Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Patejdl]

With current knowledge, the probability that dowsing only exists in the mind of the human is atleast 90%. With advancements in the neurological and physics field in the future will be able to tell that with no less than 99,9% accuracy that dowsing has no direct link to our physical world and exists as an separate entity in the separate world of the human mind.

The direct link thing is important. If the dowsing effect in the brain of the person could affect the physical world by enabling the person to be able to explore the physical world and be able to localize stuff then it's a direct link. If the dowsing effect in the brain has no way of scanning the real physical world, then it gives fake signals to arms which rotate and move the rods/sticks/pendulums. A fake synthetic link.

With advancements in the neurology&physics the certainity of stating that dowsing only exist in the brain will raise definitely over 99,99% and we will see a decrease in the people trying to dowse. But the number of people trying to dowse will never ever be 0 if the whole dowsing idea won't be forgotten over time.

So what is the strategy for now?? Wait for advancements in all scientific fields and quietly without hesitation do the tests on kooks to convince as much people as possible that trying to dowse will not give you any better chance of success than by a chance.

So let's test these people.. but let's be gentle to these pour souls and enjoy the feeling that we're doing alteast something for the society's hunger for upgrades and more advanced living.

 

[BillyJoe]

BJ: 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.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think these situations are analogous. The several posters in this thread who have said: "Dowsing doesn't work" are leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I don't think your "It looks fine" is in the same category.

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.

Again, I doubt if you would dismiss the possibility as completely are those posters dismiss dowsing. I can trust you to set up a proper test of the fuse which, in any case, is straight forward. I could not trust the above posters to set up a proper protocol for testing the claims of a particular dowser, or to interpret the results properly.

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.

Personally, I'd wouldn't waste my time testing that fuse, I'd throw the damn thing out.
It's altogether different when you're testing someone else's claim. If someone claimed that he has a blown fuse that nevertheless works, and if he was making this claim in all seriousness, I would be prepared to set aside what my experience has shown me to be true up to that point in time, and test the fuse. I imagine we wouldn't have to discus the testing protocol in this instance.

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.

Throw the bugger out already

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.

The falsification is inherent in the experiment as you say. But the exact nature of the claim being made has firstly to be established and the experimental protocol that tests that particular claim, and to which the claimant agrees, still needs to be set up. This is no problem with a fuse because I imagine that everyone will agree what is meant by the claim that the fuse doesn't work, and I imagine that everyone will agree on how to test a fuse. But I think testing a particular dowsing claim of a particular dowser is just a little more complicated. We will need to determine what it is exactly that the claimant claims to be able to do and then come to an agreement with the claimant about how that claim could be tested.

 

[Spektator]

(NOTE: I pointed out that edge had claimed 110% success)

snip....
I think we agreed that he was joking.

Sorry, I missed that memo. I suppose edge was also joking when he claimed:

(snip)
If I choose the right spot I should get 90% or so, even 100%.
By dumbing down the sensitivity of the instruments the "L rods",
and grounding the target I should be able to prove that dowsing works.

I did 110% correct hits in winning spots....(snip)

Hey, maybe the whole "dowsing" thing is a great big joke.

 

[TjW]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think these situations are analogous. The several posters in this thread who have said: "Dowsing doesn't work" are leaving absolutely no room for doubt. I don't think your "It looks fine" is in the same category.

Again, I doubt if you would dismiss the possibility as completely are those posters dismiss dowsing. I can trust you to set up a proper test of the fuse which, in any case, is straight forward. I could not trust the above posters to set up a proper protocol for testing the claims of a particular dowser, or to interpret the results properly.

Personally, I'd wouldn't waste my time testing that fuse, I'd throw the damn thing out.
It's altogether different when you're testing someone else's claim. If someone claimed that he has a blown fuse that nevertheless works, and if he was making this claim in all seriousness, I would be prepared to set aside what my experience has shown me to be true up to that point in time, and test the fuse. I imagine we wouldn't have to discus the testing protocol in this instance.

