Being skeptical of skepticism?

[drkitten]

Anyone who actually reads what I have said, critically, would see that what I am claiming is not "woo". Here is a "woo" claim: "The pendulum is a magical device that allows you to communicate with supernatural entities, to receive reliable information known only to those supernatural entities."

No, that's exactly what you're claiming.

Now, here is what I am claiming: Through ideomotor movement and a device, such as a pendulum, our sub-conscious mind (or whatever the hell you want to call it) can communicate with our conscious mind giving meaningful measurable results.

This "subconscious mind" as you call it does not exist, to the best of our psychological theories. The fact that you can't even define or describe it doesn't give you pause? The fact that there's no evidence you can cite from a real psychologist doesn't give you pause? The fact that the best you can do is a quack web site who is hawking $200 "magic" DVD home-study courses doesn't give you pause?

So, yes, you're claiming to communicate with leprechauns.

 

[tyr_13]

Limbo, I'm quoting myself here...

Limbo, you are describing the placebo effect. You tell them that the device will work, help them find something, and it does. Of course you can do the same thing with any other trick too, including 'spells' of finding. You want to know another one that 'works'? The the people to just go to the object they are looking for. They already know where it is, so just go there. Of course this only works if they really do know where it is. It isn't accessing information that is stored in another part of the brain, it is just tricking them into focusing. I'm not saying it isn't a useful trick, akin to bedtime rituals to help you go to sleep, but it isn't proof that a pendulum works because, as I understand it, the claim is that the pendulum works better than just focusing.

I laid out what manner I meant by, 'works'. Here it is again.

the claim is that the pendulum works better than just focusing.

I also addressed why you thought it worked.

Sorry, I won't accept anything from skeptics who refuse to try this for themselves. Skeptics are pretty good at weaseling out of things. NO WEASELING OUT.

What is wrong with you? I've done it. I've performed your test. It is proof of the ideometer effect being applicable to a pendulum. This doesn't not support your supposition that it accesses the 'unconscious/subconscious' mind. No one is weaseling out, simply declining. YOU have to prove your claim, not them.

There is only ONE reason why a skeptic wouldn't try it. Cowardice. Fear of being wrong.

They don't have to do it because others have, and explained themselves in ways you refuse to. Again, you have to prove something, not them. Your test doesn't have to be done by EVERY skeptic to be worthy of skepticism.

While I agree that skeptical communities can have an emotional investment, saying it is the same as religious ones is misleading at best. Skeptics, in general, want to learn. I haven't met a skeptic in person who wouldn't love to be proven wrong. If they are proven wrong, that means they learn something new.

Limbo, your 'observations' (comments/attacks) are what I'll call, argumentum ad mime. You are taking the arguments of skeptics, and miming them, only inserting skeptic in place of whatever woo skeptics argue against. You know it will sound plausible to skeptic's ears because they are the ones who created the argument in the first place.

You also conveniently don't address points, like mine, that you don't think you can tackle.

Sorry, I won't accept anything from skeptics who refuse to try this for themselves. Skeptics are pretty good at weaseling out of things. NO WEASELING OUT.

Let me give this miming a try. Sorry, I won't accept anything from advocates who refuse to address valid points. Advocates are pretty good at weaseling out of things. NO WEASELING OUT. (See, I can even add emphasis to make it look a little different from yours.)

 

[Tricky]

Now, here is what I am claiming: Through ideomotor movement and a device, such as a pendulum, our sub-conscious mind (or whatever the hell you want to call it) can communicate with our conscious mind giving meaningful measurable results.

Indeed it can. It can tell you what the person thinks or likes. If you put a number of names around the pendulum, it would probably indicate the one that the holder of the pendulum likes the most. Tarot cards, astrology, i ching, ink blots; they all are useful for getting a person to say what is on their mind. They don't reveal anything that wasn't already in the person's mind, but as psychologist's tools, they have a function. But getting the subconscious mind to communicate with the conscious mind is not all that difficult.

 

[Limbo]

I've performed your test. It is proof of the ideometer effect being applicable to a pendulum. This doesn't not support your supposition that it accesses the 'unconscious/subconscious' mind.

Oh? Which direction did the pendulum swing for 'yes'? Which for 'no'? Which direction did it swing to indicate that neither a 'yes' or a 'no' is an applicable answer to the question?

How many yes/no questions did you ask? What questions did you ask? What were the answers?

 

[Limbo]

Thank you, Tricky. Maybe there is an honest skeptic around here after all.

They don't reveal anything that wasn't already in the person's mind, but as psychologist's tools, they have a function.

I never claimed otherwise.

