So you can only find one water line if there’s at least 100 of them? Sounds extremely probable, I must say.
Nor does Randi, since you bear the costs. He’s been dealing with people like you for a while, see, so he understands pretty well the little tricks you tend to get up to.
Randi has affiliates in most parts of the world, and would probably arrange such a test as close to you as possible, as long as you pay all the costs, of course.
Yes it has. Do you know the difference between science and people like you? When science discovers it has made a mistake… it admits it and corrects it.
Besides, anyone who claimed the ability you describe, with those conditions, would claim to have a totally useless ability.
No, you haven’t. You haven’t even mentioned it before. And you’ve said you think there are scientific explanations and even posted a link to theory, which, for me, shows some interest.
Of course I can’t. But I’m not the one making the claim here. The only claim I’ve made is that dowsing so far hasn’t been shown to work one single time in a proper test.
Oh yeah, all the uncounted legions of dowsing believers are quiet, but I’ll bet they show their support to you via email, right?
You’re free to call me a broken record, but I’ll keep repeat this until you get it: until it’s shown that it works, it’s totally uninteresting how it works.
I don’t think I’ve seen this referred to above, so I’ll note it here:
Martin Gardner, science and philosophy essayist and noted skeptic, devoted a chapter to dowsing in his 1952 book In the Name of Science (later retitled Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science and, IIRC, still in print. I have two copies.) In it, Gardner takes to task the author of a pro-dowsing book because the man himself suggested some tests for dowsing, but which he never put into practice. Gardner went on to suggesrt that a good test of dowsing wiould be to build a platform with a lower deck that could be completely enclosed. Into this deck you could put a hose, contorted into a given shape. The dowser could then test his ability by plotting the shape of the hose hidden inside the platform while water ran through it.
Many years later, James Randi finally put this to the test. In collaboration with a show airing on Italian television RAI, they set up a series of three plastic pipes in a field, had accurate surveys of the pipes taken, then buried the pipes and invited a series of dowsers to come over and try to locate the pipes, one at a time. The results are reported in his 1980 book Flim-Flam!. None of the dowsers came close, although one dowser did trace the “direct” path that one of the pipes took (although the test was for a different pipe that time). IIRC, Randi has done this same test at least one time since. It’s a simple and – it seems to me – fair test of dowsing ability. These repeated failures should be significant.
I have no personal experience with dowsing, although someone in my wife’s family once consulted a dowser in drilling a water well. The well struck water. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Gardner’s explanations ring truer, and it’sd exceedingly difficult to fit the practice of dowsing in with any scientific or provable theory of the universe.
There’s a very important distinction. We can’t prove it doesn’t work, because that’s a logical impossibility. No matter how many tests we do under a specific set of conditions, a dowser could always claim that we just haven’t tested it correctly yet.
However, if it really did work, it would be simple for you or any dowser to prove. The fact that it’s been repeatedly tried, and has never been shown under any controlled conditions, is an extremely strong argument that it does not exist. However, it’s not formal proof of its nonexistence, which again is impossible.
I hope you can see that the fact that neither of us has formal proof does not mean that our arguments are on equal footing.
Say it with me, won’t you? “ONE… MILLION… DOLLARS”
At 5 percent interest, the annual dividend from this sum would be more than most people make at their jobs.
Go to Austrailia and get another 100,000. I think there’s a similar amount available in India.
Don’t forget about the fame: the book deal… the talk-show circuit… your own show on the Sci-Fi Channel…
If you feel that using your power for personal gain is somehow “unspiritual”, then I will happily take that filthy lucre off your hands.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who claims to be able to dowse, and has not already bought his plane tickets to go get the million bucks from Randi, is a liar. Period.
First of all, I would like to suggest that dowsing does in fact work, and here is a plausible explaination of the mechanism. As a dowser walks around a terrain he gains subliminal clues from the local geography. At a particular point on his tour, his subconcious screams at him "Oi, mate. Water. Here. Now." With a little practice he can train himself, so when he gets that message his muscles give an involuntary twitch. Of course, that little twitch causes the rod to dip downwards suddenly.
Cecil offers that as a proof that it doesn't work. I say it does work, and that's HOW it works.
From my reading on dowsing I think that most dowsers would agree that they are causing the stick to move. It is the dowser, not the stick that detects the water.Some dowsers claim that they don't need a rod, that their body itself twiches when they pass over water. Dowsers used to be called 'twitchers' and the purpose of a divining rod is to magnify slight twitches in the muscles to a point where they are easily observable. You can say things like <<Any of four minor muscle movements will result in the stick taking a sudden lurch downward>> or <<The "force" you felt was ideomotor action>> all you want, this does not disprove dowsing. Based on my reading it would seem that most dowsers would agree with that, even if they don't know the scientific terms.
