Don’t get hung up on words. If there is some method that allows you to find water, gold, bottles, or whatever, that you should not be able to detect from everything we now know about how the world works, we may choose to refer to that as “magic.” If it turns out to be some new phenomenon that we just weren’t aware of before, but yields itself to study, then I’ll probably stop calling it magic and call it by its proper name, the evnln effect or whatever the Nobel Prize-winning discoverers choose to call it.
But that’s the identical case with anything else we call magic, even stuff you yourself would call magic. Show it to be real, and we would call it something else.
These people who have dowsing anecdotes are forgetting the very point of this explanation.
The subconscious and it’s control over our body.
You don’t “know” where the pipe was layed, but somewhere, you’ve learned where it should have been and it’s likely your subconscious was “seeing” slight physical clues that your conscious wasn’t.
That nail? Your subconscious knew your friend and could guess where she’d have put it. Or you were walking around with her in tow and her body language was talking and your subconscious was listening. Or there were footprints in the grass…All more likley than the nail causing a magnetic or mystical event on two coathanger bits.
In any case we have a handful of people here with their success stories, but no one is sharing the failure stories. Most of us have them, but we weren’t surprised it failed, nothing unexpected happened, so there was no long term imprint in our memory. I know I’ve tried it but don’t recall it ever producing miraculous results.
It’s not even necessary to dispute the facts that gonetoworkbackin5min reported. He said his friend dowsed around the area until his dowsing rods moved, and then said “water here.” this claim is not extraordinary. I can walk around with dowsing rods, have them move, and then say “water here” too. It was not reported that water was found when they drilled there, or - more significantly - water was found there and no water was found in surrounding/nearby bores.
GTWBI5M also claimed that the dowsing rod in his hands moved in funny ways when his friend laid a hand on his (GTWBI5M) neck. Also not an extraordinary claim, given the ideomotor phenomenon described upthread.
Extraordinary evidence is required only when some claim is made that these things actually correlate with the presence and/or absence of underground water.
As far as I can tell, he didn’t say anything.
The next speech is Pilate saying: I find in him no fault [at all]. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
I know this isn’t a thread on scripture, but I think you are trying to make a point that I am missing.
I agree and I almost posted the same thing before I saw your post. Again, we’re not talking scripture, but:
The discussion seems to have nothing left to do with dowsing.
To siXSwordS:
First, my dictionary spells it ad hominim, but I see other sources that spell it ad hominem.
Second, my dictionary and thesaurus give many definitions for the term, including the way I meant to use it. Instead of posing a cogent counter-argument, backin5 chose to smear me as a "pseudo-intellectual, " by one definition an ad hominem attack.
Third, you are right. The posts here have discredited dowsing as a valid method of finding water-- or anything else. Those who continue to accept it are willing to believe in an irrational belief system, an Absolutist form of thinking, not science.
So the argument now is a much bigger question: How do you know if something it true? The fact that Jesus didn’t answer the direct question posed by Pilate suggests several possibilities.
What do you think it means? What is “truth” to you?
I agree that it was an attack. I do not know of a definition of ad hominem that identifies the premise under consideration as weak based on its use. People attack each other for a lot of reasons. I have at times witnessed attacks that occur because the attacker has a strong, almost inarguable position.
At any rate, let me be clear: I am not attacking you.
I am not sure that gonetoworkbbackin5min is attacking you either. I take the psuedo-intellectual smear as a board wide attack-- which of course makes it a generalization.
Now, of course, psuedo-intellectual has a generally negative connotation, but the affix psuedo- (meaning false or imitative) actually applies quite well to message boards. None of us-- excepting the Perfect Master-- can really claim to be practicing actual scholarship here. Also, since many of us are using pseudonyms, psuedo-intellectual, as a technical term, is almost a compliment.
I think it means we need to open another thread… possibly two.
More to the point, I think Pilate’s question was rhetorical rather than direct.
Jesus says: Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate responds: What is truth? (He will not hear.)
Nor, I think, will anyone whose claim is-- Dowsing: I’ve seen it, I believe it, that settles it!
I hate this “more likely” thing. Has anyone done a study to find out exactly what these other factors are, rather than just eliminating all possible ones?
I find that it is hard to convince true believers when all you can offer is a “maybe” explanation.
Yes, they have. Just look for any of the many debunkings by James Randi and you’ll see that these same things happen over and over again. It’s likely because they keep showing up in the “real” investigations.
