Dowsing works

[AOK Tiger]

Earth Angel,

I have a fair amount of space to host your video/pictures.

Please email it to me at stephen.ryan@doi.vic.gov.au and I will put it up for all to see.

Alternatively if you know how to upload ftp files I will email you the instructions to send it direct via ftp.

 

[Explorer]

Explorer, think about this: when dowsers KNOW where an object for which they're dowsing is (during the trial run) they perform with 100 % success rate, but when they're blind to where the object is, the rate of success is what one would expect due to chance. So obviously the problem is with them and not the testing procedure. If testing somehow hampered their ability they wouldn't have scored 100 % success rate on the trial run. They're either deluded or frauds.

So I ask you, why do we need your elaborate testing when such simple test is all that's needed?

Powa

You/they, are making conclusions from a test method that I (and others) have challenged as being flawed science. I maintain that it is not good science, so any results from experiments that involve the knowledge and/or approval of the design of that experiment, I would suggest is dubious.

For total objectivity when testing for inexplicable phenomena with no track record of prior accepted scientific methodology , the subject, displaying the effect, should be an unwitting participant. Isn't that obvious, and the best science?

Now if you wish to challenge my proposal as an alternative and more useful approach, then I would welcome that debate.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You/they, are making conclusions from a test method that I (and others) have challenged as being flawed science. I maintain that it is not good science, so any results from experiments that involve the knowledge and/or approval of the design of that experiment, I would suggest is dubious.

The reason you challenge it is because it does not provide the results you would like it to. The way JREF tests dowsers is excellent science.

For total objectivity when testing for inexplicable phenomena

Excuse me, but dowsing is not an inexplicable phenomenon. It can be explained quite easily.

with no track record of prior accepted scientific methodology , the subject, displaying the effect, should be an unwitting participant. Isn't that obvious, and the best science?

Why on Earth should that be? Isn't the dowser a witting participant in his/her dowsing? So why should it suddenly not work when the word "test" is uttered?

Now if you wish to challenge my proposal as an alternative and more useful approach, then I would welcome that debate.

Your proposal is unnecessaryly complicated and expensive. Dowsers CLAIM to be able to dowse for certain things. They CLAIM to be able to do so wittingly and on demand.

Your protocol incorporates YOUR additional claim that dowsers are somehow unable to perform when under test. That, however, is not what dowsers claim.

We are talking about testing the dowser's claims, not your claims.

Hans

 

[Powa]

Explorer, I see MRC_Hans has already adressed your points, and I couldn't have done it better myself. One question remains unanswered, though: why do you think it is that dowsers perform perfectly during the trial run and miserably during the real test? What, in your opinion, has changed (other than the dowser's "blindness" to the location of the searched for objects)?

 

[Earth Angel]

Sorry chaps I don't get on here much.

I picture a crystal hanging from a string.

Yes it is

You ask Yes/No questions out loud.

Sure do

If the pendulum goes left-right (or clockwise, or whatever), the answer is Yes; if the opposite, No. Is this the setup?

For me it goes anticlockwise or yes and clockwise or no, for my brother it goes clockwise for yes and anticlockwise for no.

If so, more Q’s: Who decided the questions?

Whom ever wants to .. there is no decision on the question, once you find a spirit willing to speak then anyone can ask a question and I will get the answer through the pendulum.
We have no set questions to ask except male/female and age .. after that peope ask what they want.

Was more than 1 person holding the pendulum?

No, just me

Was the Curator in the room?

No

Does the Curator encourage ghost hunting?

No idea

Could anybody else in the room have known the answers?

No

There are ways you can make a pendulum move when somebody else is holding it (e.g. nudging the table). Can you rule out such ways?

I was sat on a chair and the other two were stood near me but not in nudging distance. So yes I can rule that out, also there were no train line near by and it wasn't under a flight path so no vibrations making it move that way either!

Bonus: How do you know you were “communicating with spirits,” as opposed to “seeing the future”

Well considering the chap I was chatting two died in the second world war it wasn’t the future.

In other to the other question,

why do you think it is that dowsers perform perfectly during the trial run and miserably during the real test? What, in your opinion, has changed (other than the dowser's "blindness" to the location of the searched for objects)?

