Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

[bozothedeathmachine]

Ayup. Sorry to snap at you like that.

No worries. Troll hunting is a respectable and necessary sport. Lest this board descend into quagmire of crap.

 

[sackett]

The gods themselves

struggle in vain against stupidity. (Can't recall who said that, and I don't want to look stupid by guessing wrong.)

Some years back, I used to visit UFO believers' boards, trying to knock down their playhouse -- yes, I knew it was nearly hopeless, but it gave me a certain pleasure; it was like being back in fourth grade, beating up on second-graders at recess.

One time I tried the old objection to UFOs that, if ETs are visiting the earth, why don't we at least pick up their radio signals? A poster answered me with grave dignity: The Advanced Beings don't need to rely on such a primitive method of communications as -- ugh! -- radio.

In other words, even the -lack- of evidence can be further proof of whatever dingy belief is in question.

All the same, I'm not counselling despair here, I'm rather advocating patience, persistence, and, yes, compassion. The gods themselves etc., but sometimes they knock one in.

 

[Peter Morris]

DaratIn the case of dowsing I don't rely on any weak "arguments" I rely on evidence, or rather lack of evidence.

Every report I've ever read in which a "dowser" is faced with a truely blinded situation their ability fades away.

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.

I know you have a personal bias about Randi

Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?

I find that his fans cannot accept that Randi is a liar, I point out lies he tells, they just kid themselves that I must be 'biased' to comment on them.

apoger: Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty? As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.

How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html
<< Randi said the basic premise of dowsing is a strong, subconscious, psychological phenomenon called an "ideomotor effect." He explained that the effect is "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process." Dowsers believe so strongly in what they do, Randi said, that they are actually moving their dowsing instruments themselves. "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement." >>

See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

 

[nick]

See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

Ummm... Randi is only shown to be lying here, if there are indeed a substantial number of real dowsers who did indeed react, when Randi told them that they were moving their wrists, by saying "yes, I knew that already".

However, we don't have any evidence for that. Other than, of course, the fact that you are "sure" that they [tend to] reply in that way. Which, if you'll excuse me, isn't quite the same thing.

You didn't even say "I have spoken to 100 dowsers and 95 of them said they knew they were moving their hands involuntarily", in which case Randi could be said to be accusing you of lying (except, of course, for the minor detail that he made his statement before you made yours, but that's another level of difficulty; let's get past the easy stuff first).

 

[Quasi]

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.
Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?
How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html
<< Randi said the basic premise of dowsing is a strong, subconscious, psychological phenomenon called an "ideomotor effect." He explained that the effect is "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process." Dowsers believe so strongly in what they do, Randi said, that they are actually moving their dowsing instruments themselves. "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement." >>

See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

Ok, fine, so dowsers accept the fact that they move their hands. This still does not change the fact that dowsing has completely and utterly failed under conditions which control for self deception and cheating. You are merely assuming that dowsing literature is honest, well intended instructional information. Fine, Randi has offered one million dollars to any dowser, regardless of whatever they believe allows them to dowse. All they have to do is find the water/ore/gold under the containers of their choice. Whats the problem? Oh yeah, they know in their hearts its all a lie and they will fail. The only honest dowsers are those who have been tested. Their subsequent failure has not deterred them though. Just read any "Edge Dowsing" thread.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient

I realise he's qualifying his statements, but I went from being a Ralph Blum rune-reader (even though Ralph basically 'made up' all the designations of the runes) to a skeptic after reading Randi's books. Just anecdotal evidence that data can change the credulous.

 

[Peter Morris]

You didn't even say "I have spoken to 100 dowsers and 95 of them said they knew they were moving their hands involuntarily", in which case Randi could be said to be accusing you of lying

I've read maybe 30 books or articles by dowsers, and around 20 of them state openly that it's their own hand causing the rod to move. In the rest, I don't recall seeing anything that would deny it.

Ok, fine, so dowsers accept the fact that they move their hands. This still does not change the fact that dowsing has completely and utterly failed under conditions which control for self deception and cheating.

I repeat, I'm not advocating dowsing as true, I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiomotor argument as wrong.

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion.

 

[Darat]

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.
Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?...snip...

I have no idea why you should be biased but your very reply supports my claim of your bias about Randi.

After all I didn't say "Every report I've read by Randi" yet you seem to read that into my statement....

Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?



(Edited for not being bold.)

 

[apoger]

>Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.

