Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I like you Pixel42, you are my favorite.
I wish I could return the compliment, but sadly I find it hard to like people who are more interested in showing off in front of their friends than in honestly investigating the remarkable world around them.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And, by your own admission, whether they can tell where what they are dowsing for is by other means:
No, they showed that dowsing only works when the dowser has knowledge of where the dowsed object is located - even if the dowser is not aware that he knows.
All the tested dowsers thought they could do it, and they were usually allowed "dry runs" where they knew where the object was located. I have never heard of dowsing that failed in a "dry run". When the dowser cannot know where the object is, he invariably fails. We must assume that the dowsers were all capable, and that they had the right frame of mind, or they would have failed the "dry run".
Dowsing does not work to any higher degree than educated guessing because it is educated guessing.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I hope you do smell, the odor of BBQ is a wonderful thing.
Iffn I red wurds rite u r wrung.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
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.
So the only way you can dowse is to not have an object to dowse for?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Aha ! the rational explanation.
In that case I should stop calling myself a dowser, how about Ideomotorist ? What ever it's called it works fantastic
Unless you want it to then it leaves you in the lurch.
So let's call it the Michigan J. Frog syndrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_J._Frog
Last edited:
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
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.
I can imagine your believing that dowsing was "complete and utter BS", while paying a dowser 10 pounds because he was a friend of the architect who was working for you. I have trouble understanding how you now say that dowsing "worked" in finding the well. If the dowser's location was as good as your non dowsing gut feelings, I don't see any evidence that his dowsing found the well. In many areas, you can find water just about anywhere you drill...it is just a matter of how deep.
This sounds more like religious faith than any kind of ability you might have. Is there any test that could ever convince you that dowsing is nothing more than folklore and confirmation bias?
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.
When someone dowses for water, for money, is he not trying to "prove a point"? Is he not under pressure to succeed? By your argument, the right "frame of mind" is apparently only achieved by dowsers when they are successful, but not when they fail. Doesn't that logic bother you just a bit? Is it not similar to someone telling you that god didn't cure someone because he didn't pray hard enough?
Here is a test that I would like to see done. The dowser is told he will perform 20 test runs. An item is placed under one of 6 buckets in full view of the dowser. The dowser then "finds" the hidden items in 10 runs of dowsing. We will assume the dowser's 100% accuracy for the sake of argument.
Then, for the next 10 runs, unbeknownst to the dowser, a hidden mechanical device silently moves the hidden item, after being placed under one of the buckets, to a different bucket location. The dowser then performs the 10 runs believing the item is under bucket 1, for example, when it is really under bucket 4. What is the accuracy of dowsing in the second set of 10 tests? If it is even better than chance, then dowsing becomes interesting and worth further testing. If the dowser fails all tests in the second set, but succeeds in the first set, what does it mean?
If the dowser fails in the second set of tests where he was being fooled by the moving of the item, is he justified in claiming his failure was due to trickery? Something to ponder.
Your explanations for not attempting a few double blinded tests are just excuses. It is very easy to do, and a good protocol has already been laid out for you. Your wife can place the hidden items and then simply leave the room, while your dowsing frame of mind is still intact. After dowsing their location, you call her back and check your accuracy with her as a witness.
I wonder what ulterior motives you attribute to what one BSD poster calls the "pseudo-skeptics" who are trying to help you understand this phenomenon. Do you not think some of us haven't actually tried this? Are we trying to suppress an ability that would, if true, be lauded with huge fame and financial rewards?
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
You posted this:
...which I took to mean that you could not demonstrate your "ability" under honest testing conditions; that it, it would "disappear" if examined rigourously.
Be so kind as to explain what you meant, if that is not a fair assessment of your statement.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Another instance of "dowsing" being demonstrated not to work!
Well done!
(And in this case, it was even the kind of "test" you claim does, in fact, demonstrate "dowsing", since, as with your unblinded and uncontrolled protocols {the ones you claim"work"} you knew where the answers already were.)
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Sure I can, I demonstrate it all the time
...except, by your own statement, under honestly controlled conditions.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,207
Simple: Six cardboard boxes, one coin, one die, one assistant.
The assistant rolls the die to choose one of the boxes and places the coin under that box. The dowser then uses their dowsing skills to scan the boxes to try to locate the coin.
The experiment needs to be repeated several times. On the first attempt, the dowser is allowed to watch where the assistant places the coin but the second time he is not allowed to see any of that process and, for good measure, the assistant should withdraw while the dowser works so that they can't unintentionally give him any clues.
Repeat this process of unblinded and blinded attempts until you're satisfied that a) you are quite relaxed enough to dowse in the unblinded attempts and b) you have established whether or not your dowsing works in the blinded attempts.
That's all. No need to involve any skeptics to make you stressed about proving anything. I think we'd all be content for you simply to prove the reality of your ability to yourself.
Let me summarize, you cannot get in the right frame of mind, it is too much pressure, if you do a test for yourself if there is no way to detect what is under the buckets, but you can do it under the same conditions if you can tell subconsciously which bucket is painted inside? You can't do a test for yourself and friends if you really can't tell the location of an object, but can do it every time for your friends and self if you can subconsciously know the location of a object? There is too much pressure to prove yourself by doing a proper test, but there is no pressure to locate a well for other people depending on you? Do you see a problem with this "explanation?"
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The problem, of course, is that SaskMick believes he already has proved it to himself. The fact that the evidence on which he has based this belief is wholly inadequate continues to pass him by.
The protocol you have described would give adequate evidence, but it was described to him before and he altered it just enough to make it worthless before trying it. This suggests he still hasn't grasped the reasoning behind the protocol - why such care has to be taken to eliminate the various clues and biases that could give a false positive. Either that, or he is being deliberately disingenuous.
In that case I should stop calling myself a dowser, how about Ideomotorist ? What ever it's called it works fantastic
What do you intend to do with your dowsing ability?
I just wanted to add that SasMick can even dowse "successfully" in front of a camera with the video to be posted on the Internet and shown to skeptics, but cannot dowse successfully in a real test because he would be trying to "prove" his ability to other people. Okay.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,207
I'm keeping an open mind to both possibilities.
Perhaps I imagine it, but there does appear to be an element of grandstanding for another audience of late, so he may have lost interest in testing dowsing.
I'm going for disingenuous, after all he seems able to parse every sentence other than those directing him how to conduct a simple double blinded test. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that when he refers to this negative energy he is dowsing for, it is us he is referring to. He's ripping the piss, or so he thinks.
The fact that he finds "the internet" fun and "not something to be taken seriously" says something about him - although I don't know what!