This function...this ability to put the conscious mind in touch with the subconscious...is the reason the ancients thought they were getting in touch with a supernatural spirit world...when they were actually getting in touch with their subconscious mind. They thought the subconscious was the spirits....thought the subconscious was divinity. Thats why such tools were (are) called 'divination'...

It's the 'basis' for the "art" of dowsing, which EHocking was "very confident in asserting" doesn't exist.

 

[tyr_13]

Oh? Which direction did the pendulum swing for 'yes'? Which for 'no'? Which direction did it swing to indicate that neither a 'yes' or a 'no' is an applicable answer?

How many yes/no questions did you ask? What questions did you ask? What were the answers?

Clockwise was yes, counterclockwise was no. Back and forth was the 'neither' indicator. I used my brother as an assistant. Some of the questions were of a personal nature, and were subjective. Thus, I'm not reveling those ones because a) they were personal and b) they aren't useful for testing.

My father recently got married and moved in with his wife. We are boxing up, moving, cleaning, and getting ready for a yard sale. This put me a good position to really test your claim. I made a list of items I believed where somewhere in the house, but could not readily recall where they were. I made a list. I then had my brother pick which ones I would find with your test and which I would find with other methods. For more ***** and giggles, we timed how long it took to find them. It took five and a half minutes for your method to tell me that the nail clippers with the ketch on them were in the top draw of the desk in my bedroom. It took me one and a half minutes for me to find my brother's wakizashi case under a suitcase, under the coffee table in the living room by telling myself to just, 'go there.' It took me two minutes to find my drawing notebook with the green cover using a chanting spell, it was on a chair pushed under a table. etc....

The test showed that the pendulum did nothing that just telling myself that I knew where the item was did, and the pendulum questions took longer.

And you've ignored my other points just to question if I did the test. You also continued to mime with dr kitten by saying he was not worth your time, when he said already that you were wasting his, only he gave you a last chance. You just called him a coward without addressing his points. What is the 'subconscious mind' that knows something the greater mind does not?

 

[Limbo]

Clockwise was yes, counterclockwise was no. Back and forth was the 'neither' indicator. I used my brother as an assistant. Some of the questions were of a personal nature, and were subjective. Thus, I'm not reveling those ones because a) they were personal and b) they aren't useful for testing.

So...a 'part of your mind' beyond your conscious awareness utilized a) ideomotor motion, and b) the pendulum to effectively communicate with your conscious mind. Correct? That is all I have been claiming, and that is what you proved to yourself. Correct?

That is the 'basis' for 'divination'...for 'dowsing'.

Gee...all this fuss over such a simple claim and simple experiment. Skeptics sure make things more difficult than they have to be.

What is the 'subconscious mind' that knows something the greater mind does not?

The 'greater mind'...lol. Your hubris is showing, o conscious ego.

I'm surprised I have to tell you this. Don't you realize that the brain is like a super-computer...and the conscious mind is only aware of a tiny fraction of the information that the brain takes in from the environment?

The subconscious mind: Your unsung hero

"What's more, non-conscious thinking may actually work best in some cases where you might imagine rational, conscious thought is the best tool for the job. In situations where people have to make difficult choices based on large amounts of hard-to-assess information, psychologist Ap Dijksterhuis at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands has found that they are happier with their decision when acting on gut instinct than when forced to try to think the choice through rationally (New Scientist, 5 May 2007, p 35). Dijksterhuis is convinced that subconscious thought processes are superior in many situations - including most social interactions - because they allow us to integrate complex information in a more holistic way than can be managed by rational thought processes."

The New Unconscious (Oxford Series in Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience)

"In the past several decades a revolution has occurred in how psychologists view the unconscious. The Freudian view of an infantile, primitive, unconscious has proved to be far too limited; it turns out that a great deal of our mental lives, much of it highly sophisticated and adaptive, occurs behind the curtain of consciousness. Indeed, as illustrated in this fine book, the boundary separating nonconscious from conscious processing is con...snip....

Edited by Darat: 

Beach of Rule 4 removed.

 

[Tbone]

Then try it yourself. Or are you scared?

Before I answer that, I would like to ask you how the results would be more valid if I personally did this experiment or not in the company of the friends that cared to do it? Does my NOT doing the test invalidate the negative results they obtained, simply because the experiment was my idea to do?

 

[Marrena]

And totally un-credible. The Huffington Post is up there with the National Enquirer in terms of journalistic credibility.

The Huffington Post is a blog site. It contains individual blogs and links to standard MSM news sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times. So the news they have posted is as credible as MSM news is (not much), but the blogs must be judged on the authors' merits. This is from his bio posted there

"Since 1964 Dr. Breggin has been publishing peer-reviewed articles and medical books in his subspecialty of clinical psychopharmacology. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and many professional books about psychiatric medication, the FDA and drug approval process, the evaluation of clinical trials, and standards of care in psychiatry and related fields.


