Being skeptical of skepticism?

[EHocking]

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.[...]

Rather than hints, just a link to a paper on an experiment that demonstrates the phenomenon will be fine.

Three times asked and you've not been able to provide a link beyond anecdote, discussion and editorials.

You make the claim, please provide the evidence for the claim.

 

[EHocking]

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.

At least quote my entire post.

I said that there is no basis in the "art" (quotes for the sake of being sarcastic, btw) of dowsing TO FIND THINGS.

I then said that you flavour of dowsing is a different animal to what you are ascribing my sentence to.

I made this clear.

Dowsing cannot be used to find water etc etc.

On the un/conscious mind flavour YOU are talking about, I merely asked for you to provide scientific studies that demonstrated the phenomenon.

 

[Limbo]

Rather than hints, just a link to a paper on an experiment that demonstrates the phenomenon will be fine.

Three times asked and you've not been able to provide a link beyond anecdote, discussion and editorials.

You make the claim, please provide the evidence for the claim.

Did you bother to read the links I provided?

I don't know why this isn't getting through to you...and I'm just about out of patience with you...but you can see the evidence for my claim for yourself by DOING THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF.

You just need to DO IT, and you just need to make sure that you fully understand my claim so that you don't attack a strawman.

I think you're scared. I think that if you were to do it, you would a) have to admit you were wrong, and b) you would be faced with the uncomfortable realization that you can't rely on science for everything. I think that deep down you KNOW that, and so you are reluctant.

Your incredible amount of faith in science is disturbing. It's quasi-religious. You seem absolutely convinced that if I'm right, then there MUST be a "paper on an experiment that demonstrates the phenomenon" to prove it. And you seem convinced that if there isn't one, then I MUST be wrong.

Well...put your faith to the test.

 

[Limbo]

At least quote my entire post.
I said that there is no basis in the "art" (quotes for the sake of being sarcastic, btw) of dowsing TO FIND THINGS.

Is that so?

"I have a similar stance on dowsing and non-human crop circles makers.
The evidence is so weak or has been so readily exposed as deeply flawed if not concocted, that I am very confidenct in asserting that there is no basis to the "art" of dowsing, or that crop circles are anything other than shapes trampled into crop by people."

Well guess what. There is a BASIS for "art" of dowsing.

And yes people can occasionally find various things through the "art" of dowsing. It isn't 100% reliable, because the results depend on information gleamed from the environment and present in the mind as opposed to information gained from a "supernatural source". The mistake many dowsers make is thinking that the information they get from the environment and from the depths of the unconscious mind is

external...

supernatural...

magical...

in origin.

Can you grok that? Or are you going to be deliberately obtuse?

 

[EHocking]

Did you bother to read the links I provided?

I don't know why this isn't getting through to you...and I'm just about out of patience with you...but you can see the evidence for my claim for yourself by DOING THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF.

DOing the experiment myself is NOT a scientific double-blind study of the phenomenon.

Which is what I was asking if you had.

You just need to DO IT, and you just need to make sure that you fully understand my claim so that you don't attack a strawman.

ALl I understand is that you cannot back up your claim with documented scientific studies of the phenomenon.

I've tried dowsing, it didn't work for me. BUt this is not what I base my opinion on. I base my opinion on dowsing on documented double-blind experiments that have been repeated with dowsers who claim that they should have produced results.

I think you're scared. I think that if you were to do it, you would a) have to admit you were wrong, and b) you would be faced with the uncomfortable realization that you can't rely on science for everything. I think that deep down you KNOW that, and so you are reluctant.

Again with the ad hominem and no scientific studies for me to read...

Your incredible amount of faith in science is disturbing. It's quasi-religious. You seem absolutely convinced that if I'm right, then there MUST be a "paper on an experiment that demonstrates the phenomenon" to prove it. And you seem convinced that if there isn't one, then I must be wrong.

Well...put your faith to the test.

Ah, so the whole thing is based on belief and faith, not replicable results.

I guess this is where we part ways. I base my decisions and opinions on replicable, analysed evidence. I'm and atheist and an engineer, perhaps that explains to you my approach to the matter of dowsing - not faith based, but observation based.

In contrast, your posts on this are quite emotional.
I am attempting to remain analytical about a flavour of dowsing I am unfamiliar with.

 

[Limbo]

So you didn't bother to read the links. If you had, you would have realized that ideomotor signaling, which is essentially what we are talking about and what dowsing boils down to, is used medically.

Learning Objectives:

The participant shall, upon completion of the workshop, be able to:

1. Explain how patients/clients can communicate with ideomotor signals.

2. Name the seven common causes of psychosomatic disorders.

3. Demonstrate the use of ideomotor signals as an adjunct to hypnoanalysis.

And you would have realized that an experiment was performed which supports what I am claiming.