I don’t think there will ever be a satisfactory answer, it could be that when people use pendulums its a .. well if we manage to communicate with a spirit that’s good kind of attitude, but when you are being tested you are willing something to happen to prove your point that you can actually do it. I would suggest that if you really want to find out if this works and you know someone that uses one, ask them to demonstrate it one day for you, (without criticism or pressure or scientific comments), just let them do what they do, and then you as a couple of questions (sensible ones) and see what happens.

Alternately you could always set a thread up in this form asking a whole bunch of questions and then asking someone for the answers, it could be specific family things that the person with the pendulum can’t research into and see what happens.

Aussie thinkier, if I have the link to the video and just paste it into a reply will that work?

L&L

EA

PS most of the clips from the hunt we go on can be found on the Paranormal tours site, www.paranormaltours.com

I must admit even for me some of the bits caught on camera are pretty far fetched, but if people want to beleve they are seing a spirit then nothing will convince them otherwise, even if you can prove it was just a table and not a spirit!

 

[Ashles]

All I can see are one link to an mpeg video described as having some strange sound and a wav file of the sound edited later.
(I can't watch the video at the moment as my work PC doesn't have the correct decompressor).

Are there other videos from the fort that I can't see?

Is this the only page about Brockhurst?

Didn't you include the spinning dowsing pendulum?

And if you already have a link to the video then it is already hosted and we can see it. Do you have another link?

 

[Explorer]

Hans

Hans

I have no interest in any particular outcome of the experiment or any axe to grind either way. Neither am I much impressed with the possibility of prize money being awarded for any so-called proof.

I am solely concerned with good scientific methodology. The dowsing tests so far that I have seen, whether it be from Mr Randi or others, have fallen short of good science, IMHO.

Why should the dowser participate unwillingly? Think about the use of placebos, and you may deduce the answer for yourself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans

I have no interest in any particular outcome of the experiment or any axe to grind either way. Neither am I much impressed with the possibility of prize money being awarded for any so-called proof.

If you say so.

I am solely concerned with good scientific methodology. The dowsing tests so far that I have seen, whether it be from Mr Randi or others, have fallen short of good science, IMHO.

I don't accept your argument for it. Basically, however, Randi is not doing scientifical research. He is testing people's paranormal claims.

Why should the dowser participate unwillingly? Think about the use of placebos, and you may deduce the answer for yourself.

I have a better idea: You explain it.

A dowser is claiming to be able to deliberately go and find whatever it is he can find, using his particular dowsing method. So the JREF tests if he can actually do that. What exactly is wrong or unscientific about that?

And what has placebos to do with it?

Hans

 

[Explorer]

"I don't accept your argument for it. Basically, however, Randi is not doing scientifical research. He is testing people's paranormal claims."

Mr Randi is doing what he does best, staging for an audience.

He is a showman, and a magician, not a scientist. His prize is simply publicity for himself and his professional actvities, IMHO.

"A dowser is claiming to be able to deliberately go and find whatever it is he can find, using his particular dowsing method. So the JREF tests if he can actually do that. What exactly is wrong or unscientific about that?

And what has placebos to do with it?"

Well, OK, he is testing a given dowser's claims, that, I have to concede, but he is not testing the phenomena of dowsing, that is something quite different.

Placabos are utilised, usually for scientific medical research, as a control so that any effects of the observed outcome caused by internalised origins within the brain, positively or negatively, can be eliminated. In Randi's tests this effect is not taken into account. Now why is this important? Simply because we do not really understand the origins and causes of the effect in a pioneering test scenario. It could be totally internalised(imagined) or it could be an interaction by some external force with human body as a receiver. If it is the former, as with say a sportsperson, the internalised effect on performance, can be distorted qualitively, by the magnitude of the occasion, i.e. nervous debilitation.

 

[T'ai Chi]

He is a showman, and a magician, not a scientist. His prize is simply publicity for himself and his professional actvities, IMHO.

Yes, yes, and yes, but I'd say Randi and the JREF are doing a valuable service because they are testing people's claims. With that said, however, if there exists effects that are small, their tests are much to small to detect them (low statistical power), and the tests are always, as far as I know, the "forced choice" variety (unfortunately not all paranormal claims are treated equal, so this "forced choice" pattern doesn't fit all claims). But again, these are tests that both Randi and the claimaint agree upon, so they are fair in that sense, and they are carried out using scientific principles I believe.

