Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[EHocking]

Yes, sorry, I meant to add my usual (or "successfully" if you prefer). I was taking that as given at this stage of the discussion. I am looking at this from the point of view of edge. He considers that he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years and has failed the one test. He is not going to give up his 30 year belief in dowsing as a result of one failed test in circumstances markedly different to how he normally practices dowsing. He is looking into a possible retest in the field but says he will not proceed unless he can find "neutral ground" which he hopes will raise his success (or "success" if you prefer) rate sufficiently high to pass the test.

But this is merely one persons belief.

It has no standing in science.

There is no evidence for it beyond anecdotes.

Dowsing doesn't work, if it did, hundreds of companies around the world would save BILLIONS a year by replacing seismic campaigns and sacking reservoir engineers (expand that to mining and water) that interpret seismic surveys.

But they don't. Because dowsing has never proved itself to be a valid replacement for the current techniques used for locating mineral, hydrocarbon or water deposits.

It really is that simple. We can be supportive towards edge in helping him devise a suitable protocol to test his belief in dowsing - but that does not require us to give up our very certain knowledge that dowsing doesn't work.

Why *should* a sceptic take a different attitude to dowsing merely based on one person's belief? Just to appear "fair"? Being sceptical doesn't neccesarily mean sitting on the fence until the jury is in.

Same reason that I am an atheist and not an agnostic. Just because millions believe in their god, there is no reason for me to sit on the fence on my opinion of gods just to appear fair-minded.

 

[nathan]

If that is true, why is he dismissing edge before even waiting to see what he has in the way of evidence.

I will leave that for him to explain, if he so desires.

So, will you grant edge the same. He has been dowsing successfully for 30 years. He failed a test of dowsing in a situation which is unnatural for him. Based on his 30 years of success with dowsing, he is loathe to dismis dowsing based on this one test. He wants a retest just as you would.

Edge claims he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years, but he has provided no evidence of this that rules out mundane explanations. Furthermore, his claims of his abilities appear to change, when questioned. That it has taken him over a year to *not* come up with a test protocol also leads me to conclude he does not know what he is doing beyond the simplistic 'finding gold'.

So, I do not see any outlier in the 'dowsing doesn't work' theory. I see an individual unskilled in the art of controlled testing.

 

[BillyJoe]

I will leave that for him to explain, if he so desires.

Good move.
You are having trouble enough yourself. <-

Edge claims he has been dowsing successfully for 30 years, but he has provided no evidence of this that rules out mundane explanations.

Isn't that what we are attempting to do here - establish a protocol that could provide evidence to the unbelievers that he can dowse successfully?

Furthermore, his claims of his abilities appear to change, when questioned

For instance?

That it has taken him over a year to *not* come up with a test protocol also leads me to conclude he does not know what he is doing beyond the simplistic 'finding gold'.

For the third time now repeat after me so I don't need to tell you again:
edge has submitted his protocol to the JREF
It is the JREF who have not responded.

So, I do not see any outlier in the 'dowsing doesn't work' theory. I see an individual unskilled in the art of controlled testing

He has been through a controlled test so I guess he understands it at least a little bit and the protocol he submitted to JREF, and which they have still not reponded to, includes controls and double-blinding.


The thing about edge is that he tries.
You could at least learn this from edge so that your visit here is not completely wasted. <-

 

[Paulhoff]

It is the JREF who have not responded.

The next time I see Jeff I will ask him about that.

Paul

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I talked with Edge a couple of weeks ago and invited him to talk to the producers of a Japanese TV show we're doing. It was pretty clear from talking to him that he's not ready to be tested, and the Japanese producer agreed.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I talked with the TV producers secretary very interesting.

I talked with Edge a couple of weeks ago and invited him to talk to the producers of a Japanese TV show we're doing. It was pretty clear from talking to him that he's not ready to be tested, and the Japanese producer agreed.

Interesting, but with no meaningful result towards the proof of your claim, edge?

(From now on, I read your posts imagining the voice of Dale Gribble.)

 

[colin]

I talked with Edge a couple of weeks ago and invited him to talk to the producers of a Japanese TV show we're doing. It was pretty clear from talking to him that he's not ready to be tested, and the Japanese producer agreed.