Throw the bugger out already

The falsification is inherent in the experiment as you say. But the exact nature of the claim being made has firstly to be established and the experimental protocol that tests that particular claim, and to which the claimant agrees, still needs to be set up. This is no problem with a fuse because I imagine that everyone will agree what is meant by the claim that the fuse doesn't work, and I imagine that everyone will agree on how to test a fuse. But I think testing a particular dowsing claim of a particular dowser is just a little more complicated. We will need to determine what it is exactly that the claimant claims to be able to do and then come to an agreement with the claimant about how that claim could be tested.

I don't think you do understand what I'm saying.

How can you be so dismissive of a blown-fuse-that-works. Throw it out indeed. A friend of my cousin's hairdresser needed a fuse, and all they had was one just like that, and they put it in and it worked fine. So you can see there is evidence that it could work. This is a special blown-fuse-that-works. Of course, it doesn't always work, which makes it more special. So just testing with a meter wouldn't be fair. It doesn't respond to meters. In fact, it's safe to say this fuse is so special that no matter what you propose to test it, there will be some reason why that test was not a fair test of this particular fuse.

Dowsing, if not this particular dowser, has been tested over and over again.
Fuses with gaps in them, if not this particular fuse, have been tested over and over again. They don't work. Dowsing doesn't work.

I'm sure you would set aside your previous experience for the first person who in all seriousness said they had a blown fuse that works. How about the thousandth, when all the previous claimants had not only not been able to show you that it worked, but continued to claim it did after being shown that it didn't?

You don't have to trust anyone regarding test protocols. You can evaluate any protocol yourself, and point out anything you consider to be a flaw. That's how science works. If you'll notice, many of the posts to Edge have been pointing out why the tests Edge has tried are flawed.

But the claimant doesn't need to agree to take a test for it to be a valid test. If I test a 3 ampere fuse by supplying the fuse with the rated voltage, current-limited to 2.99 amperes, that's a fair test of a fuse whether the owner of a "special" fuse happens to agree or not.

Indeed, in many cases, of which dowsing is just a subset, the willingness of a claimant to take the test is inversely proportional to the validity of the test.

I'm glad you agree that the falsification is in the experiment, not the experimenter. Will you now stop complaining that anyone who expresses an opinion on the likely outcome of an experiment is not being skeptical?

 

[edge]

TjW says,

Fuses with gaps in them, if not this particular fuse, have been tested over and over again. They don't work. Dowsing doesn't work.

A fuse only works when it's blown or when it’s whole.
A fuse can only be shown to work when it's destroyed and then it's no good.

The one way for sure to know if dowsing works is to see, when mining, if it does work then you might have something.
There may be a second way then if it does.
When mining, the spot, either is workable or it is not, if it is not then look for the good spot to replace the bad spot.

How many fuses do you have to go through till you find one that works or till the mechanism is fixed?
If the mechanism is broke that stops it from doing its job that is to pass current, which is positive, which the fuse does or to stop it, which is negative.
Both being a positive function.
Two functions for each, fuses and dowsing it’s either there or not.
They either work or they don’t, when have you tried it, or tested it?
Dowsing for gold does two things negative and positive.

It's either telling you there's nothing, which is a correct negative or that there is something, which is a correct positive.

 

[politas]

Dowsing for gold does two things negative and positive.

It's either telling you there's nothing, which is a correct negative or that there is something, which is a correct positive.

Well, that's not quite right, there are in fact four results for a gold-dowsing experiment:

A. Dowsing says there is gold, and there is gold
B. Dowsing says there is gold, but there is no gold
C. Dowsing says there is no gold, but there is gold
D. Dowsing says there is no gold, and there is no gold

If you only check for gold in a sample when dowsing says there is gold, then you have meaningless results. You need to compare the ratios of A/B and C/D. If A/B is a higher ratio than C/D, there is an advantage in dowsing. Otherwise, dowsing doesn't work. How many samples you would need to check to make a significant statistical correlation is a question for better mathematicians than myself.