...snip...

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

 

[Marrena]

And to be more pointed, from my previous link, from that rag The Journal of the American Medical Association:

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

 

[EHocking]

$250 "worth" of DVDs are not necessary. All you need is a ring or something, and a piece of string. You would have realized that had you read the page carefully.

I asked for scientific evidence that dowsing can be shown to externalise the supposed bridge between the conscious and unconsious mind.

You gave me a get rich scheme full of anecdotes.

There is no substitute for personal experience. Don't take this the wrong way...but are you a little nervous, perhaps? That would be understandable, but there is nothing to be nervous about. You won't be hypnotizing yourself...you won't be harmed. You won't be magically transformed in an evil "woo". You will be using a simple, home-made pendulum to play "20 questions" with your unconscious/subconscious mind. That's it.

It's quite arrogant of you to assume that I haven't looked into this. And quit those are very childish taunts you've reverted to. I take it from this attitude that you do NOT have any scientific evidence that supports your claim? A double-blind study rather than bias confirming unblinded tests such as you've suggested from the $$$$ site you linked.

Do you not have the time to watch it yourself? I would think that for something as important as this, people would make the time. But that's just me...I'm the hands-on, do-it-yourself investigative sort.

I'm trying to encourage you to do a little experimenting and investigating yourself. Please don't let me go away thinking that your 'stance' discourages or prohibits such things. I do want to keep a little faith in skepticism.

.Google (groups) "dowsing" and "ehocking" for evidence that I am not new to the discussion, so quit the childish "I double dare you" taunting and provide some compelling scientific evidence for the claims you are making for dowsing and crop circles that might pursuade me to rethink my stance.

 

[Marrena]

Discussion of ideas, my ass. What's commonly known as the subconscious, also known as intuition is perfectly accepted in scientific research and often studied. For example

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305144210.htm

The popular book, "The Gift of Fear" was largely about learning to trust and use one's intuition. There's nothing supernatural or otherworldly about it all, it's just using one's animal instincts. If dowsing or tarot cards or the I Ching or (reluctantly added) astrology help a person access this subrational thought for more complete information on a subject, then that person has an advantage over someone relying only on their rational mind.

Now if a person ignores rationality and only depends on animal instinct, of course they are at a severe disadvantage. But just because a source of information isn't optimal doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Indeed it can. It can tell you what the person thinks or likes. If you put a number of names around the pendulum, it would probably indicate the one that the holder of the pendulum likes the most. Tarot cards, astrology, i ching, ink blots; they all are useful for getting a person to say what is on their mind. They don't reveal anything that wasn't already in the person's mind, but as psychologist's tools, they have a function. But getting the subconscious mind to communicate with the conscious mind is not all that difficult.

I am not convinced that the first part about being functional psychologists' tools is right. None of my colleagues use them. And the last part about getting the "subconscious mind" to communicate with the "conscious mind" is sheer nonsense.

 

[Marrena]

All right

Dr. Breggin's bio is found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/#blogger_bio

And the JAMA article pointing out the ridiculousness of the current state of American medical research is found here

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/1/113

 

[EHocking]

...
This function...this ability to put the conscious mind in touch with the subconscious...is the reason the ancients thought they were getting in touch with a supernatural spirit world...when they were actually getting in touch with their subconscious mind. They thought the subconscious was the spirits....thought the subconscious was divinity. Thats why such tools were (are) called 'divination'...

It's the 'basis' for the "art" of dowsing, which EHocking was "very confident in asserting" doesn't exist.

As you would see from my purther posts - that point was distinctly about finding water, oil etc etc.

Your divination of the inner mind is a different claim to which I was referring too.

So, in the sense of finding things with dowsing, I am still very confidenct in asserting that dowsing (of this nature) does not exist.

As for your current flavour of dowsing, from reading I can see that the conscious/unconscious mind debate is quite volatile and not as clear cut as your take on it is. That aside, all I ask is to be pointed to blinded studies that demonstrate the phenomenon you are asserting, that a pendulum has been shown to derive answers or instructions from a person's unconscious mind.

 

[tyr_13]

So...a 'part of your mind' beyond your conscious awareness utilized a) ideomotor motion, and b) the pendulum to effectively communicate with your conscious mind. Correct? That is all I have been claiming, and that is what you proved to yourself. Correct?


The 'greater mind'...lol. Your hubris is showing, o conscious ego.

I'm surprised I have to tell you this. Don't you realize that the brain is like a super-computer...and the conscious mind is only aware of a tiny fraction of the information that the brain takes in from the environment?