Sorry. Dowsing has been tested up and down, and it has never shown any validity in well supervised tests. It is not just Randi that dismisses dowsing, but all skeptics, and the scientific community. All of us await any credible tests that show that dowsing is anything but a dream. If demonstrations can show it to be real, it would be thoroughly tested and put to good use. However since tests have shown no effect, we are not following up, nor are we putting it into practical application.

If you have access to some previously unknown tests that show valid dowsing, I suggest you contact those involved. Have them come in for some solid scientific testing, and change our perception of reality!

Until then, no confusion about the ideometer effect, nor any vague references to anecdotal tests means squat.





>I find that his fans cannot accept that Randi is a liar, I point out lies he tells, they just kid themselves that I must be 'biased' to comment on them.

We would just as greedily rip down Randi for lies as anyone else. By all means point out "the lies he tells". So far you are you haven't presented any evidence of value.




>apoger: Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty? As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.

>>How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html

This is not an example of Randi telling a lie.
This is an example of someone describing what Randi said. Note the lack of quotes around the part you harped on.

Randi has writen volumes on this subject. By all means cite something that he actually wrote or said. Anecdotes that paraphrase what he said are not acceptable.

 

[Darat]

I've read maybe 30 books or articles by dowsers, and around 20 of them state openly that it's their own hand causing the rod to move. In the rest, I don't recall seeing anything that would deny it.



I repeat, I'm not advocating dowsing as true, I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiomotor argument as wrong.

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion.

Can you please indicate how this test of dowsing is deeply flawed: http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

 

[apoger]

>I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiometer argument as wrong.


#1 This thread has gone on long enough for all of us to spell ideomotor correctly.

#2 Sorry to quote myself but it seems appropriate:

"Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideomotor effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves."

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideomotor effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves.

I'm sure you think you have a point here, please explain what the difference is.

In many essays, Randi uses the ideomotor effect as an argument against dowsing. The OP uses the "boring reality of the ideomotor phenomenon " as an argument against dowsing.

If skeptics aren't using the ideomotor effect as an argument against dowsing, why do they mention it so often?

 

[Jeff Corey]

I think the difference between "arguement against dowsing" and "explanation of dowsing" is either extremely suble or merely semantic.
The argument against dowsing is that it doesn't work under controlled testing conditions. Thus, it's a silly practice and of no utility.
The explanation of why those witch hazel or willow forks or bits of coathanger actually move is most pasimoniously explained by the ideomotor effect.
If you disagree with this distinction, I will consider you to be antisemantic.

 

[apoger]

>I'm sure you think you have a point here, please explain what the difference is.

Are you really telling me that you cannot tell the difference between "an argument against " as opposed to "an explanation of "?

For some dictionary definitions of 'argument' that are appropriate:
: a reason given in proof or rebuttal
: discourse intended to persuade
: the act or process of arguing
: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion


For example:

When asked about dowsing most skeptics will argue that dowsing has undergone extensive testing and has not shown any fruitful results. Even though dowsers continue to persist that they can dowse, skeptics will not offer acceptance of such claims until testing shows results that would validate such a belief.



For some dictionary definitions of 'explanation ' that are appropriate:
: the act or process of explaining
: to make known
: to make plain or understandable
: to give the reason for or cause of
: to show the logical development or relationships of


For example:

When asked how dowsers could persist in such beliefs even though testing has shown no validity, skeptics sometimes explain that the ideomotor effect can convincingly fool many dowsers into attributing small muscular movements to something supernatural. Many do not seem to understand that it is unconscious muscle movement that moves the instruments and not a mystical force.



I hope this makes things clear for you.

 

[Darat]

When you posted:

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own

....snip...

I asked you:

"Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?"

You have not responded with any attempt to provide any evidence for your claim.


You also posted:

...snip...

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion. [/B]

So I asked if you would you point out the flaws in this test http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

And again you have not responded with any attempt to support your claim.


Of course it is your right not to respond however since you will not provide any support for your claims I will have to discount them and assume they were mere hyperbole without any substance or merit.


(Edited for a could to a would and an if)

 

[Peter Morris]

Are you really telling me that you cannot tell the difference between "an argument against " as opposed to "an explanation of "?

Frankly, you haven't demonstrated any difference. Randi was using the ideomotor effect as an explaination of how people deceive themselves into thinking dowsing works when it doesn't, or Randi was using it as an argument against dowsing. Same difference. Its a lie either way.

"Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?"

You have not responded with any attempt to provide any evidence for your claim.

here's a review of various scientific research.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
Some tests find in favour, some find against. The claim that no test ever shows dowsing is false. The author is critical of many tests, both for and against dowsing, including Randi's.