Some dowsers might agree with the explaination I offered at the start. Others might say that water causes varience in magnetic fields, and THEY are sensitive to that. Others might say that it comes from psychic powers. I don't know if any of those are right, but I find the first the most plausible.
As for Randi, I think he is the biggest fraud of all. His tests are certainly unfair, even rigged. The fact that he hasn't paid out $1million proves nothing. Randi works on the principle that if it can be explained then it isn't psychic, so no money, and if it can't be explained then it doesn't exist so no money. He will never pay out, whatever the proof. A dowser might have 20 years practice tracing underground rivers, but Randi won't test him on that, he must trace a pipe underneath a concrete floor instead, and do it on the first attempt. This is not the same thing at all. If he allows an outdoors test, then they muast do it blindfold, denying them the subliminal clues from the local geography. And if he detects any involuntary muscle movement then it doesn't count because the rod must move itself to win the prize. Randi has made a fortune trading on the gullability of skeptics.:wally
I think I’ll withhold my welcome to the boards for the moment, peter morris.
If you are going to garner any respect around here you will need to read the whole of the thread you are posting to and deal with the points already made before putting your oar in. Crashing in with a bunch of tired points before calling others “putz” for failing to hold a your already debunked viewpoint will win no friends.
One point I’d suggest: read Randi’s website and the actual terms of the million dollar challenge. You should understand that there are professional psychics out there to whom Randi’s challenge represents a real problem. They have, as a consequence, spread a large amount of disinformation about what that challenge is. You appear to have uncritically swallowed that disinformation.
If you read and understand the rules to Randi’s challenge you will realise that most of the points you make are frankly nonsense.
That’s funny, every dowser that posted in this thread claimed the opposite, that the stick moved all by itself and they did not move it.
Never heard of that before. I’ve heard of dowsers called witchers before, for water witching, but never twitchers.
What is proof? How would one disprove dowsing? The above is not supposed to be proof, it is an explanation for how the stick can move without conscious effort by the holder. So on the one hand we have a real demonstrated and testable effect (ideomotor effect) and on the other hand we have a mysterious conjecture that no one can agree on how it works or why and doesn’t pass controlled tests (dowsing = psychic water detection). Gee, which could it be? :rolleyes:
This is incorrect. It misrepresents the process, and the past tests used. Testing conditions are set up to be controllable, but the claimant gets full approval over the test setup. Evaluation of pass/fail is not set on first try, but rather on statistical methods. The test is designed to meet the specific claims of the claimant. Tests that have been conducted have relied totally upon the claimant marking on the map where they thought the water was. No evaluation by anyone over whether the stick twitched enough or requirements for blindfolds. Just send them through an area with a map on which to mark their results. The claimant could go through the course as many times as possible, take as long as they wished, and use any detection method of choice - stick, pendulum, twitching hand, whatever.
Piece of advice: When you make your second one, read the entire thread first.
And you don’t see how that makes dowsing completely useless? That means the dowser gets absolutely no information from his dowsing; it’s all in his head to start with. He’d do much better if he learned to consciously see the things he sees subconsciously. Dowsing is a waste of his talents.
I haven’t heard dowsers saying this; in fact they usually stress that the stick is all-important. For example, one dowser Randi tested put a piece of gold on his rod in order to be able to detect gold. About the “twitchers”, I can just say that I’ve never heard the term.
And you know this how?
Utter, complete, total and unprecedented bullshit. Randi states over and over again that he doesn’t care one single tiny jot how the phenomenon is supposed to work. He just wants to see if it does, nothing more. On the application, he states that “we have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded”. Explanations are totally irrelevant.
Those bovines keep taking dumps, don’t they? As anyone knows who’s bothered to spend 30 seconds investigating Randi’s challenge, both tester and testee agree to the test prior to proceeding. Both are allowed to modify it as much as they like until both are satisfied.
Depends on what the dowser claims to be able to do. If he says he needs to be able to see in order to read clues from the local geography, then he doesn’t claim paranormal ability and there’s no point in proceeding with the test.
Natalia Lulova claimed to be able to read while blindfolded. That’s a paranormal ability. I claim to be able to read while not blindfolded. That’s not a paranormal ability and Randi will not give me a million for doing it.
You’re certainly helping cows’ boyfriends with their bowel movements. Randi tests whether or not the dowser is able to find whatever it is he claims to be able to find (water, gold, silver, whatever). He doesn’t care how it’s done.