 

[Czarcasm]

Well, that's not quite right, there are in fact four results for a gold-dowsing experiment:

A. Dowsing says there is gold, and there is gold
B. Dowsing says there is gold, but there is no gold
C. Dowsing says there is no gold, but there is gold
D. Dowsing says there is no gold, and there is no gold

But these four results are not equal in probability, are they?

 

[TjW]

Also being left out is:

Conventional geology says there is a greater likelyhood of gold, etc.

No one that I know of argues that dowsers never find the desired target, just as no one argues that blind pigs can't find acorns, or that stopped clocks don't occasionally display the correct time.

So, among other things, the use of geological knowledge to discover the target needs to be controlled for, if one is to test dowsing.

 

[politas]

But these four results are not equal in probability, are they?

Well, that would depend a lot on how much gold is in the soil generally. Comparing the two ratios allows you to test the effectiveness of dowsing regardless of the likelihood of gold being present.

 

[politas]

Also being left out is:

Conventional geology says there is a greater likelyhood of gold, etc...

Yes, to be a good test, you need to blind the source of the samples.

 

[edge]

Yes, to be a good test, you need to blind the source of the samples.

Calibrating the scales does that; it gives you a base line and allows measurement of what’s there so then lack of target is known and then when target is there that is known too.
Now it is visible and provable both ways.
If the Target is there or not, correct negative hits, correct positive hits, all through weights, both proven with scales.

When dowsing for gold this is exactly what I do avoid the lack of gold and find the collection spots of gold.

Right now my percentage is between 60% and 77% and I still have four sets of ten picks to go to make 10 tries.

 

[Tricky]

So, among other things, the use of geological knowledge to discover the target needs to be controlled for, if one is to test dowsing.

Correct. And it is easy to do that. Simply place a target box (which the dowser does not know whether or not it contains gold) at the same exact location for every trial. That way all geological "influences" are controlled because the only thing different in the trials is the presence of gold within the target box. This is so extraordinarily simple that even Edge understands it. He understands it so well that he goes to great lengths to make excuses for not taking this simple test. I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Correct. And it is easy to do that. Simply place a target box (which the dowser does not know whether or not it contains gold) at the same exact location for every trial. That way all geological "influences" are controlled because the only thing different in the trials is the presence of gold within the target box. This is so extraordinarily simple that even Edge understands it. He understands it so well that he goes to great lengths to make excuses for not taking this simple test. I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.

This should also work for, say, 10 boxes, especially if edge has dowsed the area first and found the spots where interference is likely to be minimal.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

...which is why it is included in almost every protocol and test for dowsers.

Edge did it the first time he sat the test, checking the area and declaring it free from interference and then checking he could detect the 'gold' when he knew perfectly well under which cup it was hidden. It all worked 100% fine when he knew where the gold was, but when the blind test started he scored no better than someone guessing. Only then did he start blaming local conditions, gold coloured ink on books nearby, etc, etc despite the fact that he had agreed beforehand that it was clear and his magic stick was working perfectly.

The claim is a clear and simple one, the test should be equally clear and simple but Edge continues to dance around the meat of it while BillyJoe continues to argue semantics and philosophy on his behalf in the face of the overwhelming evidence that dowsing simply does not and can not work.

 

[politas]

Calibrating the scales does that; it gives you a base line and allows measurement of what’s there so then lack of target is known and then when target is there that is known too.

Calibrating what scale? You are typically vague, here.

Now it is visible and provable both ways.
If the Target is there or not, correct negative hits, correct positive hits, all through weights, both proven with scales.

What are you weighing, exactly? Are you weighing every sample, whether your dowsing tells you there is gold or not?Are you testing your dowsing on samples without knowing where they are drawn from?

When dowsing for gold this is exactly what I do avoid the lack of gold and find the collection spots of gold.

Right now my percentage is between 60% and 77% and I still have four sets of ten picks to go to make 10 tries.

These are meaningless numbers without clearly explaining your testing methodology.

