So only a scientist can design one. You hold extremely firm views on what a test shouldn’t comprise. Do you accept that you’re not, in your view, actually qualified to comment on that?
Stop threadshitting.
Rank has it’s privledges doesn’t it?
I don’t think that being a “scientist” (in any formal sense) is a necessary prerequisite to designing a suitable test. Basic scientific principles are not particularly complicated. Some of the greatest scientists (early ones) did their work before there was any such thing as studying science in a formal sense. They learned by doing and self study. Someone who has done a lot of tests, and who has studied their particular subject matter, and who has a basic understanding of logic can do it. The more so if they are surrounded by others who also have an interest, to offer suggestions and criticisms. No one runs a dowsing test alone.
I also don’t believe that anyone who has for a number of years been publically offering extensive and strident opinions on test design actually believes that you have to be a “scientist” to be able to design a test, or they wouldn’t be offering their opinions so boldly.
I’ve contacted the OP, who was very polite, and we discussed the possibilty of giving a demonstration, but he lives too far away.
I’ve sent out e-mails to nearby clubs, but haven’t yet gotten a response.
I’ve tried this myself with coat hangers, but the thread has quite obviously skewed toward a discussion of valid tests and, as I am not psychic and did not perform an even slightly valid test, I will skip the results.
However:
This I am very interested in. What is a preferred method for contacting you? My e-mail is in my profile and I think PM is working… whatever works for you.
Since you think it’s so easy, lets see YOU do it then. This is all about challenging people to prove their claims, and I think you should be required to prove yours.
If anyone who has a basic understanding of logic can do it, I’m interested to see what kind of a job you would make of it. After all, you are rather more intelligent than Randi is, so if he can do it, you should find it easy.
Lets see YOUR design for a test of the OP’s claims.
Don’t be embarrassed. Since no one else is, either, you’re in good company.
I knew you were going to say that.
Definitely not - this is nothing like an effective test of the claim. As others have pointed out there are way to many other stimulii that could clue the subject in on where the tank is other than dowsing.
Sorry about the link - my mistake. Try Link
My concern was that as Randi was involved in the design of the experiment you would reject it out of hand but I would put forward the design of the water experiment, as described in the paper, as a fair methodology for testing claims of dowsing.
It seems to be looking for precisely the ability the OP is claiming - detecting pipes with water flowing through them - and it is double blind in that neither the subject nor the experimenters know which pipe has water flowing.
So, can the blind (visually impaired) not be good at dowsing?
And I wonder if there has ever been an experiment where the dowsing “expert” showed the experimentee how to use the rods, except starting out with the rods crossed or keep them continuously moving (or whatever the indicator of water is) until they uncross or stop moving, and then compare the accuracy of this opposite method to the regular method. Would that be able to show that, at the very least, it’s not the sticks that are finding the water?
Another test was held in Formello, Italy, in 1979. Randi describes it only briefly here (scroll down more than halfway), but there is a detailed account with drawings and several pictures in his book Flim-Flam!.
These tests are expensive and complicated to set up, requiring backhoes, trucks with dirt fill, plumbers, pipes, valves, large layouts and above all, secrecy for several days at least. And even then, they are cheaper than having a well driller sink a dozen holes. Sure, they represent an environment more similar to water flowing underground than static water jugs, but the difference in costs to conduct the tests is substantual. If you can devise a test that all participants agree is fair but as cheap as 10 throwaway water bottles, you will stand a greater chance of having it take place.
Here’s a video on dowsing produced by Scientific American Frontiers:
There are multiple tools used, several dowsers shown, and some use more than one: the traditional forked stick, an “artificial” forked stick, pendulums, coat hangers unaltered, coat hangers altered and held in different ways, and twin L-rods. It’s a good illustration of the variety of techniques. They dowse for a water well, for lead, and for pipe segments. The results? Not very impressive, to say the least.
Scientists who were experienced in designing tests conclude that Uri Geller bent spoons with psychic powers.
I notice you cut out my comments about peer review. That’s rather disingenuous of you. The peer review found several flaws in the test. And that gives a more solid debunking of Uri Geller than anything Randi has ever done.
By the way, they scientists in question actually were convinced by Geller’s reproduction of drawings they made. They explicitly stated that they were not convinced by his spoon bending. Lets be accurate here.
So the peer review came after the protocols were designed, but before the tests? I did not know that.
Thanks for the correction.
If a man claims to be able to jump 3 feet straight up, is testing his ability to jump 2 feet straight up a fair test?
Okay, Peter, your Randi fixation is getting old. You said:
And then later in that same post, you add
Very valid comment. Let’s see if we can talk about dowsing without bringing Randi into it. A quick scan of your posts after saying you don’t want anyone to talk about Randi shows:
Here’s a novel thought for you. If you don’t want to talk about Randi, then stop talking about Randi. Otherwise, stop ragging on everyone else about it.
No, the peer review always comes after the tests.
As I understand it, the term *peer review * refers to the process of getting the results published in a respectable scientific journal. The test is performed, conclusions are made, the report is written, then submitted to the journal. The editors of the journal appoint several reviewers to check the report. The reviewers examine the methodology and the conclusions, see if there’s any errors there. They might reject it outright as flawed, or might ask for revisions to the report. When they are satisfied (if they ever are) it gets published, and the scientific community can review it, and either support or rebut the conclusions.
In the case of the Uri Geller tests, it was published in Nature, but with some negative comments from the editors and reviewers, then attacked by the rest of the scientific community.
You’re welcome
What has that got to do with anything?
:rolleyes:
so Randi supporters talk about Randi, on and on and on, over and over, talk about nothing else, have nothing else to say about the subject besides quoting from the gospel acording to St James.
I respond to them, and that makes ME fixated?
I am responding to other people talking about him. It is not me who keeps bringing him up.
I would really like it if they would talk about something else.
So peer review has nothing to do with whether scientists are the only folks who can design a proper test, right?
Unless I misunderstand, your complaint is that finding water in jugs above ground in broad daylight has nothing to do with finding water in caverns hundreds of feet underground.
Let me ask it another way. If a man claims to be able to jump straight up to the top of the Matterhorn, is it fair to ask him to pass a preliminary test by jumping 20 feet straight up, and avoid the logistical problems associated with traveling to Switzerland?
Your response to me mentioned Randi. I said nothing at all about him. I was talking about SRI.