How can you possibly be this ignorant? You have strong opinions about things of which you know absolutely diddley-squat. Try reading for a few minutes and then come back with an informed opinion.
No proof of this, of course. Just the usual unfounded whining about Randi.
Once again, we have another critic of the JREF challenge who never bothered to read the terms of the challenge.
It must really irk you, then, to find out that Randi has performed tests of dowsers in the outdoors. I refer you to the last chapter of Flim-Flam by James Randi. The dowsers were not blindfolded, were happy with the conditions and confident of their abilities. They failed. Excuses involving the moons of Jupiter then came out.
Hoo, boy, to provoke such venom I must be doing something right.
Yes I did, and brought up some new stuff. Who, before me raised the point that most dowsers admit they are moving the rod? Who before me challenged the honesty of James Randi?
Sorry to break it to you, Princhester, but some of us are capable of forming their own impressions. I came to the conclusion that he’s a fraud from having personally watched his TV shows and read some of his writings and having seen for myself many misrepresentations he makes, and tests that were sooo obviously unfair. I mean, some of the people he tested were making ridiculous claims, which I didn’t accept for a moment. Yet every single one of the tests he made struck me as biased in some way. It was only later that I discovered that a LOT of other people agree with my opinion.
<< Proof of this may be found in the occult art of dowsing where the imperceptible movement of the hand as motored by nerve impulses causes a pendulum to sway under direction of an unseen subconscious intelligence–the pendulum merely acting as an amplifier for the conscious aspect of the psyche. >>
<< It is almost universally accepted that dowsing is a neurophysiological response and that the rods or pendulums are only present as a mechanical amplifier of otherwise unnoticeable small tilts and movements of the hand. The material and type of the rod doesn’t matter… The most common response is a subtle twitch of the wrist or arm, and learning to hold the rods with a particular extension and tension in various muscle groups is used to increase the magnitude of the response.>>
<< Earlier dowsers used to rub blocks of ebony or bakelite. The object is to detect involuntary muscle twitch by a “sticking” action of the fingers on the rubbing pad.>>
<<In 1556 a German metallurgical text commented on the common use of dowsing to detect metallic ores while the author, AGRICOLA, pointed out that the dowsing instrument did not move of its own accord, but only in the hands of sensitive persons. >>
That enough for you?
Rubbish. I’ve read enough of Randi to recognise what a fraud he is. Just one example of this :
Randi says << Whether it is a forked stick clenched in both hands and bent apart in a horizontal position, or a small pendulum held at the fingertips, the dowsing instrument is in a state of unbalance or stress. Any slight movement or outside influence can start it moving, and subsequent dramatic motions of the device are taken as evidence of strange forces at work. Actually it is the dowser himself who initiates the movement—mostly unconsciously.>>
Do you see the problem with this, guys?
Dowsers claim that it is the dowser moving the the stick subconsiously, not the stick moving by itself.
Then Randi tests their claims, and discovers that, surprise surprise, it is the dowser moving the stick, not the stick moving by itself. He then advances this as ‘proof’ that the dowsers claims are wrong. Then skeptics who have read his books reject dowsing because Randi has proved that the dowser is moving the stick, not the stick moving by itself. Throughout this thread there have only been two arguments presented against dowsing, one of which is that it’s the dowser moving the stick, not the stick moving itself.
Such ignorence is forgivable from amateur commentators on the subject, from Randi its unforgivable. I have seen his books and his TV shows, and seen dozens of similar misrepresentations. That is why I don’t trust his tests.
Why don’t you read the conditions of the test. Unless the dowsers sign a form agreeing to Randi’s conditions they are not allowed to take part. They take part under HIS rules, or not at all.
Unless you missed it in my first post let me repeat that I do not fully believe in dowsing. I am unconvinced either way. But I am sure Randi is a fraud, of that there is no doubt.
Some do, some don’t. Randi tests each appropriately.
No one. Think on why that might be.
Is this another way of saying “some of us go through life on the basis of impressions and don’t like research and facts and all that boring stuff get in the way?”
It was pretty silly of the challengers to agree to tests in that form, then, wasn’t it?
What misrepresentations? We want cites. We want facts and figures.
A lot of people believe in psychics. A lot of people do not want to know about anything that would challenge such beliefs.
Oh really? This is interesting stuff indeed. I await your cite on this point with great interest. If you can prove what you have just said, you are correct that Randi is a fraud.
