The purpose of such statements (you'll offen see variations, like "That's impossible", "You're wrong", or even "It's true!") is to demonstrate that people can continue to repeat anything over and over and, as you note, it results in nothing productive.
What WOULD be productive is identifying anything which is unexplainable, and examination reveals that it is reproducable in controlled conditions. Edge has worked hard in this respect, but it seems some in the forum here wish him to spend more time finding something paranormal than relating personal experiences that have led him to his beliefs. These experiences may be more or less convincing depending on the listener, but in no case have they (yet) been helpful in identifying anything unexplainable AND reproducable.
Kenny 10 Bellys
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
- Messages
- 290
Me again, BillyJoe. Been here since the start, actually. 
Edge has already spectacularly failed a simple prelim JREF test, which is why he's a lot more cagey about it this time (dancing around, as it's been called). His confidence in his abilities was undoubtedly high when he walked in the room, yet he still scored no better than guessing so I'd say personal feelings and preconceptions of outcomes dont matter one iota when you're claiming to defy the laws of physics.
Whether he or the testers go into it with a closed mind doesn't matter if they've both agreed what they're looking for in terms of a definite hit. He will fail, just as all dowsers fail, because it cannot work in a non-magical universe. You incessant arguing that it would be nice if we all hoped it would work meansnothing and cloud the issue. He states there is a measurable force, then we should be able to measure it and we'll see one way or the other.
Edge, if you really are looking to measure a force by dangling something on the end of your dowsing stick you're going to get all sorts of readings. A live load like that will exert far more momentary force than if it were a steady force and will be of no use. I'd go back to the original claim and simply play 'hunt the gold' under 10 identical pots, which is far easier to set up and control. You claim you can detect gold with a forked stick, have at it.
Edge has already spectacularly failed a simple prelim JREF test, which is why he's a lot more cagey about it this time (dancing around, as it's been called). His confidence in his abilities was undoubtedly high when he walked in the room, yet he still scored no better than guessing so I'd say personal feelings and preconceptions of outcomes dont matter one iota when you're claiming to defy the laws of physics.
Whether he or the testers go into it with a closed mind doesn't matter if they've both agreed what they're looking for in terms of a definite hit. He will fail, just as all dowsers fail, because it cannot work in a non-magical universe. You incessant arguing that it would be nice if we all hoped it would work meansnothing and cloud the issue. He states there is a measurable force, then we should be able to measure it and we'll see one way or the other.
Edge, if you really are looking to measure a force by dangling something on the end of your dowsing stick you're going to get all sorts of readings. A live load like that will exert far more momentary force than if it were a steady force and will be of no use. I'd go back to the original claim and simply play 'hunt the gold' under 10 identical pots, which is far easier to set up and control. You claim you can detect gold with a forked stick, have at it.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Things after the test that that will be used to explain why the dowser failed.
Moon is in the sky, moon isn’t in the sky. Sun to high in the sky, sun to low in the sky. There is too much metal around the test site. The TV stations are to close, the radio stations are to close, the cell-phone tower is too close, all of them are to close. The ground is to wet, the ground is to dry. It is the wrong time of the day for the test. I’ve been feeling weak lately. These are not the right shoes for dowsing. The test has put to much pressure on me, and I don’t feel relaxed. The whatever is whatever and that’s why whatever.
There are many more, but you get the point.
Now before this, everything with the test site is OK.
Paul
Moon is in the sky, moon isn’t in the sky. Sun to high in the sky, sun to low in the sky. There is too much metal around the test site. The TV stations are to close, the radio stations are to close, the cell-phone tower is too close, all of them are to close. The ground is to wet, the ground is to dry. It is the wrong time of the day for the test. I’ve been feeling weak lately. These are not the right shoes for dowsing. The test has put to much pressure on me, and I don’t feel relaxed. The whatever is whatever and that’s why whatever.
There are many more, but you get the point.
Now before this, everything with the test site is OK.
Paul
What, so the experiment sets itself up then?
No.
Consider an example from outside dowsing. Let's say I have some electronic equipment that doesn't work. I look at the fuse, and it looks fine.
Nevertheless, I set up an experiment. I decide that I'll measure the resistance of the fuse.
If the resistance is above some specified value, then my hypothesis that the fuse is okay will be falsified.
The falsification is in the design of the experiment. It's possible to pass the test, and it's possible to fail the test.
