Dowsing by a Skeptic

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem with the story is, as pointed out in the linked thread, that the coordinates given by the dowser don't exist. According to the thread, there is no L avenue in Oakland. I know nothing of Oakland, but I checked Google Maps, as did Jackalgirl in that thread, and there's an L street, but it runs parallel to D Street; there is no intersection of them.

So we know the story to be inaccurate, at least in detail.

I'm not saying that the story is accurate.

 

[Olowkow]

I don't see how the two posts are contradictory. One says that he first encountered dowsing years ago, but couldn't get it to work. The other says that he thought dowsing was bunk until recently. There's no reason both can't be true.

....

Well certainly discovering dowsing years ago and believing it to be "until recently complete and utter BS" are not mutually exclusive, but Mick also says:

I discovered dowsing years ago when I lived in Aberdeenshire. I got a dowser to find a well for me. He used a forked hazel stick. It was entertaining watching him dowse, he would do a little dance while he was fighting with the stick which would the hit him in the chest with real force. For some reason it worked back to front with him, but it worked really well .

He hired a dowser to find a well years ago, but he thought dowsing was bunk until recently?
Dowsing to find a well location "worked really well" years ago, but he thought dowsing was bunk until recently?

In my world, these statements on the BSD and JREF forums are at best non sequiturs which require explaining. Personally, I don't think I would have hired a dowser or praised the practice years ago if I had thought it was utter nonsense.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not really. His claim was that years ago he paid a dowser to find a well, and the dowser succeeded, but that despite his belief, it did not work for him. Now it does work for him. His belief has not changed, only his own ability in dowsing has changed, according to him.

If he believed in dowsing from the first incident described, then that belief is not expressed in the post of Mick's quoted. If you are getting that information from elsewhere, then can you please provide the source?

Hitchens Razor applies.

Saying "there is no reason to believe this to be true" is a different statement to "the dowser got the co-ordinates wrong".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He hired a dowser to find a well years ago, but he thought dowsing was bunk until recently?

"Hired" doesn't appear in that post. Are you getting that information from elsewhere?

Dowsing to find a well location "worked really well" years ago, but he thought dowsing was bunk until recently?

Tell me, if you saw a dowser locate a well, what would your opinion of dowsing be? Would the fact that you had seen a dowser locate a well necessarily imply that you didn't think dowsing was bunk?

Personally, I don't think I would have hired a dowser or praised the practice years ago if I had thought it was utter nonsense.

Again, I don't see any evidence that years ago he praised the practice.

 

[Olowkow]

"Hired" doesn't appear in that post. Are you getting that information from elsewhere?

Maybe "got a dowser" means captured a dowser and held him prisoner.

Tell me, if you saw a dowser locate a well, what would your opinion of dowsing be? Would the fact that you had seen a dowser locate a well necessarily imply that you didn't think dowsing was bunk?

My opinion would be that we need to do more investigation.

Again, I don't see any evidence that years ago he praised the practice.

Well, the statement "it worked really well" is far from calling it utter BS, but YMMV.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe "got a dowser" means captured a dowser and held him prisoner.

Or it means that it was a friend of a friend and the friend said "you want to find that well? I know someone who can help!" Or any number of other explanations.

My opinion would be that we need to do more investigation.

Right. So there's no need to assume that Mark cannot possibly have seen a dowser find a well and still thought it bunk.

Well, the statement "it worked really well" is far from calling it utter BS, but YMMV.

That's not a statement he made at the time, nor a statement he is attributing to himself at the time. All that tells us is that the dowser found the well, and that when he made the post he was of the opinion that it had worked really well. It's far from infeasible to imagine that the demonstration didn't convince him at the time, but that hsi subsequent change in belief has altered his perception of the event. It's not exactly uncommon.

Your interpretation of events could be correct. But it could also be wrong. I think dowsing is easy enough to discredit without making things up or making unevidenced assumptions. These things should especially be avoided if being done under the banner of scepticism. Remember, the idea is to follow the evidence wherever it leads and to be prepared to admit that we don't have enough evidence from which to draw a conclusion, rather than to start from a conclusion and massage the evidence to fit.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]As for the harp story, I think people shouldn't claim that the dowser didn't find the exact co-ordinates of the harp. If we assume that the story, as told, is true, then we know that at least he found it to within a two-block radius. That doesn't mean that he got the exact house right, but it also doesn't mean that he doesn't. We don't have enough information to know. But either way, if the story is accurate, then that's still an impressive coincidence.