First things first, by 'greater mind' I meant the mind at large, or non-specific mind, which is a perfectly valid use of the term 'greater' (i.e. 'larger'). Your hubris is distorting what people say to fit into your preconception (prejudice) about 'skeptics'.

And, no, the pendulum didn't communicate with a part of my mind that my conscious mind couldn't access because, like I said in the same post you quoted from, I was able to access the same information by focusing.

Your brain is most definitelynot like a super-computer. I'm postulating that you don't know how a computer actually operates, and thus it is a forgivable misconception. Yes there is information that we don't access, but it is stuff like electrical signals that release hormones to make your liver work or your heart beat, not information that your seem to believe it is. To use a computer term, our brains don't seem to be 'partitioned' that way. Our brains only remember small parts of the information we take in form our environment and constructs the rest, it doesn't lock it away on something our main OS can't access (as if we had Windows and Linux installed at the same time). It is possible to trick yourself into believing that you don't know something that you don't, or that you believe something you don't actually believe, but this is still a function you can access with your conscious mind.

But I see you still decide to not address valid points and only cherry pick. I would post longer, but I must go to work. Have fun complaining about how the skeptics, 'just don't listen'. Disagreeing with you don't make someone else arrogant, stupid, emotionally charged, or in denial. To think that you couldn't possibly be wrong is really hubris, a function of your ego.

And before you even say it, yes, I examined the possibility that I was wrong, looked at the evidence, and have thus far rejected your claim.

 

[Limbo]

I asked for scientific evidence that dowsing can be shown to externalise the supposed bridge between the conscious and unconsious mind.

EHocking, once you have tried it for yourself, and seen that a device and ideomotor motion can indeed "externalise the supposed bridge between the conscious and unconsious mind", then you can ask yourself why "scientific evidence" of something that is so easy to prove is so hard to find. If you can't figure it out then I can give you some hints.

Giving Misery the Finger: Ideomotor Signals for Diagnosis and Healing

"Ideomotor signals, unconsciously given answers through symbolic movements of fingers or a Chevreuil pendulum, can be utilized as a rapid hypnotherapeutic method to explore unconscious psychodynamic components of various psychosomatic medical conditions. Special emphasis will be given to intake process and establishment of a rapid analysis through special ideomotor questioning."

Mind Tricks * 19 September 2007 * NewScientist.com news service * article by Graham Lawton

[...]

"Libet's experiment involved equipment that you're unlikely to have at home, but you can tap into a similar phenomenon using what is known as the "ideomotor effect". Make a pendulum out of a paper clip and a piece of thread and dangle it over a cross drawn on a piece of paper. Ask yourself a simple yes/no question, such as "am I at home?" or "do I have a cat?", and tell yourself that if the pendulum swings clockwise, the answer is yes, while anticlockwise means no. Spookily, the pendulum will generally start rotating in the direction of the correct answer.

It looks supernatural, but it's not. The reason it works is that, as soon as you ask the question, your unconscious brain fires up motor preparation circuits in anticipation of the answer it expects to see. These circuits initiate subtle muscle movements that you are not normally aware of - except when they are amplified by a pendulum (or dowsing stick or Ouija board). This is your unconscious brain in action."

[...]

 

[Limbo]

As you would see from my purther posts - that point was distinctly about finding water, oil etc etc.

Your divination of the inner mind is a different claim to which I was referring too.

So, in the sense of finding things with dowsing, I am still very confidenct in asserting that dowsing (of this nature) does not exist.

As for your current flavour of dowsing, from reading I can see that the conscious/unconscious mind debate is quite volatile and not as clear cut as your take on it is. That aside, all I ask is to be pointed to blinded studies that demonstrate the phenomenon you are asserting, that a pendulum has been shown to derive answers or instructions from a person's unconscious mind.

You said there was no BASIS for the "art" of "dowsing". There is a BASIS, and there are uses for the BASIS. Of course, I don't expect you to admit it.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." -Albert Einstein

 

[Tbone]

You said there was no BASIS for the "art" of "dowsing". There is a BASIS, and there are uses for the BASIS. Of course, I don't expect you to admit it.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." -Albert Einstein

Oh look, another person who thinks quotes from famous people prove anything. Unless Einstein was specifically referring to your pendulum experiments, don't you think it would be better to stick with something more concrete?

 

[Limbo]

Oh look, another person who thinks quotes from famous people prove anything. Unless Einstein was specifically referring to your pendulum experiments, don't you think it would be better to stick with something more concrete?

Oh look, another skeptic who lacks critical thinking ability, enough to realize that the pendulum can serve as a bridge between that which Einstein called the "intuitive mind" and that which Einstein called the "rational mind."

Tbone...you have contributed nothing of value to this conversation, and you're not likely to. Welcome to my ignore list.