Just for the moment, can we restrict the discussion to Musicat’s proposed test. I think that the way HE wants to do it is fundamentally dishonest.
Whether or not anyone else’s test has the same problem is another discussion.
Yes it is. It’s perfectly valid to look at the proposed test and spot what’s wrong with it before it happens.
I am unaware of Musicat actually conducting any tests in the way he proposes. If he ever actually does so, we can analyse them.
The test that you proposed, above, works in exactly that way.
Fact is, they DON’T all say that the test is fair. Most of them say that the test ISN’T fait and decline to take part. It is very rare indeed that they agree to your conditions.
What part of this don’t you understand?
No, it doesn’t: “In the baseline test, you dictate the answer that they are requjired to give. And any other answer, save the one you dictate, WILL result in their immediate disqualification.”
There is no “disqualification,” only accomodation, until all are happy. Where in God’s Green Earth do you get this adversarial attitude? Not everyone tries to sabotage a legitimate test. We just want it to test what is claimed, nothing more. So let’s see the claim out in the open, then we can proceed.
You were given a list of those in post #89 that DID say it was fair and DID agree to the conditions and DID take part. Not rare at all. Not everyone thinks the way you do. :rolleyes:
Yes there is, in the description you gave above.
Your words, let me remind you:
And if they pass the baseline test where it is NOT blinded … then, and only then, will they be invited to continue with a propery blinded one
So, if they don’t pass the baseline, then they are disqualified. Your rules.
Most of them accept disqualification. Very few will tell you that they are succeeding in the baseline test.
The very small number that declare success in the baseline test do so *only *under threat of disqualification. They would not say that without the threat present.
Gosh, you’ve found a few that agreed to do it, and that proves that they all agree to do it, And the 99% of them that refuse under your conditions are the rare ones, right?
So any time a person is willingly participating in a qualifying round or test, where if they fail to pass a skill they cannot proceed to the next round, they are under direct threat?
Are you saying that the difference between this test condition (where we rely on what someone tells us) and all other test conditions in the world (where we can visibly see results that can’t be tampered with by the test subject) is that the person may lie in order to proceed to the next round? Because they’re under threat?
Let’s say we’re talking about a weight-lifting competition instead of dowsing. If we say that you have to lift 200 pounds in order to advance to round 2, are you “directly threatened” and “intimidated” by the fact that you will be disqualified from the competition if you fail to lift the 200 pounds?
With dowsing, a person can do something that just “looks” like they are successfully dowsing, and could therefore pass the first stage of the test merely by lying. Someone puts a jug filled with water under a cardboard box, the dowser waves his stick. Now the threat starts: You say “Yes, it has water” if you want to go to the next round, or “No, it does not have water” if you do not want to go to the next round. It doesn’t matter if you actually detected water (with your stick, obviously you detected it with your eyes), just that you “say” you did.
So if a weightlifter were able to do something that “looks” like lifting 200 lbs, and we know that all weightlifters can fake it, then we have to rely on their answer. “Did you lift 200 pounds?” If they say “Yes, I did,” they can advance to the next round. If they answer in the negative, they didn’t.
Is that how we’re determining that a test set up to the dowser’s liking is a threat to the dowser, but a person competing in a weightlifting competition is not under threat? Or do you think they’re both under threat?
Since you have rejected mine, we’re still waiting for a test protocol from you that you feel is fair. I think we are all open to suggestions and improvements. If there’s a flaw in our reasoning, let’s try another angle. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Is it possible for you to put forth an objective plan without vitriol?
If someone has a problem with the setup, testers will work with them to try and alleviate the obstacle. Very few approach the test with your mind-set, but most try to work together. No one here is out to rule the world or be nasty, but we do try to prove one thing or another. Can’t we all just get along?
Let’s try a different analogy shall we?
Let’s say we have a crossword-solving competition. Everyone who participates claims to have the ability to solve crossword clues.
Before the actual competition starts, entrants are given a preliminary test, to check whether their crossword-solving powers are working. They are given a crossword where the answers have already been filled in. They are instructed to solve the crossword, and check it against the answers given.
Before going ahead with the test, each participant is required to sign a statement:
If they say *“no, I’m not certain that I would have got that answer” * they are not allowed to take part in the test.
So, the test under these conditions is offered to a thousand crossword solvers. 990 of them decline. The other 10 agree.
So, those 10 people who sign a statement saying that they solved the crossword in the preliminary test - do you think they actually believe the statement they are signing? Do you think they were given a fair test?
I don’t think your analogy is appropriate. A crossword puzzle contest hardly compares with someone who claims to be able to detect water when it’s right in front of him. Crosswords are a test of skill and education, and while a good contestant might do well, it’s not the same as a claim to be able to detect a substance 100% of the time under satisfactory conditions.
When I took high school chemistry, it wasn’t good enough that I could create a simple compound in the lab only sometimes, when the stars were right. I had to do it every single time, within a pre-specified, narrow range of accuracy. It had to meet a pre-specified, narrow range of allowable weights and reactions. If it didn’t, I failed. I couldn’t rant & rave at the teacher and I couldn’t complain the test wasn’t fair because I would have been thrown out on my ass.
There is no reason why a dowsing test can’t be just as stringent.
