Dowsing by a Skeptic

[Dubious Dick]

Given that SaskMick has apparently beaten a retreat it is perhaps not surprising that this thread is in danger of getting derailed, and becoming an unseemly and somewhat unnecessary spat.

What remains true, and indisputable, is that SaskMick has failed miserably to provide any proof for his claims to be able to dowse. It is also clear that if he ever were a skeptic, he has lost those powers, or never really was in the first place.

As for the missing and found harp story, perhaps that deserves another thread with further investigation if desired by anyone?

I think Ladewig put it well when he wrote:

' Dowsing has been around for what, hundreds of years? thousands of years? In the past two hundred or so years electricity went from being a strange novelty that made dead frogs twitch to being a phenomenon so well understood that we can implant small electronic devices inside people to help regulate their heart rates.

Think for a moment about every single natural phenomena that already had a long history by 1863. Steam, friction, electricity, burning, gravity, motion, buoyancy, air pressure, etc. etc. In every single case humans have been able to quantify it and measure it to unheard of degrees. In almost every case, we have been able to and harness it or refine it or otherwise use it in some way to make life easier. Even folk remedies known 150 years ago have been turned into useful, measured doses that produce consistent results.

Yet dowsing always lies just beyond the reach of scientists. Science can put a man on the moon (and bring him back), yet science just can't quite catch anyone dowsing under controlled conditions. We are talking about a power that could change the very course of human events, but this power is very shy and never appears when scientists are watching. Don't get me wrong, as I said in a previous post, science does not know everything. But if you look at the things that were known but not understood 150 years ago, science has pretty much observed them very well and explained them almost as well. Except dowsing.'

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

Let's not get carried away in our skepticism. The book doesn't say D Street nor L Avenue. (And as most people can tell you, the usual writing of L Avenue would be "Avenue L".)

What the books says is that "It's in the second house on the right on D------ Street just off of L------ Avenue." Except the book uses one solid line instead of a bunch of dashes. I think we can safely presume those are meant to be "blanks" and that the author was disguising the location, since not only could the address be determined with the full street and avenue names, but so could the location of the guy who phoned it in.*

I'm not believing in the story in the least. I just don't think we ought to waste time debunking stuff that isn't necessary to debunk.

*Why didn't Libby tell the police or track down the neighbor? It could only be one of two houses (the harp was supposedly in the 2nd house on the right, so the person next door had to be in the first or third, and since she'd posted fliers, and he said he'd found one posted just outside his house, it'd be kind of clear). Remember, this is a respected Psychoanalyst and skeptic. She supposedly went on a "ten year journey" of discovery, during which she evidently got plied with anecdotes and read studies that she didn't see fit to reference in her book, yet she didn't investigate the guy who claimed his neighbor had the harp or go any farther to determine if, oh I dunno, maybe there was any connection to the faith healer, psychic and dowser? I'm sure Randi would've dug into it as would most skeptics.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

So you badger me to make a detailed case in support of what I've said, then you berate me for making a detailed case in support of what I've said. Cool.

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I believe it's impossible to reconcile the two statements. I think you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to be fair and to give the poster the most leeway in the interpretation. But you and I and Mick speak English. "I got" is nowhere near "someone sent a dowser over" or "I happened to be there when a dowser was performing". "I got a dowser to..." says that he(Mick) actively obtained the services of a dowser.

Further, why does he refer to the dowser in Saskatchewan with the line about the sticks/dowser "seemed to act.... seen on TV"...? No mention of having seen dowsing first hand before? Read that clearly. He's trying to give us the impression he had never experienced dowsing before. Either that post is disingenuous or the one at UK Dowsers is.

They Are Contradictory.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

*Why didn't Libby tell the police or track down the neighbor?

She claims she did tell the police and that they said that it wasn't enough for them to act on.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I believe it's impossible to reconcile the two statements. I think you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to be fair and to give the poster the most leeway in the interpretation. But you and I and Mick speak English. "I got" is nowhere near "someone sent a dowser over" or "I happened to be there when a dowser was performing". "I got a dowser to..." says that he(Mick) actively obtained the services of a dowser.

There are many ways that can be interpreted in the English language. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is you're claiming in your interpretation that necessitates it being contradictory.

Further, why does he refer to the dowser in Saskatchewan with the line about the sticks/dowser "seemed to act.... seen on TV"...?

Perhaps because the rods were seeming to act as he had previously seen dowsing rods on TV act?

No mention of having seen dowsing first hand before?

Indeed.

Read that clearly. He's trying to give us the impression he had never experienced dowsing before.

Perhaps. That doesn't make it contradictory.

Either that post is disingenuous or the one at UK Dowsers is.

Disingenuous, perhaps. But that doesn't make them contradictory.

They Are Contradictory.

How so?

To my mind, in order to be contradictory, the accounts would have to contradict each other. That is, after all, what the word "contradictory" means. So, unless someone can point to something in one account which contradicts the other, then the two accounts cannot accurately be said to be contradictory.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are many ways that can be interpreted in the English language. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is you're claiming in your interpretation that necessitates it being contradictory.



Perhaps because the rods were seeming to act as he had previously seen dowsing rods on TV act?



Indeed.



Perhaps. That doesn't make it contradictory.



