DOESN'T WORK" is less than useful.

On the other hand, I'm talking about what position you should take if you are engaging a particular individual in a test. A dismissive attitude is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

As I said, edge cannot be expected to answer for all dowsers. If edge is convinced that he can dowse successfully, if he is prepared to take a test (or initially test himself to see if he could succeed in a test) we must be prepared to set aside our assumptions about dowsers and dowsing in general and engage him in his endeavour.

I was talking about the JREF, not posters on this thread or forum.

Paulhoff has really answered for me. I work in an industry where dowsing, if it worked, could replace billions (yes BILLIONS) of dollars a year of seismic work - but it is not used.

There must be a fairly simple explanation for this - and it's not being unprepared to set aside our assumptions. You wouldn't believe some of the hare-brained ideas that crop up.

It's all well and good to keep and open mind, but not to the point where the brains fall out.

edge HAS been engaged in his endeavour by JREF before and it was demonstrated that he could not dowse as he stated he could.

We are NOT asking edge to answer for all dowsers - just his claim that HE can do it.

 

[edge]

Paulhoff has really answered for me. I work in an industry where dowsing, if it worked, could replace billions (yes BILLIONS) of dollars a year of seismic work - but it is not used.

There must be a fairly simple explanation for this - and it's not being unprepared to set aside our assumptions. You wouldn't believe some of the hare-brained ideas that crop up.

It's all well and good to keep and open mind, but not to the point where the brains fall out.

edge HAS been engaged in his endeavour by JREF before and it was demonstrated that he could not dowse as he stated he could.

We are NOT asking edge to answer for all dowsers - just his claim that HE can do it.

I have never heard of any one dowse for oil?

I can see it for water as a living willow will seek it, but oil I doubt that it will seek it as it is not something that any tree can live on.
As far as minerals all living things need them and seek them, have a shot of "Gold Schloger".
Don't know if I spelled it right because it’s a German word, but we all have it in our bodies, “gold” so does the willow.
I did an experiment a long time ago where I attached a TEMs machine to a copper wire that was balanced on a stand to see if I could eliminate the human and organic components and the TEMs ran on a 9-volt battery.
The TEMs could get your body to move muscles to relieve backaches electrically.
I didn't have a clean room so air currents were a factor even though we closed off the room to eliminate any air currents that we could detect.
I think there was movement.
A gold nugget was placed as a target.
It was a slow reaction but it seemed to work.
I got what appeared to be a quarter-inch to a half-inch of movement.
The TEMs had several types of settings certain rhythms worked better than others.

When I found the right rhythm I repeated it several times with the same results.
My machine was crude.
So I don't know if what I seen was true.
But at least I'm tring.

 

[EHocking]

Gzuzkryzt wrote:


Originally Posted by Spektator


Fantastic! There's no need to search for clear ground or worry about targets touching the ground. All we need will be edge, his dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales. He will have to show that, without touching the scales in any way, he can use the rod to exert a 1/4 pound or greater force on one side of the scales ten times in a row. Since the effect can be reproduced at any time, edge can be tested next weekend.

edge, how about it?

Question, edge.

What material were these scales you measured the 1/4lb force on made of?

If metal, why did they not influence the dowsing reaction?

 

[EHocking]

I have never heard of any one dowse for oil?

Yes, a fairly common claim with much anecdotal "evidence" but little foundation.

I can see it for water as a living willow will seek it, but oil I doubt that it will seek it as it is not something that any tree can live on.
As far as minerals all living things need them and seek them, have a shot of "Gold Schloger".
Don't know if I spelled it right because it’s a German word, but we all have it in our bodies, “gold” so does the willow.
I did an experiment a long time ago where I attached a TEMs machine to a copper wire that was balanced on a stand to see if I could eliminate the human and organic components and the TEMs ran on a 9-volt battery.
The TEMs could get your body to move muscles to relieve backaches electrically.
I didn't have a clean room so air currents were a factor even though we closed off the room to eliminate any air currents that we could detect.
I think there was movement.
A gold nugget was placed as a target.
It was a slow reaction but it seemed to work.
I got what appeared to be a quarter-inch to a half-inch of movement.
The TEMs had several types of settings certain rhythms worked better than others.

When I found the right rhythm I repeated it several times with the same results.
My machine was crude.
So I don't know if what I seen was true.
But at least I'm tring.

yeah - not too sure that experiment is quite valid.

But - what of the scales and dowsing rod set up. How did you go about it and what caused the reaction that was measured on the scales.

 

[BillyJoe]

Now you're just resorting to name calling. I fail to see how it's illiterate to consider a preponderence of existing evidence to be more weighty than a claimed but not demonstrated abilty that contadicts said evidence. Please explain.

Note to beginners: posts with smilies are not to be taken too seriously.


But seriously now:

You said:
"It seems to me that the only way to change Cuddle's world view that dowsing doesn't work is to, well, show dowsing does work."