"It was a ground-breaking investigation into the nature of consciousness and free will. In 1983, psychologist Benjamin Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, hooked five volunteers up to an EEG machine and asked them to make voluntary movements, such as lifting a finger, whenever they felt like it. Watching the electrical activity in their brains, he discovered that his subjects only became consciously aware of their intention to act a few hundred milliseconds after their brain had initiated the movement. Libet was forced to conclude that what feels like a conscious decision may in fact be nothing of the sort (Brain, vol 106, p 623).

This experiment was the first demonstration of what is now an established theory in neuroscience: a major proportion of your thoughts and actions - even things you believe you are in conscious control of - actually take place in your unconscious. Most of the time you are essentially flying on autopilot.

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."

All it takes is a little critical reading and critical thinking, and the courage to get your hands dirty.

I've tried dowsing, it didn't work for me. BUt this is not what I base my opinion on. I base my opinion on dowsing on documented double-blind experiments that have been repeated with dowsers who claim that they should have produced results.

Mm-hmm. And did these dowsers make their grandiose claims based on the belief that they gain information from a supernatural, infallible, external, magical source?

Or did they realize that they gain limited information from the environment and a natural, fallible, internal, non-magical source? And thus under certain circumstances dowsing is extremely limited?

I guess this is where we part ways.

I guess so. I've about had my fill of skeptics for now anyway. You are an insufferable lot.

 

[Tbone]

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.

That seems rather harsh after three whole posts in a now 7 page thread, two of which actually were contributing. One post was in which I stated I did what you were asking people to do (albeit well before the creation of this thread), the second requesting clarification to a question you asked in response to my first post, and the third lightly chastising you to stick to the facts of the matter, whatever they may be, and not use quotes from famous people to attempt to prove your point.

Again, unless Einstein was referring to objects or such that can form a bridge between the two mind types that you claim exist, quotes from him serve no purpose in an arguement.

 

[EHocking]

So you didn't bother to read the links. If you had, you would have realized that ideomotor signaling, which is essentially what we are talking about and what dowsing boils down to, is used medically.

Yet you cannot quote one medical study utilising dowsing.<snip>

And you would have realized that an experiment was performed which supports what I am claiming.

"It was a ground-breaking investigation into the nature of consciousness and free will. In 1983, psychologist Benjamin Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, hooked five volunteers up to an EEG machine and asked them to make voluntary movements, such as lifting a finger, whenever they felt like it. Watching the electrical activity in their brains, he discovered that his subjects only became consciously aware of their intention to act a few hundred milliseconds after their brain had initiated the movement. Libet was forced to conclude that what feels like a conscious decision may in fact be nothing of the sort (Brain, vol 106, p 623).

This experiment was the first demonstration of what is now an established theory in neuroscience: a major proportion of your thoughts and actions - even things you believe you are in conscious control of - actually take place in your unconscious. Most of the time you are essentially flying on autopilot.

And, still, no mention of pendulums or dowsing being used in a medical study...

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."

Merely an assertion from a make $$$$ quick from hypnosis. No medical study using pendulums or dowsing.

All it takes is a little critical reading and critical thinking, and the courage to get your hands dirty.

More ad hom moments, and still no medical study using pendulums or dowsing. Just a "try it for yourself" dare from a make $$$$ quick website.

Mm-hmm. And did these dowsers make their grandiose claims based on the belief that they gain information from a supernatural, infallible, external, magical source?

Or did they realize that they gain limited information from the environment and a natural, fallible, internal, non-magical source? And thus under certain circumstances dowsing is extremely limited?

Nope. They all said they could find water, or gold, or bodies (depending on the test). All of them succeeded 100% in the open trial where they knew where their target was (the control) and all subsequently failed when the blinded trial was undertaken.

I guess so. I've about had my fill of skeptics for now anyway. You are an insufferable lot.

You are taking this way too personally. You obviously have an emotional (at least) investment in pendulum dowsing, where I have none whatsoever. More, none of the evidence you've presented here has piqued my interest in it either.

Remember, it was you who literally "butted" in on the thread to show us this phenomenon. The burden of proof of the existence of the phenomenon was always on you. I'm not talking about ideomotor effect, but the effective application of dowsing for anything substantial.

 

[deep]

Is there [a difference between believing something and being able to prove it]?

Tom believes he saw a UFO being flown by Bigfoot, but he has no proof of that.

I don't think many scientists entertain the possibility that aether exists, or that the moon is made of Swiss cheese. And they shouldn't, even if it is a "possibility".

What does that have to do with skepticism? In order to be skeptical of something, someone must first make a claim to be skeptical of. Unless someone is seriously suggesting that the Moon is made of swiss-cheese, there's nothing there to be skeptical of.

Regarding being skeptical of your own thoughts - there's no problem with doing that unless you're in the habit of asserting negative claims. For example, "I think my car is parked in the parking deck, but I can't prove that, so therefore my car is not parked in the parking deck".

I would personally think, "I think my car is parked in the parking deck, but I can't prove that, so there's no way to determine whether it is or isn't until I walk there and find out".

