In this post from the James Randi thread, it is proposed that perhaps a standardized test for psychic abilities could be developed for each catagory, thus speeding up the testing process itself. I’m thinking that, due to the peculiarites of each supposed ability, a standardized test would be almost impossible to develop, but I could be wrong. Let’s take one of the more common claimed abilities, dowsing, and see if we could design a test that most dowsings might agree to take.
I think the standard is to ask them to find a spot where there is no water. Since you will eventually hit water if you dig deep enough on about 90% of the earths surface. There is a link to Randi’s theory around here but my google spirit guide has the day off.
I presume dowsing for water.
Bury two pipes underground. The path of one pipe is marked on the surface (with flags or something) and water is set running through it - this is the “calibration” pipe, so the dowser can check to make sure his/her dowsing ability works correctly in that environment.
Then water is shut off to the calibration pipe, and turned on for the “test” pipe, which is not visible at all from the surface. Then all the dowser has to do is track the path of the test pipe, marking it with some kind of marker (the same flags as before would work). Then, once the dowser is satisified he/she has traced the path, the water is turned off, and the spots marked are dug at, right then and there.
It should be obvious whether the dowser was successful or not, since it’s hard to conceal a pipe that actually exists. Especially if you aren’t given any time to move it.
I can just hear the dowsers complaining that the metal in the pipes interferes with their reading. Or claiming that they can only sense natural water or that the test itself interferes with their powers or their spirit guides will not perform in the presence of skeptics or the powers of the moon are not aligned or…
I don’t mean to sound flippant but a REAL problem with trying to explore psychic ability is the fraudulent or loony nature of ALL people who claim to posses it. I am willing to accept that there may be things about the universe that we don’t yet understand but modern psychics are charlatans that are pros at evading actual objective testing.
Hence the calibration pipe. If they can dowse the path of the pipe when it’s clearly marked to their satisfaction, they no longer have the “environmental factors” excuse when they then fail to find the path of the test pipe. It’s kind of a honeypot trap, giving them the easy chance to show off by tracking the marked pipe. Most actual dowsing tests use this method to eliminate (or at least make look extra ridiculous) the tendency of failed dowsers to use the environmental factors excuse. After all, if there were no issues dowsing the water when they knew where it was by sight, how can there be issues all of a sudden when they can’t seem to find the water that they CAN’T see?
The metal issue can be easily fixed by using plastic/PVC pipes.
Man, I don’t want to get into this, especially seeing that I am busy today.
I used to locate underground utility lines. Typically you direct connect to the line you want to find, hook up your machine, paint and flag the line or conduit or pipe. Every once in a while, you would have to locate a line that you couldn’t directly hook up to. At that point you could try to have your signal bleed over to find the line, by putting it on top of something that was connected.
Occasionally, you would have the choice between getting out the shovel and hand digging, or trying to douse the line. It works. Not just for me, either, I’m not that special.
Now, does this work for water? I don’t know. Why does it work? I don’t know. I’ve actually been in a thread like this before, where I was repeatedly slapped down, I just don’t have time to find it at the moment. I’m sure someone will link to it.
This is one where you are not going to change anyone’s mind.
As to a test? For water dousing, no clue.
For utility lines? Shallower the better, but say 3’ depth, no external visual cues, live wire helpful, or really large conduit, pipe.
Then when the failed dowser learns that the pipes were plastic then he/she will have a revelation that plastic interferes with their ability.
If it works, why bother with the fancy shmancy electronic stuff? If it works, why not win the million? Seriously, no smack down intended.
That’s why all this needs to be sorted up front. The dowser will know (and should even be allowed to select) the material used in the pipes.
It’s really important that the testee be as involved in design and setup as much as possible without compromising the nature of the test itself. That vastly reduces any “out” they may have, since if they complain, the testers can just say “Well, that was YOUR idea.”
Because machines are easier, more reliable and more accurate. Although even the machines are not infallible, not by a long shot. Plus the machines make really cool beeping or pinging noises, and light up with pretty colors.
As to the million? Well, before the last thread, I didn’t know it existed. Seeing that this is utility, I don’t think it’s paranormal, so it doesn’t qualify.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s paranormal or not - I’m sure that a reliable demonstration of dowsing would qualify for the challenge. Why not go for it?
Mangetout, set it up like I outlined it in an earlier post, I’ll be there, see what happens.
I’ve got to go folks, so don’t expect any replies for a while, but I am not abandoning this thread. Even though it’ll be a repeat of the last thread.
I don’t think there’s any way for me to set it up for you. There’s a guy who will pay you a million dollars if you can reliably demonstrate an ability to dowse that is statistically better than guessing. I can’t honestly understand why you don’t find this exciting.