I said:
"He might be a recalcitrant bastard. "

I was saying, in a joking sort of way, that there may be no way to change Cuddles world view. In fact, I doubt that a single successful test of dowsing would change his world view. He would look for methodological flaws in the testing procedure that could explain the impossible result - because he just knows that dowsing doesn't work. He would demand a retest. Hmmm...

I fail to see how it's illiterate to consider a preponderence of existing evidence to be more weighty than a claimed but not demonstrated abilty that contadicts said evidence.

You said:
"Arguing that, every time someone makes any claim whatsoever, one must discount all past experience seems somewhat naive."

Like Cuddles, you have not understood what I am saying but, like with Cuddles, I am happy to take the blame for lack of clarity. On the other hand, please point me to where I stated that "every time someone makes any claim whatsoever, one must discount all past experience". What I said was: given that dowsing has failed every test so far and that there does not seem to be any mechanism by which it can work, it is reasonable, from a practical point of view, to say that dowsing doesn't work but, when examining claimed new evidence from a particular individual, you should set that all aside (not "discount it" but "set it aside") in order to properly engage that individual. Otherwise you may not see the evidence because all you can see in front of your eyes is "DOWSING DOES NOT WORK".

Whhat do you think?

Please explain.

There is a infamous politician in Australia whose main plank is "Stop Immigration". She was once asked by an interviewer: "Are you xenophobic", and she answered: "Please explain".


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Not like you say, there is a time that you stop throwing rocks up into the air from the surface of the earth to see if they will can back down.

On ther other hand, if someone claims that he can make a rock stay up there (no tricks) and that he can demonstrate this, you should be prepared to suspend your disbelief for the moment and engage him in a demonstration.

There has been no power source shown outside the the dower, that makes the rod move. If the rod moved by itself you would have something. It is the dower who moves the rod.

If it cannot move on it's own, it must be the dowser who makes it move, yes. Is this the ideomotor effect or does the dowser have some special power? Edge says he has success with dowsing compared to without dowsing. This is not possible if it is the ideomotor effect. The difference can be elucidated by engaging him in a demonstration.

If you don't understand this point, we have nothing more the talk about.

That would be sad.
I think I understand, but I don't know if you do.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Edge, if it works as you claim, then do it.

It should work regardless of how many controls you put on it. You should not have to have a "perfect place" or a "perfect time" if you claim that this effect works regularly and consistently for you, which you have done. Just set up the test in the place(s) where you can consistently, successfully dowse and do it.

If you can measure a pull, set up a protocol for it. Maybe not with JREF, but with one of the other skeptical groups. And do it. It doesn't help to tell us what you've done or how it works. Just do it.

 

[Paulhoff]

Still, it doesn't seem to have made much difference. People seem to read what they want to read anyway.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

Paul

 

[EHocking]

...So, will you grant edge the same. He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years. He failed a test of dowsing in a situation which is unnatural for him. Based on his 30 years of success with dowsing, he is loathe to dismis dowsing based on this one test. He wants a retest just as you would...

You are not being sceptical here.

edge "claims" he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years.

He has not demonstrated it in the field beyond personal anecdotes and has failed in a controlled test of his abilities. I think it is rather credulous, rather than fair minded, of you to state that "He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years".

 

[BillyJoe]

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

But Randi's just a tired old man.
What's your excuse.

But seriously I don't disagree, but you don't seem to get that.
I'm talking aqbout the approach to an individual who claims to have evidence.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

"Still, it doesn't seem to have made much difference. People seem to read what they want to read anyway"

Oh well.

 

[BillyJoe]

You are not being sceptical here.

edge "claims" he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years.

He has not demonstrated it in the field beyond personal anecdotes and has failed in a controlled test of his abilities. I think it is rather credulous, rather than fair minded, of you to state that "He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years".

Yes, sorry, I meant to add my usual (or "successfully" if you prefer). I was taking that as given at this stage of the discussion. I am looking at this from the point of view of edge. He considers that he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years and has failed the one test. He is not going to give up his 30 year belief in dowsing as a result of one failed test in circumstances markedly different to how he normally practices dowsing. He is looking into a possible retest in the field but says he will not proceed unless he can find "neutral ground" which he hopes will raise his success (or "success" if you prefer) rate sufficiently high to pass the test.

 

[Paulhoff]

But Randi's just a tired old man.
What's your excuse.

But seriously I don't disagree, but you don't seem to get that.
I'm talking aqbout the approach to an individual who claims to have evidence.

Tired old man! You should be so tired, let's see, and I quote Randi "I′m off to Los Angeles this week, then going to Japan in June to test a bunch of "psychic" claimants…"

My excuse, knowledge, and hearing this BS for over 50 years.

As for approach, I do have to work with the public, if I did, like Randi does, it would be different, since I don't have to I can cut thru the crap.

Paul