No, it proves that someone who saw one of those flyers knew something about the harp. There is no proof that it was ever anywhere near the address identified.IXP

If we accept the story as true, then we know that the person who phoned her saw the flier outside his house, and that it was his neighbour who had the harp. So, yes, it would establish that the harp was within the two block radius that she had fliered.

It's certainly better supported by the evidence than the assertion that the dowser didn't get the co-ordinates of where the harp was right because it was picked up elsewhere.

A lot of 'ifs' there.
All we really know i that the person recovered the harp via phone calls.
Nada más, really.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A lot of 'ifs' there.
All we really know i that the person recovered the harp via phone calls.
Nada más, really.

Again, I'm not claiming the story is true. I'm responding to those who have said that we can say that the dowser didn't give the correct co-ordinates for the harp. It's entirely possible that he didn't. It's also possible that he did. We don't have enough evidence to say either way, so we should refrain from making a declarative statement about whether or not he did.

 

[IXP]

If we accept the story as true, then we know that the person who phoned her saw the flier outside his house, and that it was his neighbour who had the harp. So, yes, it would establish that the harp was within the two block radius that she had fliered.

It's certainly better supported by the evidence than the assertion that the dowser didn't get the co-ordinates of where the harp was right because it was picked up elsewhere.

Yes, false => false is logically true. I don't accept that the story was true, so the rest of your statement is meaningless.

Compare to:

"If we accept the story of <random woo person> is true, then <random woo belief> is true."

IXP

 

[Daylightstar]

I don't see how the two posts are contradictory. One says that he first encountered dowsing years ago, but couldn't get it to work. The other says that he thought dowsing was bunk until recently. There's no reason both can't be true.
...

The two hilited parts for each post clearly demonstrate how those posts are contradictory.

One says that he discovered dowsing years ago, describing this claimed discovery by telling how he witnessed it working really well for the supposed dowser.
The other says that until recently he considered dowsing to be complete and utter BS.

There's no reason both can be true ... at the same time.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Right. So there's no need to assume that Mark cannot possibly have seen a dowser find a well and still thought it bunk. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Who is Mark?

 

[Olowkow]

The two hilited parts for each post clearly demonstrate how those posts are contradictory.

One says that he discovered dowsing years ago, describing this claimed discovery by telling how he witnessed it working really well for the supposed dowser.
The other says that until recently he considered dowsing to be complete and utter BS.

There's no reason both can be true ... at the same time.

I think my hiliting of only the first part of the two posts has caused some confusion in the mind of one particular poster who doesn't seem to read entire posts, so sorry for that. My bad. Apologies also if I happen to use synonyms in my prose for the purely stylistic purpose of avoiding repetition.

The fact is that Mick/SaskMick (not Mark, by the way SB) seems now to be a died in the wool dowser since he tried it out, and I believe him when he says that he just discovered how to dowse, and that he believes that dowsing works, because I have read every single post of his at the BSD site, as well as all of his posts here at JREF. He is not trolling us at JREF, nor is he taking the piss at the BSD site, in my humble opinion of course.

Now the question is, has he always believed in dowsing since his positive experience "years ago" with a dowser who apparently found a well, or has he always until quite recently thought dowsing to be "utter BS". I don't know for sure, which is why I asked if he would care to explain the apparent conflict in previous posts.

I really hope SaskMick returns to JREF, though I notice he has not been back for a while but continues to post at BSD. Aside from the "rub noses in it" remark, he seems to be a pleasant guy who values truth and logic...sometimes. I think he is capable of being convinced that dowsing really is BS, and I also suspect he is trying the patience of the old timers at BSD. Popcorn time.

His latest thread asks the question of the dowsers at BSD: "Where are all the young dowsers?" Excellent question. So far, crickets...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, false => false is logically true. I don't accept that the story was true, so the rest of your statement is meaningless.

It may be meaningless if you take it out of context, but since I didn't make it out of context, I don't see how that's relevant.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One says that he discovered dowsing years ago, describing this claimed discovery by telling how he witnessed it working really well for the supposed dowser.
The other says that until recently he considered dowsing to be complete and utter BS.