 

[edge]

It all worked 100% fine when he knew where the gold was, but when the blind test started he scored no better than someone guessing.

With the scale there's no more guessing.
So far there is no ground anywhere that is void of a reading either strong or weak but it is the weak spot that will work better to demonstrate this phenomenon.
For instance I got an ounce reading in the first place that i tested in when the target was absent and four when the target was introduced and placed.
Coffee Creek it was a quarter ounce.
And the new place here it is about a half an ounce when the target is absent.
This is the base line when the target is introduced in the new spot it only goes to about three, and there are still variances of a few grams so it's not perfect with the target but pretty darn close when it's not there and more so each and every time.

BillyJoe sees something that you might not.

The claim is a clear and simple one, the test should be equally clear and simple but Edge continues to dance around the meat of it while BillyJoe continues to argue semantics and philosophy on his behalf in the face of the overwhelming evidence that dowsing simply does not and can not work.

The only evidence that you have is one form of testing while I have done many at least 11 different types, my best one if you missed it was to actually mine and test with a 6 inch dredge 21 picks negative positive and 11 positive read back for the scores.

Now there's a way not only to feel it but prove it each and every time that there is a measurable force that I can rely on.
But there are still a small amount of variables so my score isn't 100% but with in the parameters that I stated on the protocol, which is, a 60% correct score.

Right now Out of 42 containers or picks I’m at 79% correct, I’m able to show correct empty or full.
We are on the next set of tests that will be 100 sets of containers or passes with the stick.

We did our first set of 10 yesterday after we finished the previous test.
For the next three days we will do three a day.
That’s thirty scans a day and let me tell you that it is draining on the body and that the human body is the flaw and it is what causes the variables, and the nonconsitancy of the gravity field.
Way too hard to explain but I now know why no one has passed the challenge for dowsing.
Just showing the difference over and over should be sufficient for the challenge that there is a measurable force.
I’ll have to rewrite the protocol, but I will do the test too.
And I now can go any where to prove it.

Tricky said,

I suspect this is because he knows he will fail.

I don't know yet but my odds just increased at least 90% that I will pass.
Since you can see into the future maybe you should take the challenge,
Mr. negativity.
I forgot you were in the oily business.

 

[Tricky]

I don't know yet but my odds just increased at least 90% that I will pass.
Since you can see into the future maybe you should take the challenge,
Mr. negativity.
I forgot you were in the oily business.

I'll take that bet. You're giving 10:1 odds on your success, right?

My negativity, Edge, is based on the observation that no dowser (including you) has ever succeeded before. Frankly though, I think it is unlikely you will ever take the Challenge again because you have not cleared a protocol with them, nor do you seem to be attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if they haven't written you back, but if that is the case, then you need to call them again and again until you get an answer. Instead, you are meandering around talking about things like levitation.

 

[politas]

With the scale there's no more guessing.
So far there is no ground anywhere that is void of a reading either strong or weak but it is the weak spot that will work better to demonstrate this phenomenon.
For instance I got an ounce reading in the first place that i tested in when the target was absent and four when the target was introduced and placed.
Coffee Creek it was a quarter ounce.
And the new place here it is about a half an ounce when the target is absent.
This is the base line when the target is introduced in the new spot it only goes to about three, and there are still variances of a few grams so it's not perfect with the target but pretty darn close when it's not there and more so each and every time.

Let me see if I have this straight. You've attached a weight measuring scale to your dowsing stick, somehow, or are in some way using a weighing device to measure the dowsing "pull"? And you think that makes your tests better in some way?

 

[Cuddles]

Well, assuming that the original letter Edge sent counts as the opening of this application, he currently has two days left before it is closed. Edge, you any closer to actually being tested?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I’ll have to rewrite the protocol, but I will do the test too.
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...

Please do rewrite the protocol, edge, stating clearly what you can do under which conditions. Tell us what you would consider a success and what you would consider a failure.

Then do as you said:

...
And I now can go any where to prove it.
...