It certainly isn't science (in the sense of an experiment as opposed to a challenge, having to apply for "prize" money, results not published in a respectable scientific peer reviewed journal (SI has cartoons; I don't think that counts, and Swift is just personal commentary; that doesn't count either), and being as open minded as possible (does it lip service, but probably not many people are convinced), but I still think it shows that the claimed paranormal powers/effects/etc. are probably not real, and certainly that the claimaints that have applied cannot do what they claim they can do, and I think that is important.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, yes, and yes, but I'd say Randi and the JREF are doing a valuable service because they are testing people's claims. With that said, however, if there exists effects that are small, their tests are much to small to detect them (low statistical power), and the tests are always, as far as I know, the "forced choice" variety (unfortunately not all paranormal claims are treated equal, so this "forced choice" pattern doesn't fit all claims). But again, these are tests that both Randi and the claimaint agree upon, so they are fair in that sense, and they are carried out using scientific principles I believe.

Again, you don't tell the full story.

We begin with big effects: Zener cards show that some people apparently can guess the symbols with an amazing regularity. Then, controls. The effect dwindles to zilch.

Then, instead of guessing simple things, the researchers make the experiments increasingly complex, until there are so many ways to interpret something, that you will get hits. And let's not forget outright datamining, hypotheses so vague that anything will be proven, and grossly overhyped results, where there are none.

Why use photos instead of simple symbols? Because photos can be interpreted, giving room for partial hits.

Or, to call it what it is: Wiggle-room.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mr Randi is doing what he does best, staging for an audience.

He is a showman, and a magician, not a scientist. His prize is simply publicity for himself and his professional actvities, IMHO.

Ah hah. So much for your "no axe to grind" .

Well, OK, he is testing a given dowser's claims, that, I have to concede, but he is not testing the phenomena of dowsing, that is something quite different.

He is not CLAIMING to test anything but individual dowsers. If he was claiming that the tests disproved dowsing per se, then he could stop testing dowsers, and simply reject any new dowsing claims. But he keeps testing dowsers.

Placabos are utilised, usually for scientific medical research, as a control so that any effects of the observed outcome caused by internalised origins within the brain, positively or negatively, can be eliminated.

Yeah, I know.

In Randi's tests this effect is not taken into account. Now why is this important? Simply because we do not really understand the origins and causes of the effect in a pioneering test scenario.

The dowser claims to be ably to do something that has a neffect in the real world. At JREF challenge level, nobody gives a d*mn HOW he does it. All he needs to do is show the real effect in the real world.

It could be totally internalised(imagined)

And so far, it has been just that .

or it could be an interaction by some external force with human body as a receiver. If it is the former, as with say a sportsperson, the internalised effect on performance, can be distorted qualitively, by the magnitude of the occasion, i.e. nervous
debilitation.

I suppose so, however, dowsers (at least some) dowse for money. Would you care to explain how a dowser can easily avoid "nervous debilitation" when being watched by a paying customer, but it kicks in as soon as somebody says "James Randi"??

Hans

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Well considering the chap I was chatting two died in the second world war it wasn’t the future.

You were in an old army fort and you talked to the spirit of a soldier who died in WWII. Then the curator confirmed that there had indeed been soldiers there who had died in WWII, right?
Doesn't seem very impressive to me, can you give more details? What questions did you ask? What answers did you get? Did you get a name? Age? Place and date of birth? How, when, where he died?

 

[Darat]

"...snip...

Well, OK, he is testing a given dowser's claims, that, I have to concede, but he is not testing the phenomena of dowsing, that is something quite different.

Placabos are utilised, usually for scientific medical research, as a control so that any effects of the observed outcome caused by internalised origins within the brain, positively or negatively, can be eliminated. In Randi's tests this effect is not taken into account. Now why is this important? Simply because we do not really understand the origins and causes of the effect in a pioneering test scenario. It could be totally internalised(imagined) or it could be an interaction by some external force with human body as a receiver. If it is the former, as with say a sportsperson, the internalised effect on performance, can be distorted qualitively, by the magnitude of the occasion, i.e. nervous debilitation.

You mustn’t be aware then that part of the "normal" dowsing test (that the JREF runs/supervises) is a pre-test verification that the dowser can detect whatever it is they say they can?

The JREF would get the dowser to state that they can (just as a for example) detect the water in the three cups when they can see the water in them. Then the cups are all covered and moved about and the dowser is asked to repeat their apparent success. (The test of a dowser who used to post here (edge I think?) involved a "non-blinded" test to verify he could work under the test procedures.)