These are not contradictory statements. If you believe that they are, perhaps you could explain how they necessarily are. I've explained how they're not. Perhaps you could point out the flaw in my logic, rather than simply declaring it to be wrong.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think my hiliting of only the first part of the two posts has caused some confusion in the mind of one particular poster who doesn't seem to read entire posts, so sorry for that. My bad. Apologies also if I happen to use synonyms in my prose for the purely stylistic purpose of avoiding repetition.

Again, if there's something actually wrong with what I've said, then please address what I've said. Making snide remarks isn't the same thing as making a cogent argument, and it's certainly not the same thing as displaying sound, rational, sceptical thinking.

 

[Daylightstar]

... I've explained how they're not. ...

Actually, can you explain this with the help of the actual (which is a hint to the flaw in your 'logic') statements in those posts?
You haven't done that yet ......

Anyway, yes, the statements are contradictory.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Actually, can you explain this with the help of the actual (which is a hint to the flaw in your 'logic') statements in those posts?

Here you go

 

[Daylightstar]

Here you go

Ah right, a link to a "Reply to Thread" page, which' edit area contains a full quote of (currently) post #566 by you.

That was your 'what if the sky was green and what if the grass was blue' post, which did not actually explain why the two posts by SaskMick are not contradictory.
With "actual statements" I obviously refer to actual statements made by SaskMick, without irrational addition or removal of parts thereof.
Not statements made by you

So, the two statements by SaskMick remain contradictory.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I honestly don't see what the issue is.

Post 1:

"I discovered dowsing years ago when I lived in Aberdeenshire. "

"Discovered", not "started believing in the efficacy of".

"I got a dowser to find a well for me."

He witnessed someone dowsing successfully, it seemed, to find a well.

"He used a forked hazel stick. It was entertaining watching him dowse, he would do a little dance while he was fighting with the stick which would the hit him in the chest with real force."

It was entertaining.

"For some reason it worked back to front with him, but it worked really well."

Reiterating that the dowsing seemed successful.

" I asked to have a go with the stick, and he reluctantly let me try it but with strict instructions not the break it. It did nothing for me whatsoever."

Mick had a go but it didn't work.

" I could not do it then but I can do it now, so it must be something that can be acquired. I think I know how I acquired it but am not going to say right now as you will probably think I have totally lost it."

Mick now believes that he can dowse.

Post 2:

"Until recently I considered dowsing to be complete and utter BS."

He used to think that dowsing was bunk, but now he doesn't.

"Please let me explain. I am getting a new house built on an acreage where the previous house burnt down. I have had to get quotes from various contractors one of whom was a plumber. He asked me to show him the well, and we walked down the hill to where it was, He then proceeded to walk about with his dowsing rods which seemed to act as I had seen demonstrated before on TV. "

He recently witnessed someone dowsing.

"I asked him if I could have a go. I walked towards the area and the rods crossed and remained crossed for five or six paces before swinging wide open. I asked him which direction the water came from, and as I asked him the rods swung to my right !"

Mick tried it himself, and it seemed as if it worked.

"I was gobsmacked, and I think he was too."

He found this surprising.

"He quickly took the rods back again. I asked him what they were made of and he said that they were made of a special metal......"

The dowser took his rods back and said that they were special.

So we have one account in which Mick outlines the first time he encountered dowsing. We have another account in which Mick outlines the first time he tried dowsing and thought it successful. That he now, from the perspective of a believer, says that the first account showed the dowsing working "really well" does not necessarily imply that he thought the dowsing to work "really well" at the time. It's entirely possible that at the time he attributed it to coincidence or some other mundane explanation. It's not uncommon for people to retroactively attribute supernatural significance to things that they didn't think of as paranormal at the time.

For example:

I recall a couple of instances during this wandering-in-the-desert period that helped to bring me home, but at the time I dismissed them as weird or unimportant.

[...]

When I had entered the restroom, no one was in it. As I turned to leave, I saw a lady, who smiled and said that everything was going to be OK. I felt comforted and wondered where she came from—then she was gone. I now believe she was Mary, the Mother of God.

So, you believe it's impossible for the two accounts to be reconciled. I've explained how it's not. Now it's your turn - explain exactly how the two accounts must necessarily be incompatible with each other.

 

[Daylightstar]

I honestly don't see what the issue is.

Post 1:
...

But you make a rather long post about what essentially is your own issue, of which of course it is a mystery why it even is an issue.
Later I'll have a look at your long post and reply as necessary.