 

[deep]

You sound like Juror #8 in "12 Angry Men".

It's "possible" that electrons are made of styrofoam, or that planets are held in orbit by invisible miniature Darth Vaders.

Again, show me someone who is seriously making those claims.

Regarding Bigfoot - there's nothing that is singularly impossible about most of the claims.

- There are civilized humans who grow hair over their entire body.
- There are civilized humans who are well over 7 feet tall.
- There are uncivilized humans living on this planet.

Although it's certainly unlikely, I don't see why you would consider all three of those occurring at once to be comparable to "electrons made out of styrofoam" (which is a fundamental impossibility if you want to get technical about it).

 

[deep]

Damn. And I wanted to see what Deep44 would've answered.

You've just spoiled my week-end, Kitten.

Why? Are you admitting that it wasn't a genuine question? Either way, I posted my answer before reading any further into the thread, so I hadn't seen drkitten's response yet.

 

[deep]

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

Wouldn't that be two reasons..? Kidding.

I personally wouldn't try it because there's no point in doing so. If it works, it means nothing. If it fails, it means nothing.

The mechanism you're describing wouldn't work if the unconscious mind doesn't know where the item is, so how can you learn anything from a random test like the one you're suggesting? What if someone stole the item I'm looking for while I wasn't home?

That kind of test would have to take place in a controlled environment, and even then, it would be tricky.

 

[Moochie]

I don't want to veer this thread too much, but I think the skeptics here have too much faith in the veracity and pure-minded motives of the scientific community, particularly the medical scientific community. I posted a link earlier in this thread, but this one is more pointed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/the-anthrax-perpetrator-a_b_119278.html

"The drug companies spend billions of dollars each year, often in the form of hush money for lawsuit settlements, in order hide from the public how deadly their drugs can be. They advertise heavily in the scientific journals and in the general media, and use this leverage to suppress negative information about their products. The drug companies control much of what happens in organized medicine and psychiatry, including nearly all pharmacology research. The FDA and the NIMH act like partners to the drug industry in what I call the psychopharmaceutical complex. This is not so much a conspiracy as an open partnership among interest groups who feed off pushing psychiatric drugs onto the public."

Does it occur to you that this individual might have an ax to grind? Where is his compelling evidence? Where is the evidence to show that the antidepressants the two people he writes about took drove them to their heinous acts? How many cases of people perpetrating crazy, homicidal acts can you find where the perpetrators were not on any medication?

My BS meter began to go off the scale reading this item. The author belongs right up there with all the other CTers.

Where's your skepticism?

(Disclosure: I have variously been on Prozac, Zoloft, and Effexor. I developed none of the weirdness displayed by the people this guy writes about. In fact, these particular antidepressants did nothing at all for me.)


M.

Sorry to further the derail -- I won't continue this here; it's in the wrong part of the forum.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...The mechanism you're describing wouldn't work if the unconscious mind doesn't know where the item is...

This is another instance of using that nonscientific concept to merely describe the fact that sometimes people make accurate quesses based upon partial cues.
Putting causes into the nonobservable and nonfalsifiable "unconscious" is known as the Freudian Phallacy.

 

[Marrena]

Where's the right part of the forum for this? I was using it as proof that skeptics have far too much faith in the purity of the science community, particularly the medical science community.

That guy is hardly a CTer. I am extremely skeptical, skeptical of the inherent biases in the state of American medical research, when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Also the bias in the things that aren't getting studied. It took this long for a definitive study showing the Atkins diet is healthier than a low-fat whole-grain diet. What other important medical health-giving benefits are being overlooked in pharmaceuticals' research on copycat drugs that aren't as effective as the now generic originals?

 

[deep]

This is another instance of using that nonscientific concept to merely describe the fact that sometimes people make accurate quesses based upon partial cues.
Putting causes into the nonobservable and nonfalsifiable "unconscious" is known as the Freudian Phallacy.

Freudian "Phallacy"? What on earth are you talking about? Can you show me where this "phallacy" is referenced outside of this forum?

EDIT: every Freudian Fallacy I can find is in reference to cocaine use.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Actually, "Freudian Phallacy" is a joking reference to Sir Karl Popper's dissection of Freudian theory as being nonfalsifiable and, therefore, not scientific at all. It also refers to Freud's case of penis envy.

 

[Moochie]

Actually, "Freudian Phallacy" is a joking reference to Sir Karl Popper's dissection of Freudian theory as being nonfalsifiable and, therefore, not scientific at all. It also refers to Freud's case of penis envy.

Well, I laughed.


M.

 

[Marrena]

Here is a debate on his quack level in the BMJ

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7470/816-b

 

[deep]

Actually, "Freudian Phallacy" is a joking reference to Sir Karl Popper's dissection of Freudian theory as being nonfalsifiable and, therefore, not scientific at all. It also refers to Freud's case of penis envy.

Funny. I thought for a moment that you might be joking, but you sounded pretty serious in that first sentence.