Gee. Who knew?

I think Edge should try an all natural hot air balloon with a wooden gondola that uses pure lead for ballast and go up until he’s confident there’s no gold dust (or gold colored paint) blowing in the air. Oh no, now the sunlight’s too golden!

Honestly, what should the JREF do to help him at this point? He won’t come up with a plan. He’ll try the Japan thing of he can get the money. (This I don’t understand because I thought he was very successful ‘dowsing in the field’, so he shouldn’t have problems with money.) Other than that, it’s just a ‘take my word for it’ type of thing. In other words, ‘crap’.

I think he’s just a lonely, deluded old guy looking for attention.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Again, edge, why aren't you ready? What specificially is holding you up?

More importantly: Why is it that you obtain reliable results when you just go out and dowse (i.e., with no controls), but have so much trouble coming up with the right conditions for a test with controls?

Could it be that something else is going on? Could it be that you're have a highly-developed sense of understand insofar as it comes to prospecting (i.e., you're really, really good at it), and that you're recognizing the clues that indicate good sites in the terrain without realizing it? Have you tried prospecting without your dowsing rods? What would happen if you turned out to be just as good at obtaining results without them?

Edited to add: what I'm suggesting is this: ditch the rods and give it a try -- try, just for the sake of it, to go out, look a site over, and "guess". There may very well be absolutely nothing supernatural going on here -- you might happen to be an extremely talented natural prospector. Which, IMO, is far more interesting than dowsing.

 

[edge]

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-05/051107.html#i6

That is from this week.

Just beating that long dead horse BillyJoe, dowsing is Woo-Woo no matter how you want to word it, no matter how many words you want to use and no matter how much you defended it. Also to have an open mind does not mean to put a hole in your head or to fill it with bogus facts. Not once has any of these dowers come up with a true theory on how this works. And to be a true theory other people would be able to follow the same experiments that the dowser has and would then get the same results. This does not happen BillyJoe, and if you don’t know why, then it is time to fill that open mind with some facts.

Paul

Anytime you like I would show you without doubt that the bark twists off from the rods pull… not from me… not even subconsciously. Open your mind… I would like to meet someone who can explain the WHY.

This is a water dowser explaining what happens when it's a large attraction and once I was on ground that was loaded with gold and seen the same thing happen and I even seen the stick snap and break, that happens when you try to stop the reaction and lift at the same time, that tells you how much is there so I know that fisher isn't lying.

 

[edge]

Again, edge, why aren't you ready? What specificially is holding you up?

More importantly: Why is it that you obtain reliable results when you just go out and dowse (i.e., with no controls), but have so much trouble coming up with the right conditions for a test with controls?

Could it be that something else is going on? Could it be that you're have a highly-developed sense of understand insofar as it comes to prospecting (i.e., you're really, really good at it), and that you're recognizing the clues that indicate good sites in the terrain without realizing it? Have you tried prospecting without your dowsing rods? What would happen if you turned out to be just as good at obtaining results without them?

Edited to add: what I'm suggesting is this: ditch the rods and give it a try -- try, just for the sake of it, to go out, look a site over, and "guess". There may very well be absolutely nothing supernatural going on here -- you might happen to be an extremely talented natural prospector. Which, IMO, is far more interesting than dowsing.

I have and I'm not, why else would I use it?
You are talking about finding money, should I waste my labor?

I have a perfect test and protocol that I'll try to communicate to them.

I haven't given up on the one we have submitted to them just the location.
I will find it.

 

[Jackalgirl]

I have and I'm not, why else would I use it?
You are talking about finding money, should I waste my labor?

I have a perfect test and protocol that I'll try to communicate to them.

I haven't given up on the one we have submitted to them just the location.
I will find it.

My point is, though, that you keep talking about how reliable dowsing is for you. How it works, how effective it is, how much you can find, etc., etc., etc. The implication is that this works in a wide variety of places.

So how come the test needs a perfect place? I'll grant you that you have to find a place that's reasonably free of interference for the target in particular, but I can't imagine that such a place would be so rare.