In other words the JREF tries to ensure that the applicant can do what they say they can do under the test conditions.

 

[Explorer]

"In other words the JREF tries to ensure that the applicant can do what they say they can do under the test conditions."

Darat, I have already more or less conceded that point to Hans above.

I wish to re-iterate that although many dowsers brag about and publicise their "skills", and no doubt their anecdotal success rates, I challenge their qualification (or any one else's for that matter) to accept, deny or modify any test designed by someone other than an experienced scientist.

Mr Randi's tests are high on showmanship, and I admit have some contribution to make, if only, with all due respect to the great man, to demonstrate how it should not be done. It is also highly entertaining to take someone to task, who makes spurious claims and then is humiliated when failing a test that he/she has not just agreed to beforehand, but has actually participated in the design of that test.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Mr Randi's tests are high on showmanship,
...snip...

In what way?

...snip...
and I admit have some contribution to make, if only, with all due respect to the great man, to demonstrate how it should not be done.
...snip...

Well I don’t think he's a great man. I think he's made a great impact (compared to must) in helping expose fraudsters, con-men and the dangerous of not asking questions and accepting everything on face value. Anyway that's a bit of digression.

Could you expand in "...how it should not be done...”? Especially on "it"?

It is also highly entertaining to take someone to task, who makes spurious claims and then is humiliated when failing a test that he/she has not just agreed to beforehand, but has actually participated in the design of that test.

Could you give some examples of this "taking to task" of people who have failed a preliminary test? You see whilst I've seen Randi give a lot of "task" to people who say they'll do the test and then try to wriggle out of it, for example SB, I don't have the impression he takes them to task after the event (unless its a tit-for-tat exchange), but it is just an impression so happy to have you correct it if it’s a mistaken impression.

 

[Explorer]

Darat, I think we are getting too hung up on semantics here.

My use of the "great man" description of Mr Randi was merely an affectionate remark reflecting his global fame and senior years.

"taking to task" I meant in the context of an individual being subjected to testing, in the broadest sense.

Mr Randi's showmanship is his profession. He is a stage magician and has made a living out of the cunning deception of audiences. The $1,000,000 prize is just another example of his flamboyant show business approach to the paranormal, IMHO.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Mr Randi's showmanship is his profession. He is a stage magician and has made a living out of the cunning deception of audiences. The $1,000,000 prize is just another example of his flamboyant show business approach to the paranormal, IMHO.

And here you are wrong. The money is real, the test is real, there is no show about it.

Hans

 

[Hellbound]

And here you are wrong. The money is real, the test is real, there is no show about it.

Hans

Well, you're both right on this. The challenge is showmanship, that's part of it's purpose. The million dollars is there precisely to draw publicity. That's it's function.

However, the showmanship of the challenge is not reason in and of itself to declare the challenge invalid, incorrect, or unscientific. That's simply a side aspect of it. I mean, even scientists have press conferences to announce new findings (after peer review, of course) and universities and foundations seek to hold charity events, fund-raisers, investment drives, and similar "showmanship" affairs to assist their missions. None of these is reason to condemn what they do as "not science".

 

[Darat]

Darat, I think we are getting too hung up on semantics here.

...snip...

"taking to task" I meant in the context of an individual being subjected to testing, in the broadest sense.

Thanks for the clarification - I'd never seen "taking to task" used like that before.

Mr Randi's showmanship is his profession. He is a stage magician

I think it would be more accurate to say he is an ex-stage magician or a retired one don't you?

and has made a living out of the cunning deception of audiences.

You may say it is semantics again however I think the term "cunning deception" has a very negative tone to describe any magician's act. Magicians aren’t deceiving us, we’re paying them to entertain and fool us by apparently making the impossible real, buts it’s a willing “deception” and one with an audiences full approval.

The $1,000,000 prize is just another example of his flamboyant show business approach to the paranormal, IMHO.

In a way I agree with you and I suppose you would describe the Nobel awards as "just another example of flamboyant show business approach..."? It’s the same sort of publicity technique – something bright and attention grabbing to promote something of real value.

Of course the million dollar is a publicity tool, it’s a big sum that people can understand, it’s great for use in a sound bite, for a quick quote or a witty retort. But lets be realistic whereas Mencken could get media attention by penning a well crafted pamphlet 60 years ago, today that would get no attention. If you want to compete with the media dollars mediums like SB and JE wield you need a bit of "showmanship" to punch above your weight.