So I asked if you would you point out the flaws in this test http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Darat, that is completely absurd. I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed. I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

Of course it is your right not to respond however since you will not provide any support for your claims I will have to discount them and assume they were mere hyperbole without any substance or merit.

I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.

 

[apoger]

>Frankly, you haven't demonstrated any difference.

I certainly have. What part do you not understand? I'm asking this in all seriousness. My gut feeling is that you are being purposely obtuse, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you really not discern the difference between;

A> An agrument against the validity of dowsing
and
B> Using the ideomotor effect as a potential explanation of how some dowsers can delude themselves?


Are you in fact making the implicit claim that argument and explanation are the same? Also are you making the implicit claim that the ideomotor effect and dowsing are the same? This seems to be what you are saying. I would like you to clarify exactly what you're saying... please.



>Randi was using the ideomotor effect as an explaination of how people deceive themselves into thinking dowsing works when it doesn't, or Randi was using it as an argument against dowsing. Same difference. Its a lie either way.

I deny that Randi uses it as "an argument" against dowsing. I submit that he rightfully uses it as an explanation of how some people are deceived by the effect.

I will gladly withdraw my claim, and apologize, if you can provide evidence from Mr. Randi that he has made the claim that the ideomotor effect is why dowsing is invalid. If you can't then you should retract your claim that he has used such as a lie.

As for Randi using the ideomotor effect as an explanation of how people deceive themselves... in what way is this a lie? Are you saying that no dowsers are ever self deluded? Further are you saying that the ideomotor effect is never responsible for such delusion?




>Some tests find in favour, some find against.

This is the garbage claim of many on these forums. It is also why Randi's challenge is so important.

You can take all the anecdotes in the world and stuff them. Sorry, but that's the way it is, straight up.

You know when dowsing will be accepted? When someone steps forward and shows that it can be done. Not one second sooner. This is the same standard that we apply to everyone.

You claim some tests are in favor? Good! Such claimants should step up and ROCK THE WORLD with their discovery. Until they do, skeptics will withold judgement.




>I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed. I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

The tests protocols are created/agreed upon by the applicants themselves.

Both applicants and Randi feel that every test is sufficent to demonstrate the issue at hand. What more do you want?

 

[apoger]

>I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.


Wow, I just read through that thread.
I'm stunned that you would point people to that thread as I think it shows your lack of critical thinking and inability to deal with the subject of Randi and testing. I wish I had checked it out sooner as it would have saved me the time of trying to have a rational discussion with you... rather than repeat the same discussions that you have had with others before.

Effectively you are a troll.

Unless you come up with a rational argument, I am done with you. If anyone needs to know what's on Peter's mind, just check out the threads on Straightdope.com.

 

[nick]

You claim some tests are in favor? Good! Such claimants should step up and ROCK THE WORLD with their discovery. Until they do, skeptics will withold judgement.

If dowsing really worked, how long would it take Exxon to develop a version for finding oil ? Or does anyone think they drill test bores deep into the ground for the hell of it, when they could find oil in twenty minutes with a guy and a stick ?

I find that applying this test to most "paranormal" phenomena is at least as good as Occam's razor (which, in some hands, would probably have swept special relativity out of the window in 1905). If that guy can really run his car on water, why haven't GM come knocking ? Oh, I forgot, it's a conspiracy...

 

[Darat]

...snip...



here's a review of various scientific research.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
Some tests find in favour, some find against. The claim that no test ever shows dowsing is false. The author is critical of many tests, both for and against dowsing, including Randi's.

Thank you for your response and link. This is a review piece - do you have any links to the successful “truly blinded” tests?

Darat, that is completely absurd. I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed.

...snip...

I try to read as little "between" the lines as possible in other people posts so please excuse the fact that because you didn't limit your claim I assumed you meant "all".

Just to be certain I'm not misunderstanding you are now retracting your original claim of

"Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion."

And substituting a claim of:

"Some of Randi's tests are flawed. "

...snip...

I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

...snip...

I agree that this would be ridiculous however I have no idea why you are making this point, since it is has nothing to do with what I asked you, which was to explain the flaw in a test of a dowser that Randi carried out in which the dowser failed.

...snip...

I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.

Again I don't know what point you are trying to make as this does not address the question I asked.

So in summary, you have agreed that your claim that "... I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too...." cannot not be substantiated and you still have not provided links to tests that support your claim that under the conditions I stated i.e. "truly blinded" dowsing has been proven to work.