So far, we’ve got a test that is no good for those who only detect water in its natural environment, and must be redesigned every time to rule out interference from whatever substance the dowsers that are left claim they can’t work with.
I’m not seeing either cost or time saving with this setup.
This one’s been done, no matter what our resident anti-Randi guy says.
In his book In the Name of Science (later retitled Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science), Martin Gardner devoted an entire chapter to dowsing. One of the dowsing proponents, who wrote a book on the topic, lamented that he hadn’t thought of one idea in time – “I wished that I’d thought of it earlier,” (my paraquoting from memory) he said “I wished I’d built a platform with a hose on it, covered by another platform, so we could demonstrate his abilities. The hose could be shaped into different forms, and he could show how he could follow that.” Gardner points out that, like so many things in the book, it was only thought of afterwards, and not tested.
Some 25 years later, a bunch of skeptics thought it would be worth testing, almost as described. they didn’t use a platform, but a field. They staked out a plot of ground in the shape of a square, excavated it, and ran three pipes through in various shapes, all lying with the staked-out area. The pipes ran from a reservoir through a slight downhill slope so that there would be no vibrations to give a clue. They had a surveyor accurately measure the pipe locations, then covered it up.
They brought in the dowsers, one at a time. They filled out questionnaires, were told the conditions of the test, and agreed. They had an opportunity to go over the plot with no water running to see if there was any local ground water that would mess with the test. They were then given a number of tries (three I think) where the water would be turned on in one of the pipes, and they would be given an opportunity to track the water, pushing markers into the earth to give the locations. The surveyor would come out and plot the flag locations. Then they’d do it again with another test, and repeat until all the tests were done.
They did this for each dowser, out of sight of the others, so all tests were independent and unable to influence the others.
Then they compared the surveyor’s plots of the actual pipe locations with the dowser’s plots. There was only one case where the dowser’s plot matched any of the pipe plots – and in that case the water was not running through that pipe at the time. (It was a direct line between the reservoir and the sink at the bottom, so it’s not that surprising that someone guessed it. They wanted to include the simplest possible case among the options,)
This was filmed by RAI in Italy and shown on TV there, and it was described at length in James Randi’s 1980 book Flim-Flam!, along with pictures (Randi was one of the organizers, and I’m pretty sure this was part of his standard challenge).
You can complain about Randi if you want, but this sounds like a fair and reasonable challenge, with clearly defined goal and test conditions. All the dowsers undoubtedly failed.
I’m pretty sure Randi has done the test several times since. It sounds to me like the simplest and most straightforward test, and easy to run. And you can’t even accuse Randi of coming up with an absurd test – it was proposed originally by a dowsing proponent.
Dowsing (if you define it as using a device like a pendulum or forked stick to find hidden substances) is most certainly paranormal; Randi has said so, and Randi has tested it, as CalMeacham described. If it is not paranormal, what force are you proposing is behind it?
Seriously, you just made a claim of your (and others’) ability. Read the MDC rules and apply. If you are right, you win. If you don’t win, you are wrong.
It’s exactly what such a Challenge was designed to do; introduce a “do it or shut up” factor to a claim.
There can never be a single universal test for all dowsers. You will always have to redesign it based on what the individual dowsers claim to detect, how they detect it, what “interference” they claim affects their ability, and so on.
If we are talking about a permanent test site, the water routes need to be changed readily and to random locations, which complicates matters.
And dowsers can always fall back on the “it only works on flowing underground water” claim. If you haven’t read Kenneth Roberts’ books on Henry Gross (3 books and an article), I highly recommend them. Every excuse is in those books, and Roberts makes them all sound logical with his storytelling ability.
Roberts tells of a test where a garden hose was placed beneath a platform and pulled to one side or the other with rope. The water in the hose was also turned on and off and the dowser asked to sense flow/noflow.
The test was “inconclusive”. Roberts suggested that there was no way, given their setup, to tell if the water, when turned off, was bouncing back and forth in the hose, thowing the rod off. And even if the test had been truly negative, he would have said “no test reproduces flowing underground water”. He even claimed they tried dowsing for other substances with mixed results (he said mixed; I say failed).
The Gross/Roberts team also “found” that the rod was such a stickler for accuracy that you had to phrase your questions carefully. Forget to ask if the water was still flowing and you run the risk that drilling would find an old watercourse but no water. A convenient cop-out, obviously.
And just in case someone is wondering how the rod communicates with the handler (at least in Henry Gross’ case), Gross asks a question, and the rod dips down or not for yes or no. I mean really, physically, the rod moves after it hears a question and that movement is an answer to the question. :rolleyes:
Fine, I shut up.
Thanks for your time.
I’m confused. You make a claim that defies science as we know it, and now you seem upset that we want some evidence?