All they are offering is anecdotes. There’s no possible way to offer anything else over the internet. If you want real answers you have to subject the incident to an examination. IMO, this is a bogus complaint.
The decider? No. It’s a piece of evidence that may be challenged and dismissed if considered unreliable. I have no idea where you got this idea, it’s wrong on pretty much all levels.
You’re forgetting that I don’t have to explain a thing. It’s not my job to convince them that their unorthodox scientific hypothesis is false. It’s their job to prove their hypothesis is true.
Those that are willing to try under tightly controlled circumstances have failed. Others have merely refused. (Yes, I can win Randi’s million dollar challenge, but Dancing with the Stars is coming on tonight.)
As I stated before: My main problem is that dowsing works on almost anything, and you don’t even have to be there to dowse. Some people claim can dowse off a map. So, what’s making that stick bend down towards whatever I’m dowsing? Give me a theory I can test.
One person told me that you can only dowse undiscovered things, and that’s why Randi’s tests always fail: The water was placed there by a particular person, so it isn’t undiscovered. This, of course, makes dowsing impossible to test and simply puts it outside the realm of science and makes dowsing a religion.
Then, that dowser might as well say it’s the finger of God or an invisible meatball from the Flying Spaghetti Monster that’s making the stick bend down. All I’m asking is that they admit that dowsing is their untestable religious belief and not a scientific fact.
It depends on the jury, because they’re the ones who would do the considering. In the juries I’ve been on (I’ve served on three criminal juries), I didn’t consider eyewitness testimony to be very valuable in and of itself, but I realize that juries are made up of humans, and most of us are not very good critical thinkers.
Sure, you and I know that, but we’re familiar with the scientific method. Dowsers are pretty much guaranteed to be unfamiliar with it, so the question is whether you want to make a convincing case to that dowser.
That wouldn’t make it impossible to test, it would just make it more difficult. You could have the dowser identify ten sites which should have water (or whatever the target is), and ten sites which shouldn’t have it, then see how he does.
It’s still a testable claim. Anytime someone claims that something has an effect here in the real world, it’s testable, and dowsing certainly makes those claims.
How about what’s been mentioned several times in this thread, ideomotor action? Wishful thinking?
Since a typical method of holding a forked stick is with palms up, each hand tightly gripping one wing of the stick, a little experimentation will show that a slight tightening of your grip will cause the stick to spring up or down. The position of the hands tends to magnify small hand actions into large stick actions. It’s simple physics, levers, etc.
Using this technique, I can make a stick go any direction I wish and you won’t be able to tell it easily, especially if you are watching the stick and not my hands.
Another dowsing tool is often a pendulum. You may think you are holding it steady, but slight hand movements will cause it to swing or rotate. These movements can be inadvertent (ideomotor action) or deliberate. I can make a pendulum swing or rotate in any direction without you seeing my hand move.
What is common to all this is we have a phenomena which magnifies tiny movements. What is the source of the tiny movements? Could be unconscious. No human can hold their hands absolutely steady no matter how hard they try.
So far, we have nothing but simple physics and no scientist would disagree. The problem arises when we credit something else as the ultimate cause (water, gold, lost objects). And it has never been proven, under non-fraudulent conditions, that there is any connection whatsoever.
To sum up, [ol][]We know that humans can make sticks and pendulums move. []We know that there is no connection between the movement and the presence/absence of a substance, and[*]We know that humans make the illogical connection in spite of the strong proof that no such force exists.[/ol]What does that tell you about humans?
I think you two are in violent agreement. My take on what qazwart is saying is that he’s asking the dowsing proponents to come up with a theory that would explain how dowsing can work on a map as well as on a real object. He is firmly convinced that it’s ideomotor affect as well, but he’s pointing out that any theory to explain dowsing would have to cover this apparent impossibility so it’s very unlikely to be a real phenomenon.
Unless qazwart is a she, in which case add the appropriate 's’s as needed.
Well, that should be testable. Just have ten pipes/whatever set up, and rig a mechanical device to randomly send water through one of the ten pipes. No human involved, nobody knows where the water is, so it’s undiscovered.
Of course, one of the key points about Randi’s tests is that they’re almost always done first as a control where the dowser knows where the water/object is, just to make sure that the dowser agrees it’s a valid test, and the dowsers almost universally have no problem at that point.