Disingenuous, perhaps. But that doesn't make them contradictory.



How so?

To my mind, in order to be contradictory, the accounts would have to contradict each other. That is, after all, what the word "contradictory" means. So, unless someone can point to something in one account which contradicts the other, then the two accounts cannot accurately be said to be contradictory.

No. Someone else can play your game with you. You're not here to discuss this, you think you're in the Monty Python argument sketch.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And, again, someone makes a claim that they can't substantiate, and so resorts to making snide remarks instead of actually making an argument. If the two accounts are so obviously contradictory, you'd have thought that at least one person would be able to make a case for it, rather than just authoritatively declaring it to be so and then getting snippy when asked to back that position up with evidence and reasoning. It can be done either by showing contradictory statements in what Mick has said, or in showing where I'm wrong in where I've shown the two accounts not to be incompatible. And yet the best counter-argument appears to be "you smell". I'm sorry, but that's not overly convincing.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Hey, grown-ups:
You're having a discussion, after the original Wooster has fled, about magic sticks.

Goodnight thread?

 

[Foolmewunz]

And, again, someone makes a claim that they can't substantiate, and so resorts to making snide remarks instead of actually making an argument. If the two accounts are so obviously contradictory, you'd have thought that at least one person would be able to make a case for it, rather than just authoritatively declaring it to be so and then getting snippy when asked to back that position up with evidence and reasoning. It can be done either by showing contradictory statements in what Mick has said, or in showing where I'm wrong in where I've shown the two accounts not to be incompatible. And yet the best counter-argument appears to be "you smell". I'm sorry, but that's not overly convincing.

No. I addressed it. You hand-waved it away, still claiming that your liberal interpretation of the English language is applicable. If you honestly answer my post and show me instances where the terms I questioned are used in the wishy-washy ways you claim, I'm more than happy to continue discussing it.

Discussion assumes the exchange of ideas. I addressed your incorrect assumptions and your illogical conclusions. You answered by saying, "Does Not!" That's not a discussion; it's an argument. If you wish to actually discuss your incorrect assertions, by all means address my post.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
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.
...
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.

Then we can also attribute the claimed observing of the "fighting with the stick which would the hit him in the chest with real force" to the current perspective from a believer's point of view.
In this way, both anecdotes can be massaged into anything you want.
Which is what people with irrational mindsets generally like to do with their anecdotes.

When one claims in a post in one location to have considered dowsing to be complete and utter BS until recently, and then in another post in another location claims to have gotten a dowser to find a well for him and then claims to have observed this dowsing to work really well and states to have discovered dowsing in this way, which is claimed to have happened years ago .... yes, then both posts are clearly contradictory.

It's a text book example of something being self explanatory.

 

[SaskMick]

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:

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.

The dowser located almost exactly the same spot as I was going to dig a well. I was not a dowser, so as far as I was concerned he was no better than me. The dowser cost 10 pounds, he was a friend of the architect that was working for me.

 

[SaskMick]

How about it, Mick, are you willing to do a double blinded test of your dowsing abilities?

It's impossible to do a double blinded test of my dowsing abilities. I could try, but I would not be dowsing.

 

[SaskMick]

How can you tell what you find is negative energy?

Because it is what I am dowsing for, what do you think !!

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's impossible to do a double blinded test of my dowsing abilities. I could try, but I would not be dowsing.

If it "disappears" when you test it honestly and fairly (by correctly double-blinding, for instance) then it is not an "ability".

 

[Giordano]

It's impossible to do a double blinded test of my dowsing abilities. I could try, but I would not be dowsing.

That should tell you something. Think about it.

 

[SaskMick]

Saskmick, you do understand that every one of us wants you to be able to dowse, don't you? We'd love you to be the first person to prove dowsing works - seriously!

It's OK I already know I can dowse' and dowse well. It really does not matter what people on the internet think, I regard the internet as fun,not something to be taken seriously.

I would like to be able to prove dowsing works by using your protocol, and double blinded tests etc etc. But therein lies the problem, and that's why it's impossible.
I have not been dowsing for long, and am still learning what works and what does not. I have learned however that to be able to dowse successfully it is necessary to be in the right frame of mind,a frame of mind which is completely neutral. It's impossible to be completely neutral when you want to prove a point.

 

[SaskMick]

If it "disappears" when you test it honestly and fairly (by correctly double-blinding, for instance) then it is not an "ability".

If what disappears ?

 

[steenkh]

It's impossible to do a double blinded test of my dowsing abilities. I could try, but I would not be dowsing.

Why would that be impossible? We have outlined very easy protocols for this, and tests of this kind has been performed countless times, so it is clearly not impossible.

Or are you claiming that it is not dowsing if you cannot know in advance where the thing is that you are dowsing for?

 

[SaskMick]

Why would that be impossible? We have outlined very easy protocols for this, and tests of this kind has been performed countless times, so it is clearly not impossible.

Tests of this kind may have been performed countless times, but where dowsing is concerned they have all failed miserably.

Or are you claiming that it is not dowsing if you cannot know in advance where the thing is that you are dowsing for?

I am claiming that dowsing either works, or does not work. It depends on the person doing the dowsing and their frame of mind at the time they are doing it.