But I have to say I think we’ll be a long time waiting. Because what actually happens is one of two things:
Dowsers approach Randi saying that they do not subconsiously move the stick and are proven to do so, or they approach Randi saying they do subconsciously move the stick (but they do that using psychic powers) and it is proven that they are unable to dowse psychically.
You are, I think, conflating these two things in a rather desperate attempt to discredit Randi
But I’m open minded. If you can find a cite for your allegations, go ahead.
The point that you are always going to struggle with, peter morris, is that
1/ the dowser says what they claim to be able to do
2/ the dowser and Randi agree on what will be a fair test of that claim
3/ the test is conducted.
4/ the dowsers always fail
You really are going to have to come to grips with this basic feature of Randi’s testing before you are going to get anywhere.
The primary argument against dowsing is that no one is able to do what they say they can do under controlled conditions. Forget why.
The explanation for that which is often given is that people are moving the stick themselves but don’t realise they are doing so, and don’t realise that when you take away the visual clues that allow people to use basic hydrology and geology as to where water probably lies, they can no longer dowse.
This leads to an aspect of this matter where there is a basic misunderstanding on your part of the views of Randi and the skeptics on this board.
No one doubts that with a bit of experience and practice and basic knowledge of landforms etc, one can pick where underground water will lie, particularly when there is underground water in about 80% of places anyway. This is not paranormal. Randi’s challenge is to prove the paranormal.
Triumphantly pronouncing that Randi is a fraud because he won’t give the million buck paranormal prize to someone who does something that isn’t paranormal is rather silly, don’t you think?
And his rules are (as stated above, but it bears repeating because some people around here seem to be having some difficulty getting to grips) that the claimaint must say what they do, and there must be agreement (ie involving the claimant) on a fair test.
You are being disingenuous.
No doubt, eh. Well thanks for letting us know. I could have sworn that there were distinct doubts about the proposition you advance, but if you say so, who are we to disagree.
PM, you’re an idiot. No two ways about it, your sole talent is for deluding yourself. And sorry, if pissing people off were to prove that you’re right, then Pauly Shore would have an Oscar by now.
None of the sites you linked contains a single reference to dowsers being called twitchers. The Croydon Caving Club link is a letter replying to an earlier article debunking dowsing; both refer to the twitching of rods, but neither calls dowsing “twitching.” The Tinyurl link also refers to rods that twitch; “twitching rods,” you see. It’s called a “participle.” Look it up. The broken link, of course, proves nothing.
Most people who attempt to assert a scientific basis for dowsing are forced to admit that the dowsers move their equipment; the majority of dowsers may or may not agree. Not a single item you’ve quoted or linked to (in this regard) was written by an actual dowser. It doesn’t matter, though, because it doesn’t affect the claim. Dowsers claim they can find water, minerals, or other things. They can’t. Period.
Randi’s explanation of how dowsers deceive themselves has nothing to do with their claims, and nothing to do with the tests. They say they can find water, and Randi gives them water to find. They can’t find it. Period. It has nothing to do with what’s moving the stick; nobody cares what’s moving the stick. It’s not anywhere in the protocol. YOU’RE MAKING SHIT UP.
Randi writes the test procedures and agreements (or has them written) based on the claims the dowsers make. The dowsers agree to the tests, and are always confident that they can pass the tests, and only start complaining after they fail.
The rules of the JREF Challenge are here. Yes, these rules are absolute and non-negotiable. They also have nothing to do with the testing; they only set forth the surrounding circumstances – applicants must make a clear claim as to what they can do, what a positive result is, what a negative result is, etc. They must cover the expenses, and they can’t sue Randi. They have to pass a preliminary test before going for the Big Spin. The actual terms of the test are NOT in these rules; the actual terms of the test are negotiated after application, and are agreed to by ALL parties before testing begins.
I gave you the cite in my post. I quoted James Randis own words. I gave a lnk to the article where he said that. did you bother to read?
No, its a way of saying that some of us don’t believe everything we’re told, but think for ourselves. You might like to try it yourself sometime. Go ahead, tell us what YOU think, just dont allow beardy to think for you.
Wrong. Dowsers approach Randi and say they do subconciously move the stick. Randi then proves that they do subconciously move the stick, and smugly declares that that doesn’t count as dowsing.
No. The point that YOU are always going to struggle with is that:
1/ The dowser claims to be able to track underground rivers.
2/ James Randi says, okay then, I’ll test you on finding a 10-foot long underground pipe
3/ The dowser says, but hang on a minute, underground rivers are about a million times bigger, it probably won’t work with something that small.
4/ Randi says, tough luck, thats the test, take it or leave it.
5/ Most leave it. A small percentage try.