What anyone thinks about the likelyhood of the outcome matters not at all. I could hold forth for hours on a forum about the wonderful experiences I've had with this brand of fuse, and how I'd never seen one that had failed, and how unlikely it is that this one will test bad, and so forth and so on.
That won't affect the measurement.
On the other hand, if I look at the fuse, and the inside of the glass is blackened, and I can see there's a gap in the conductor, if I think to myself: "Well, that's not going to work", am I being less than skeptical? After all, my experience with blown fuses has always been with other fuses, not this particular one. This particular one might work with a gap in the conductor. I can still do the experiment.
Having done the experiment, and finding the fuse is doesn't conduct at all, I can do the experiment again.
I might not, in this second test, be quite as likely to expect the fuse to pass the test. This doesn't affect the falsification inherent in the experiment. If the fuse passes sufficient current at the rated voltage (the definition of a good fuse), it will pass the test.
Whether a fuse fails or passes the experiment -- falsifies the hypothesis or not -- is part of the experiment design, not the experimenter or the experimenter's expectations.
This is counter weight scale the kind used for letters and small packages.
It is steady and about the same each time with a little variation, but not much.
It is steady enough to rely on and I must be very still, I have to now only rely on the visual cue, which is hard to do.
I can't stare at it and must concentrate on staying still.
It is the same empty and the same when the target is present pretty much over and over.
The difficulty in the original test was finding ten neutral spots verses 1 empty or close to neutral spot.
It is easier for all the containers to pass the one spot and get the same base line than many in one area.
This way you really need one target one container and one placebo target for when the container is on an empty pass just to save time.
It’s either or empty or it’s holding the target.
For instance if the number chosen by the number generator is five, then I would have to check the box and walk away 4 times then the real target is placed and on that fifth time I have to say it’s there, that would end that session and the next round could begin.
There would be no sense to dowse the remaining empty containers.
If how ever I missed it the same thing or they would let me go on and what would be the sense other than to guess wrong and that is, established when I chose wrong.
A miss is a miss and that would shorten the test by hours.
Although I could re-dowse the train of containers and maybe get it right on the second pass if I didn’t choose any of the ten passes for the target.
I’m hoping that I can get the same or similar results with a scale I can stand on with more accuracy.
This frees up the dowsing stick and would allow a faster pass; I could lock in the target quicker.
The length of time that I dowse takes its toll on my body, when I dowse for gold on the creek I’m walking and moving. It only takes a few minutes to know what’s going on.
Spektator
Is that right?
edge, you won't find a bathroom scale with that kind of accuracy. We have a digital scale that reads out in tenths of pounds (tenths, 1.6 ounces, go figure), and after just about five minutes of fiddling around, standing on it stepping off, stepping on again, I found that out of twelve tries, I never got exactly the same weight twice in a row. According to the scale, my weight varied over .6 of a pound, depending on exactly where I was standing and how I distributed my weight on the scale (taking more on my toes, then more on my heels, shifting more to the right foot or more to the left, etc.). Even when I tried hard to duplicate the previous reading exactly, I was over or under by .1 pound or more.
At best it "results in nothing productive", at worst it is a denigrates or simply dismisses the person making the claim. Hit and run.
Edge comes across as an identity or person more than many others on this forum I think because he relates his personal experiences. I find him interesting as a result. For example, while others just want him to get on with the test, I am actually interested in his exploration of the levitation phenomenon, even though it has only tangentially anything to do with the subject of this thread. I am interested in what he finds and how he reacts to what he finds.
Jackalgirl
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,801
I'm sorry, edge, I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase? Are you saying that you observed a marked difference? Or that using the scale didn't work?
I agree with what's been said about using a bathroom scale. It's not accurate enough and you can just shift around and get different readings.
Warning bells still go off when you talk about having to find neutral ground. If the ground in this creek is so saturated with gold that you can't easily do a proper controlled test there, how do you know that dowsing is what's going on when you aren't doing a test?
If you could have said "Things after the test that that have been used to explain why the dowser failed".
But you did say "explain" and not "excuse".
(Maybe it was a typo though
)When edge failed the original test, I think he explained it as being because he was not in his natural environment. In this thread, he has been spending a lot of time looking for "neutral ground" so, if he fails the retest, he will not be able to use these sorts of explanations. It is possible he may not be able to find ground neutral enough to pass the JREF test, in which case a test will probably not proceed. What we will be able to deduce from this it that his claimed powers are at most not sufficiently strong to pass the MDC. I suspect edge will admit as much, because he has already several times said that this could be the case.
