Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[GzuzKryzt]

...
No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, [...]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.
(One particular dowser whose individual result was not explicitly mentioned in the video, had a significant better result than chance. But on another trial he could not reproduce his result. It may very likely have been a fluke. Couldn't find the link now, sorry.)



Interested parties, please chime in:
How many tests like the above have to yield no significant results before we can say "It is highly unlikely (as in 99,99%) that dowsing does work."?



[offtopic]
Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave?
[/offtopic]

 

[BillyJoe]

I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions.

Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence.

And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible.

So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't).

Perhaps an oversimplification rather than a false dichotomy.

I agree that the depth of your belief in something needs to be in proportion to the strength of the evidence. If there is no evidence after an extended period of looking, the practical thing to do is to live as if that thing is false. But you always remain open to further evidence becoming available at some point that supports it. If the evidence for something is overwhelming, your default position is that it is true. Again, you remain open to the fact that evidence may become available at some point that refutes it completely. Most things lie somewhere in between and, as I said, the depth of your belief is in proportion to the strength of the evidence.

An open mind is good. But I think it is good to have a spring constantly trying to close it, otherwise a whole lot of nonsense might find it's way in. New ideas, of course, are another story. We should always be open to new ideas unless and until the evidence for it fails to materialise over a sufficient period of time.

In other words, I think we are largely in agreement.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found.

I was simply trying to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers and asking questions. Is a believer someone who believes unless and until it is disproven and an unbeliever someone who unbelieves unless and until it is proven? Anyway, I don't know that I was really expecting an answer.

Dowsing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist.

Well, edge is a believer in dowsing because of his positive experiences with it, so he will continue to believe unless and until dowsing is disproved *to him*. He is not interested in how other dowsers may or may not have been disproved. We are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

This is what is meant by testing for what the person says they can do, not your interpretation or extrapolation of what he can do.

 

[Jackalgirl]

IWe are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

As much as I'd hope that edge's faith in dowsing might be shaken up a bit by a test not passed, I'm not really in it to prove to him that dowsing is false. I'm in it to design a protocol that tests the question, and -- hopefully -- in the process teach edge about designing properly controlled tests. It will be up to edge to decide, if he ever decides this, that x number of failed controlled tests leads to a conclusion that dowsing probably doesn't work.

 

[Dumb All Over]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.

Yes, Gzuz, I've watched that clip several times. And I've read the full account in Swift of one Mike Guska (edge). These types of tests only show that the dowsers were unable to substantiate their claims. For teck49, they are not evidence that support my statement, "dowsing doesn't work." Therefore, according to teck, I should not say it. But before further elaboration, I'll wait to see if ol' Mr. teck49 has anything else to say.

[offtopic]
Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave?
[/offtopic]

(from South Park)
Kyle: Aren't they ever gonna wake up? Chef: Oh, they will. It's gonna be one uuuugly sight. Kyle: I thought you said the wonder of Mother Nature was a beautiful thing. Stan: Yeah, when does Mother Nature go from beautiful to ugly? Chef: Usually about 9:30 in the morning, children. [the elephant begins to wake up] Uh oh, here we go. [Elephant looks down at Fluffy with surprise and bellows] Yeahhh, there's nothing worse than getting all drunk and waking up the next morning next to a pig. [Fluffy looks up at elephant, begins crying] Or a big fat elephant.

 

[BillyJoe]

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.

 

[petre]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

 

[BillyJoe]

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

I think you may have missed the point.

The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test.

Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.

 

[BillyJoe]

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.

When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.

It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known. Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?

I admire edge's persistence and I admire his willingness to think and explore in whatever capacity he has to do so considering he is not a scientist.

 

[edge]

Last ten posts are pretty interesting with the exception of Paul’s.
But I nominated one of his.
He is funny!

petre I'm going to try something you said tomorrow with a scale.
Thursday I will test myself on that ground in Hayfork so we'll know something then.
I'm probably the only one on the planet that is doing so many experiments to be sure of what is true on this subject.
What ever my conclusion is in the end you can take as gospel.
I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.
petre says

3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenomenon and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

For physics do you know what this would mean?
How about where it would lead?
I'm not saying it's true yet but if it was?


There is a reason why I wouldn't mine with out dowsing for gold.
This can be proved two ways at once, this I do know.

Everything that I have stated about it is other proof, now if I can prove it Jrefs way that will be all I need to go with all the rest of what I have told you, but there is even more that I haven’t told you.
The difference between water dowsing and gold is, water is everywhere gold is not, at least not in mineable placer deposits.

 

[Dumb All Over]

When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.

Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise?

It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known.

Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this?

Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?

You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.

 

[edge]

http://setterfield.org/tworelativities.html
For you too.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.

Edge, what do you think of my protocol? Would you be willing to submit this to JREF with an application? If not, what about it would you change?

 

[edge]

I have to wait.

 

[SezMe]

I have to wait.

For what? For how long?

 

[edge]

A day maybe two.
I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.

 

[edge]

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

 

[Paulhoff]

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

Oh this is tooooo much.

Paul