Let me make this clear AGAIN, I personally am not convinced that psychic dowsing exists. I would be happy to read of serious tests done by an open-minded researcher. I simply say that the tests given by Randi are biased and unfair. I simply see basic flaws in them.
Just one fundamental point, there is a BIG difference between a natural underground body of water, and a bit of pipe, don’t you think? The ability so sense the first does not neccessarily mean an ability to sense the second, right?
Which in practise means the claimant must agree to the test set by Randi
Hardly, just because I think the man is dishonest.
What you have to remember is that Randi is not a serious investigator making fair tests to see if anyone has these abilities, he is doing it so that he can write books about it, and make a wad of money. There are liars on both sides, and James Randi is one of the biggest
Wrong, it was a response to the article on twitching. not ‘rods that twitch’
And what, pray, do you make of walking boots or dressing rooms?
It is a search engine that returns part of a web page. The actual page doesn’t work at the moment, but you can still see some of the text indexed. It says "MERIDIAN THERAPY TAROT RUNES DOWSING SHAMANICS Sitemap … Dowsing Tools Twitching, Dowsing, Divining, whatever you call it … locating water or asking a question, dowsing is fun and practical … "
The fact that the page is currently unavailable doesn’t matter, it still proof that dowsing is also called twitching.
in fact they START OFF by declaring it.
Frauds like Randi pretend they don’t, then ‘expose’ them
You are ignoring the known success rate of dowsers. Randi excuses this by claiming that they get their information from the local geology, or by sayinbg that you can find water wherever you dig. That may or may not be so, but your claim that dowsers always fail is certainly wrong, even Randi would disagre with that.
Randi’s explaination has everything to do with it, because he is not testing them on what they claim.
They claim to be able to find underground rivers, say 15 foot accross that runs for 15 miles. Randi tests them on theit ability to find a pipe 6 inches wide by 10 foot, long. Are you genuinely unable to see the difference?
they are only allowed to play if they sign a form saying its fair. If they say its unfair, they don’t get to take the test. This doesn’t mean they really think its fair.
Sorry bub, it doesn’t matter how the stick, pendulum, or rod moves, it matters if it moves to what the dowsers say it will do. The stick moves. Who cares. The question is * does it move in response to what the dowser says it will*
I have seen very few dowsers who claim to be able to only dowse underground rivers. They all claim to be able to find pipes, minerals, aquifers, etc. They love to do uncontrolled tests to show off their “abilities”.
Find me a single incident where this has happened.
No, most do not leave. You have no evidence of such. This sequence of events is an invention of yours and is entirely strawman.
Name them. Making up stories is not a fault of the Randi challenge. It is one of your arguement.
If so, then why do soooo many dowsers feel they can easily dowse water in a cup? The stick moves when they do this. Of course, most often the test isn’t even single-blinded.
Of course not. But how would you test such a thing? Dig deep enough anywhere in the world and you’ll find water. You can have your sticks be a twirling on any part of the earth and you’d be ‘right’ to some degree. Of course, there is no ‘wrong’.
Oh really? Prove it.
Your opinion, unsupported by the arguements you’ve made here.
Randi tests what people claim to be able to do. Nothing more, nothing less. How is this not serious? Fing me a fault in a real test, not ones you made up in your imaginary world.
Wrong. Randi is hardly making a wad of money. He could easily have made more money playing at being a psychic, or writing nonsense books. Newage junk outsells skeptical books by an insurmountable amount. The idea that Randi is getting rich on 1/2 dozen skeptical books doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
The ‘known success rate of dowsers’ is hardly ‘known’. Dowsers fail quite often. You don’t hear as much about that becuse the biggest promoters of dowsers are the dowsers themselves. They have a tendency to play up their successes and ignore their failures. Same tactic employed by self-prmoting 'psychics.'Actually, most dowsers who are hired to find water never even stick around to see if they are successful, they just assume they are.
No it does not. Please tell me we don’t have another Lekatt on our hands. Your link describes Randi doing a test to see if dowsers could find flowing water as they said they could. Needless to say, they could not. Nothing about the test concerned the why’s or wherefore’s of how the dowsers dowsed at all.
So we are still waiting on your cite for where a dowser has said that he moves the stick subconsciously and Randi has purported to debunk them by proving the stick moves subconsciously.
I called you disingenuous because you pretended that Randi’s conditions were unfair because they were inflexible. You deliberately ignored the fact that his rules merely say that the test is to be mutually agreed. Can’t get fairer than that.
What you have to do is prove your outlandish highly slanderous baseless remarks. I don’t have to remember anything.