Using electrolysis, I can convert water into H and O in separate test tubes, at a pre-computed ratio, every time, whether I’m blindfolded or not. Why can’t a dowser detect water every time, blindfolded or not, especially when he claims to be able to do so?
We’re still waiting for your idea of a fair, simple protocol for a dowsing test. Got one we can look at?
What the crossword puzzle illustrates perhaps is that with some abilities, once you are given the answer it can be essentially impossible to know whether you would have been able to use your ability to work out the answer. Once the answer is in your head it becomes obvious, and you can’t then “forget” the answer you’ve been given in order to work out whether it would have come to you regardless.
Correspondingly, theoretically, dowsing might actually co-exist with the ideomotor effect and the following scenario is theoretically possible:
1/ a test might be set up improperly, such that the dowser’s ability is not actually able to work in the test conditions
2/ on an open test, the dowser gets a reaction through ideomotor effect which they can’t distinguish from real dowsing effect
3/ on the closed test, the dowser doesn’t get a reaction because ideomotor effect can’t work and his actual and real dowsing ability wont work because the test is set up wrongly (see 1/)
Consequently he appears to have failed the test.
The thing is that it is always possible to postulate an ability so fragile, and so well hidden, that it’s existence cannot be ruled out. One can never rule out the possibility that there is an IPU under the bed.
But.
Firstly despite any bald uncited claims in this thread to the contrary, I haven’t heard any dowser make the complaint that the above would occur if they were tested under controlled conditions, with an open and closed test. Sure, I’ve heard dowsers make inchoate complaints that tests such as those set by the JREF are unfair in some general fashion but they aren’t able to put together any cogent complaint, let alone the complaint above. The problem is theoretical, not actual. It’s just trying to dredge up a conceivable problem, with no evidence at all that dowsers themselves agree that the problem is a problem.
Secondly, it seems highly implausible that dowsers can dowse in a way that is useful and worth paying for, under a variety of conditions and circumstances right up until controlled controls are imposed at which point suddenly gosh darn it the conditions aren’t quite right. I’m not saying that this is impossible, just highly implausible.
Granted. But while the ideomotor response may explain some actions, it may not explain all. Some may be fraudulent (I can duplicate any dowser’s actions without invoking paranormal forces), while some may be inadvertent.
I think we need to look past explanations of what might be the cause of rod movement – we have already proposed several reasonable possibilites – and concentrate on the basic claim: that a dowser can find water thru means not presently known to science. Once we have proved that, we can move into the “how does it work?” realm. Until then, we are wasting our time and getting sidetracked.
And no one has yet proved that to the satisfaction of science, or even come close. So far the overwhelming evidence points to nothing more than wishful thinking, ignorance and delusion.
My last post was a discussion precisely of a potential (highly theoretical and irrelevant) difficulty with testing to prove dowsing to the satisfaction of science. But I think you understand that.
A few guidelines.
[ol]
[li]The test MUST be conducted by a qualified scientist, who actually understands proper protocol design, and how to analyse the results.[/li][li]The results of the test must be given a statistical analysis by a qualified person to determine their validity. Success or failure will be determined by statistical significance of the results. It is not sufficient to set an arbitary target. [/li]
[li] The test has to be subjected to peer review to determine its validity. The results will only be considered valid only if it survives the peer review process. [/li][li] Requiring all participants to sign a statement that the test is fair is NOT an acceptable substitute for peer review. Nor shall the test be self published.[/li][li] The test conducted MUST closely resemble the actual claim made. If, for example, the applicant claims the ability to find natural water in the ground, then he will not be tested on finding a jug of water in a box. Discussion of the test design shall be conducted in a calm manner. Anyone who is notoriously short tempered, rude and aggressive, or who habitually uses insulting or abusive language shall not participate in such discussion. [/li][li] Let there be an experienced magician giving advice to the scientist. The job of the magician should be to prevent fraud, that is to spot anyone trying to cheat. It is not the job of the magician to give advice on protocol design.[/li][li] The magician shall act as advisor to the scientist who conducts the test, not vice versa. The scientist shall remain in charge. No tail shall wag the dog.[/li][li] The test must be conducted by someone independent, with no vested interest in the results. It must not make any personal difference to them what the results are. It shall not be conducted by someone who expresses hatered towards dowsers, and seeks to humiliate them at every opportunity. Neither shall it be conducted by someone who profits from sales of stories describing “how I beat the woowoos” [/li][li] Anyone who on a regular basis uses terms such as “woowoo” or other figures of hate speech has demonstrated a lack of professionalism, and must not involved with the test in any capacity whatsoever.[/li]
[/ol]
There, that should do for a start.
Why can’t a crossword solver get the answer to the clue every time?
Why casn’t a golfer get the ball in the hole every time?
Why can’t an archer hit the bull every time?
If he can do it once, you’d think he would be able to do it at will, on demand.
No it won’t do at all.
What would the actual test comprise? I’ll give you a hint: “not a test like what the JREF would do” is not an answer.
As I said above, the test would depend on the actual claim.
If someone says “I can find natural water in the ground” then you test his ability to find natural water in the ground. You don’t offer to test his ability to find a jug of water in a box.
What would that test comprise? Continuing to attempt to give answers by reference to what the test should not comprise is not helpful.
Depends on the actual claim made.