In other words: if your regular places are so full of interference as to cause problems with a test, how do you know that you're successful in dowsing? That is, if there's so much ore in an area that it would interfere with a test, how can you tell that when you're just dowsing regularly, the dowsing is actually working -- as opposed, say, you simply finding ore because there's so much there to be found?

 

[EHocking]

This is a water dowser explaining what happens when it's a large attraction and once I was on ground that was loaded with gold and seen the same thing happen and I even seen the stick snap and break, that happens when you try to stop the reaction and lift at the same time, that tells you how much is there so I know that fisher isn't lying.

How much gold is needed to evoke such a reaction from a willow twig?

Why not set up a protocol that uses that amount of gold so that it "masks" any other twitches on less that "neutral" ground?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...

I have a perfect test and protocol that I'll try to communicate to them.

I haven't given up on the one we have submitted to them just the location.
I will find it.

Edge, why would Jeff Wagg and the Japanese TV producer conclude you were not ready to be tested when you allegedly have a "perfect test"?



Also, please show us the test set-up from your scale test where you allegedly measured the force of the movement of the dowsing rod.

 

[Paulhoff]

The only thing that broke the stick was the dower edge, show me a stick that breaks on its own and not in the hand of someone. The stick is only a ruse that you are deceiving yourself with, because if you had these so-called powers the stick would not be necessary.

You are deceiving yourself edge, just like so many audiophiles do with their wires and other snake-oil contraptions. I’m sure you believe it, but people fool themselves in many difference ways. We all have been suckered one way are another and it hardest of all to believe that we can fool ourselves. But at some point when the evidence is overwhelming it is time to admit to ourselves, if no one else, that we were wrong.

Paul

 

[Spektator]

I still think that affecting a balace scale, which is reproducible at any time, according to edge, is the ideal test. Here's a preliminary protocol:

1. The requirements for the test shall be the dowser, the dowser's dowsing rod, and a set of free-hanging scales counterweighted with four ounces of metal, the type of metal to be agreed upon by the dowser and the observers. The scales shall be new, purchased especially for the test by the observers.
2. There shall be three observers: one appointed by the dowser, one a party appointed or authorized by the JREF, and a camera operator.
3. Before the test, the observers shall verify that the balance scales are in working order and are properly callibrated. This verification and callibration process will be recorded by the camera operator.
4. The camera operator shall be responsible for recording the procedure with two (2) video cameras,separated from each other so that each camera is focused on the free-hanging scale and so that at no time will the scale be blocked from view by the dowser's body, arm, etc.
5. The dowser shall, without touching the scale in any way with his body or with the dowsing rod, and without exerting any known force (air, magnetism, etc.), attempt to exert a force on the scale so that the pan with the counterweight will rise to a point of equilibrium or beyond equilibrium, and the empty pan shall fall to a point of equilibrium or below equilibrium.
6. This state of equilibrium or beyond (with the weighted pan high and the empty one low, or with both pans of equal height) shall last at least five (5) seconds. Momentary movements of the scale caused by accidental contact, vibration of the surroundings, air currents, static electricity, etc., shall be disregarded and shall not be considered a marker of success.
7. The dowser will make ten attempts. A total of eight successful runs (i.e. eight times during which the scales are clearly affected for five or more seconds) shall constitute a success. Three or more attempts with no effect shall constitute a failure.

Won't that be acceptable, edge?

 

[EHocking]

I still think that affecting a balace scale, which is reproducible at any time, according to edge, is the ideal test. Here's a preliminary protocol:

Won't that be acceptable, edge?

I don't think so. The original claim was that *the dowsing rod* exerted 1/4lbs pressure - so WAS touching the scales/pan.

 

[edge]

I'm glad that JREF is giving me time.

The first thing that I'm going to do now is to check out the spot in nature that demonstrates levitation.

This will happen in a week or two.
I have to go buy a camcorder next payday.

Then I have to hike in 3 miles to the spot.

Now if the scales moved like you want them to that would mean that when I dowsed the metals would be pulled up from the bottom of the creek and surface on top of the overburden.
That's not what happens.
If it did that there would be no need for recovery systems.

