X 2.
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
I think this is a good explanation for why your neighbors want nothing to do with you.If there are women present I will say who is the hot chick that wants me too much
IXP
Does this mean that you wouldn't try to stop someone from jumping off a bridge? They might be able to fly, or their guardian angel might save them.
X 2.
It's even worse than that. More like: "If this thing I think is woo isn't, science has to yield."
Remember, we don't want to win so much as end up closer to correct than we were before. But I do agree that skipping the trial altogether, and going from the squad car right to prison is more efficient.
I (and, I think, tsig and PixyMisa) agree, WHEN the hi-lighted part is true. Dowsing isn't there yet, and everything we know about physics says that it won't be.
Let's get the horse harnessed before we get into the cart.
SezMe
post-pre-born
If I read this correctly, you are claiming the rods can actually hear your voice. Is that your claim?
In your very first post in this thread, you claimed to be a long time skeptic. If that is so, then you most certainly know about testing protocols, blinding of tests, null hypothesis, etc. With that knowledge, you don't need a bleedin chance to start testing - you would have done so at the first inkling of a dowsing capability.
Why have you failed to do so?
Last edited:
I had a very interesting day today. I went to see a long time friend who was interested to see the dowsing we had talked over the phone. I showed him what I could do, then he took over. He can locate all the stuff that I can, AND he can do the remote dowsing too ! It was crazy to watch his rods swing backwards and forwards as I hoped to and fro over a telephone line.
Later on we drew a map of the interior of his house with the idea of doing a test. He went into his office and shut the door while I located two points that gave me a water reading. I marked the two places on the map with an X. He then took the rods and also located two places, placing a cup at each one.
His locating matched mine exactly
Later on we drew a map of the interior of his house with the idea of doing a test. He went into his office and shut the door while I located two points that gave me a water reading. I marked the two places on the map with an X. He then took the rods and also located two places, placing a cup at each one.
His locating matched mine exactly
No! I know sod all about "testing protocols, blinding of tests, null hypothesis, etc" I don't even know what null hypothesis means. What does it mean ?
ComfySlippers
Banned
I know sod all about "testing protocols, blinding of tests, null hypothesis, etc" I don't even know what null hypothesis means. What does it mean ?
Can't your magic rods locate Google?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Do you understand that nothing in this story is different than if your friend were controlling the rods with small hand movements?
Seriously? He found water in his own house? How in the world is that supposed to convincer anyone of anything, least of all him or you?
Several people here have guided you to threads and videos where good testing protocols can be found. I, myself, have twice posted very simple tests you could do in about fifteen minutes. If you know "sod all," then the resources are there to help you. If you don't care to know, then nothing anyone says will matter.
I find it interesting that you keep coming back with fresh (and more and more ridiculous) anecdotes rather than performing one of many simple tests.
The null hypothesis means that there is no reason to believe something without appropriate evidence. Since you have offered no evidence that your dowsing power in any way finds things you don't already know to be true, then there is no reason to believe dowsing is anything other than imaginary.
Last edited:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
His locating matched mine exactly
In other words, you've yet again demonstrated the ideomotor effect.
Are you unable to come up with a proper scientific test? Ask here if you need help.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
You have been told how to do a simple blinded test. Until you do so and get a better than chance result the null hypothesis - that your perception that dowsing works is due to the usual combination of the ideomotor effect, confirmation bias etc - stands. Why on earth did you waste your time in the way you did when you and your friend could easily have done a simple test that would have been genuinely meaningful?
Incidentally if you were present when your friend did his dowsing and placed his cups then the fact that he put them in the same places you did is not even slightly surprisingly, as you'd know if you had bothered to take advantage of a single one of the opportunities to educate yourself you have been given since you started this thread.
Incidentally if you were present when your friend did his dowsing and placed his cups then the fact that he put them in the same places you did is not even slightly surprisingly, as you'd know if you had bothered to take advantage of a single one of the opportunities to educate yourself you have been given since you started this thread.
Last edited:
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
The OP hasn't come here to learn anything - his mind is made up.
What he wants is affirmation. Good luck with that....
I've gone prospecting with people who have claimed dowsing works. None of them are rich and none of them have found anything more that what anybody else had done with a rudimentary knowledge of geology and mineral deposition principles.
My lucky underpants were the counter-dowsing ploy. Every time I found something I attributed it to my lucky underpants, which proved that they were lucky.
What he wants is affirmation. Good luck with that....
I've gone prospecting with people who have claimed dowsing works. None of them are rich and none of them have found anything more that what anybody else had done with a rudimentary knowledge of geology and mineral deposition principles.
My lucky underpants were the counter-dowsing ploy. Every time I found something I attributed it to my lucky underpants, which proved that they were lucky.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for a quick and simple test to propose to people who claim to be water witches.
Thanks for that video.
I think the part that best explains why dowsing, homeopathy, life after death and other woo is pure and simple jive comes from 35' to the end of the lecture.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Here's where we disagree.
I'll even advance a possible explanation: dowsers are reacting to something they smell.
1) Smell is variable across the population and so you wouldn't expect the same performance from different people.
2) Smell can act below the level of conscious awareness.
3) The item found doesn't have to have a smell, it can be an odor associated with the item.
4) Smells vary in intensity depending on conditions so dowsing performance might also vary.
5) Artificial setups to test dowsing wouldn't necessarily duplicate the "wild type" smells.
6) When the smell influence isn't available, a dowser falls back on instinct and produces random results.
So, is this possibility ruled out by QFT? I don't see why it would be. Is it worth testing, since you've stated that there aren't any possible explanations? Does what I have outlined get tossed out because it doesn't fit the definition of dowsing?
While I agree that explanations of a certain type are ruled out, I think your claim of no possible explanation is too broad.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
So what you're saying is that dowsing isn't real, but dowsers think it's real because they're smelling something?
That doesn't dispute my point, which is that we know for sure that dowsing is baloney. It just offers an explanation for why dowsers might show better results than we'd expect by chance, and mistakenly attribute it to dowsing.
Except - there is no evidence that dowsers have better results than we'd expect by chance. So it's a whole chain of supposition to explain something that doesn't happen.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
OK, I see the mismatch better now. We are starting at two different places. I'm starting with an activity people do as I observe them doing it, while I think you are starting from what might be claimed about that activity.
Of course, if the root concept - whatever qualifies for the term dowsing - is bollocks from the start, there can, by definition, never be evidence for it since it is impossible right out of the gate. Anything possible wouldn't be dowsing. Dowsing doesn't exist.
I just don't find that as interesting as examining what people actually believe and what they do. In fact, I wouldn't require them to advance any theory at all, just show me what they do when they say they are dowsing. So my interest is in explaining what's going on, rather than dismissing the whole thing as impossible by definition. I enjoy telling them were the trick lies and, with luck, getting them to see it as well.
If this were true, we'd have gold sniffing dogs.
We have corpse sniffing dogs.
By Jove, I think he's got it!