Time will tell though.There is no point in pre-empting the outcome.
The JREF demands a hit rate which edge has not been able to achieve. He has achieved 60% in his self-testing, but the JREF demands 80 or 90%. He is therefore attempting to find an area sufficently free on interference and with sufficient stores of gold that his success rate will exceed that required in the MDC. He has said that he will not proceed with the test unless his self-testing exceeds the required percentage. What would bw the point. Hence his obsession with finding "neutral ground".
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
If you could have said "Things after the test that that have been used to explain why the dowser failed".
But you did say "explain" and not "excuse".
(Maybe it was a typo though
I did write "explain", because these are the kind of things that a dower will say. They are not excuses to the dowser, they believe what they say to be true. Also you will never hear these words from the dowser, "Gee, dowsing doesn't work" no matter how many tests they take.
Paul
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I don't think the JREF demands anything specific as a "hit rate". It all depends on the protocol. What is needed is enough samples to get a statistically meaningful anomaly, and I have only passing knowledge of statistics, so I can't meaningfully address this.
Although it doesn't say in the Swift column about Edge's original test, since he was dowsing 10 locations with one target, I think a result of about 30% in twenty trials would have been sufficient to allow him to proceed to the final test. As it was, he got 10%, exactly what chance would have predicted.
If you're using a simple yes/no setup (same location every time but the target is there only half the time) then you would need a lot more trials to get a statistically significant sample, for example, for a hundred trials, 70% might qualify, for a thousand trials, 60% might qualify. With only a handful of trials, you'd need a much higher percentage of hits to beat "random chance" as a reason for success.
Note though that since the rules have changed, there is no longer a "preliminary" test with lower controls. If Edge takes the formal test, it will be under extremely strict conditions with a very significant success ratio needed. That success ratio, of course, will have to be negotiated in setting the protocols that must be agreed upon by both parties.
Spektator
Is that right?
BillyJoe, I'm the one who suggested an 80-90% hit rate, not the JREF. I based that on edge's saying his procedure was reproducible at any time, and since he claimed an even higher percentage than that, I thought it was fair.
edge wrote
Trouble was, that "test" was just going out and looking for gold in any amounts, even trace amounts, and I never did understand how he got 110%.
edge wrote
Trouble was, that "test" was just going out and looking for gold in any amounts, even trace amounts, and I never did understand how he got 110%.
SezMe
post-pre-born
As edge mentions in #974, we did get together to do some testing. A friend was there with a camera to document the whole thing. I hope to get the photos soon (a couple of days?) and I'll write the whole thing up so we have something concrete to wrangle about. Stand by ....
Sounds like you've put your feet into the shoes of the dowser.
There are any number of posters who would have used the word "excuse", putting an unnecessary slant that is not justified by the evidence at hand. No matter how firmly you believe dowsing to be BS, if the test doesn't debunk the claim of dowsing, you cannot take that conclusion away from that test. As best, if the test fails, all you can say is that, under these particular testing conditions, using this particular testing protocol, with this particular dowser on this occasion, the claim of dowsing is not proven.
You may wish it to be otherwise, but to claim otherwise is unjustified.
I'm not sure how many take multiple tests.
I think there have been occasions where they have taken one re-test, but I would be doubtful that any would take more than that.
After a single failed test, and after 30 years of believing in dowsing, it would be pretty hard to expect them to suddenly proclaim that dowsing doesn't work . After all, even you cannot say that (see above qualification). Everyone is entitled to a re-test. Even after a failed re-test, all you can expect, at best, is that they have a better appreciation of the limits of dowsing.
Okay. In any case, edge is trying to prove to himself if he can pass the test and what circumstances (neutral ground) before actually takes the test.
I see Tricky has clarified the situation above.
I think we agreed that he was joking.
I thought edge was bound by the old rules.
Is the preliminary test now excluded for everyone?
Me again, BillyJoe. Been here since the start, actually.
That's you're interpretation. Edge says he is looking for neutral ground (see above posts).
Well, let's see if he can provide evidence that he can do as he claims. Then we can worry about what laws of physics it defies.
It's just that it may be hard to agree on a protocol unless you are able to engage the claimant.
And this sort of dismissal won't help one iota in engaging the claimant.
I'm arguing for a position of neutrality actually.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what he is trying to do at present.
But this is a side issue to the actual test. Randi is interesting in testing edge on what he says he can do, not reasons for how he does it.