What I did was to use a hanging scale with a string attached to the clip on the scales with a loop at the end and I used a large target under it I made sure that the scale was zeroed and then let the reaction occur, the force of the resistance was what I measured.
I did this with out moving my arms or hands as perfectly still as I could.
I did the same thing with my digital scale it is capable of reading a total of 200 penny weight I put it on the silver tray and I maxed it at over 200.

If it were a two-way effect the gold would jump out of the creek.
If it were to do that it would ruin my main theory.

So I'm looking at a natural phenomenon in the woods, which is like comparing a wing of a bird to how flight can occur.
Do you agree that this would be a phenomenon?

Dowsing demonstrates that levitation can occur; my point is that nature has a demonstration for everything that we can conceive of.
If this friend is telling me the truth then I have a basis for my theories.

I am also going to prove it another way, if they accept my new protocols.
And that is to send me two guys to camp with me and sluice for gold by hand. I will give them 10 spots that are good compared to ten spots that have nothing or not worth mining proving it two ways with a larger percent of correct hit and misses.
I would be willing to forfeit the money just for the sake of some creditability.
Mean while who ever is the choice for this experiment will have a 5-day vacation.
But they will also film and chose their spots to mine to see how hard it is to find gold.
They will have there own sets of tools supplied by me.

Some creditability is better than none.
Meanwhile I will continue to look for the proper testing spot as I described before on limestone for the original protocals I sent in.

I may have to go to Illinois to test and that’s why I took a second job.
Now, I can teach any one what they need to know to sluice in one day and the two volunteers can read up on it to make sure that they have the proper knowledge to get the gold on the bottom of the creek.
Their percentage will be low just on correct hits and high on incorrect hits.

The Japanese will get a copy of the film if true I have told them about the spot in nature as described to me, at which point they will come here and film it with their crews.

Oh, the silver tray, over rode the metal of the hanging scale, it was much larger.

If this was the Idomotor effect the pull should be the same any where you dowse in the world but it is not and I feel different reactions everywhere I go different strengths and many small hit’s large hits several large or small scattered hits and I have pulled up all that I feel to see it with almost nothing; “no hits left” we can also clean and rerun what’s left and that is another way to prove it at which point there are apsolutly no hits left.

If there is one hit left we can search for it till we get it and at that point there will be no hits or reaction, how much proof is up to you and I can prove it by teaching one of the observers or participants how to dowse and feel what I do.
My next payday is on the 23rd and 24th, the exploration will happen I will say on that weekend.

Should be interesting, Any comments Jeff Wagg?

 

[Tricky]

I've got absolutely no idea why that first quote tag doesn't work. It is clearly written correctly.

Click the "Switch Editor" button

when something like that happens. It will reveal a lot about how your text looks with all the code in place. For example, here is what your quote looked like with "advanced" editor in place. (square brackets replaced by curly brackets)


{quote=Paulhoff;2598503}
{COLOR=black}BillyJoe, I sure hope in real life you not as naïve of the real world so you seem to be here. {/{/COLOR}quote}

As you can see, you somehow wound up with oddly nested brackets.

Hmm... "Oddly Nested Brackets"... Good name for a rock band.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Edge, this isn't the place to discuss protocol with me, as you know. Please contact me at jeff@randi.org.

 

[Tricky]

I'm glad that JREF is giving me time.

You've had nothing but time. It's been two years or so since your first test.

The first thing that I'm going to do now is to check out the spot in nature that demonstrates levitation.

This will happen in a week or two.
I have to go buy a camcorder next payday.

Then I have to hike in 3 miles to the spot.

Save your money, Edge (unless you just really want a camcorder). Check out the place first. I'm reasonably sure you will see no levitation, as such things are unheard of in the real world. Sure, people can set up tricks to make it look like there is levitation, but I don't think they'd bother in such a remote location.

But of course, this has nothing to do with your dowsing test. Sounds to me like you're just killing time... again.

Now if the scales moved like you want them to that would mean that when I dowsed the metals would be pulled up from the bottom of the creek and surface on top of the overburden.
That's not what happens.
If it did that there would be no need for recovery systems.

What you are proposing is something that violates Newton's third law of physics -- an action for which there is no equal and opposite reaction. Since the greatest minds of all time have not succeeded in finding a violation to this law, you will understand why we doubt that you have stumbled across one.

The What I did was to use a hanging scale with a string attached to the clip on the scales with a loop at the end and I used a large target under it I made sure that the scale was zeroed and then let the reaction occur, the force of the resistance was what I measured.
I did this with out moving my arms or hands as perfectly still as I could.
I did the same thing with my digital scale it is capable of reading a total of 200 penny weight I put it on the silver tray and I maxed it at over 200.

So you're measuring the force that you exert on the stick. Can you see what is wrong with this procedure?

But it does illustrate something. If your rod pulls this kind of force for a large target placed underneath the scale, then why can't you simply have someone put an opaque cover over that target of a type that you agree would not block out that effect? So you see then, you have a very simple protocol just waiting for you to do it. All it requires is someone, out of your sight, to place or not place the target in the exact same location and you tell us whether your rod is getting that same force.

You see? Same location. Same target. Everything is the same except your knowledge of whether the target is there or not. Can you give a single good reason why you won't accept a protocol like this one? You claim you can measure the force. Just do it for the cameras.

If it were a two-way effect the gold would jump out of the creek.
If it were to do that it would ruin my main theory.

Your main theory needs to be ruined. It doesn't work. You see, that is what scientists do when they test theories. They throw out the parts that don't work and find something that does.

So I'm looking at a natural phenomenon in the woods, which is like comparing a wing of a bird to how flight can occur.
Do you agree that this would be a phenomenon?

Bird wings and flight are both natural phenomena. I think what you are saying is that you want not only the effect, but the explanation. Well, the explanation would be nice, but without the effect, is pointless. That is why Randi specifically states:

PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.

Dowsing demonstrates that levitation can occur; my point is that nature has a demonstration for everything that we can conceive of.
If this friend is telling me the truth then I have a basis for my theories.

No it doesn't. You specifically said (just above) that you could not make the gold levitate out of the stream, so even in the extremely unlikely chance that your "friend" is telling the truth, it would say nothing about dowsing.

I am also going to prove it another way, if they accept my new protocols.
And that is to send me two guys to camp with me and sluice for gold by hand. I will give them 10 spots that are good compared to ten spots that have nothing or not worth mining proving it two ways with a larger percent of correct hit and misses.

That is simply not going to happen because it would prove nothing. You must have a specific target that is 100% verifiable. Not finding gold would not prove that there was no gold, only that you hadn't found it. Because if the existence of the target were in doubt, you would make excuses, just like you did last time.

Some creditability is better than none.

Then do it properly. At least you will get credit for honesty. I just described a protocol that would test something that you agreed you can do. So why won't you test that? Were you telling us the truth when you said you could measure the force? If so, then prove it. If you can't, then you were lying. (And note, I am not saying you were lying, only that IF you can't do what you say you can. I'm willing to be shown.)

Meanwhile I will continue to look for the proper testing spot as I described before on limestone for the original protocals I sent in.

Randi has already said that your protocols are unacceptable and many of us here have tried to explain why. I do not understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

I may have to go to Illinois to test and that’s why I took a second job.
Now, I can teach any one what they need to know to sluice in one day and the two volunteers can read up on it to make sure that they have the proper knowledge to get the gold on the bottom of the creek.
Their percentage will be low just on correct hits and high on incorrect hits.

The Japanese will get a copy of the film if true I have told them about the spot in nature as described to me, at which point they will come here and film it with their crews.

Oh, the silver tray, over rode the metal of the hanging scale, it was much larger.

If this was the Idomotor effect the pull should be the same any where you dowse in the world but it is not and I feel different reactions everywhere I go different strengths and many small hit’s large hits several large or small scattered hits and I have pulled up all that I feel to see it with almost nothing; “no hits left” we can also clean and rerun what’s left and that is another way to prove it at which point there are apsolutly no hits left.

If there is one hit left we can search for it till we get it and at that point there will be no hits or reaction, how much proof is up to you and I can prove it by teaching one of the observers or participants how to dowse and feel what I do.
My next payday is on the 23rd and 24th, the exploration will happen I will say on that weekend.

You are wasting your time and your money. Before you do anything about the challenge, you need to agree on a protocol. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the JREF will accept whatever bizarre dance you do as a proper test. I strongly suspect that this will not be the case.