I don’t need to read your mind to know what you think. I just need to read your posts. Your behaviour in previous threads has made your thoughts as clear as if they wewre written on a blackboard.
You are of course dodging the vital question I asked you a few posts ago.
In the specific instance that I cited, do you thbink that Randi is lying or telling the truth?
Be specific, the three points raised by Andy L will do for a start.
I’ll make this very simple for you.
My understanding of what you said is this:
*If Randi suggests a protocol, and an applicant agrees, then the protocol is proved to be a good one, and nobody can dispute it whatever the result of the test.
*
My understanding of your words is:
pick one.
I’m reluctant to continue this, but it is kind of related to the topic, and I’m curious. Peter Morris, obviously you don’t accept Randi’s assertion that 94% of the earth’s surface has water within drillable distance. So, according to your data, what percentage of the earth’s surface does contain water within drillable distance (and what is “drillable distance”)?
I’d like to hear figures from anybody else who cares to contribute as well.
Your understanding of what I said is wrong. What I said doesn’t require “understanding” or reinterpreting-it merely requires reading.
I don’t even care whether Randi is honest or mendacious. This thread had a single reference to Randi and two comments baiting you. I specifically told the other posters to refrain from baiting you. So, then, you charge in on your One Trick Pony attacking Randi and have now hijacked the thread.
If you want to beat your dead One Trick Pony about Randi, again, open your own thread, either in GD or in The BBQ Pit. This hijack is now ended.
That goes for EVERYONE.
[ /Moderating ]
Okay, answering this point only, without further reference to Randi, here’s a map ofthe US land in the vicinity of the great lakes.
This is a US govt survey.
As far as I understand it, in the white areas you definitely won’t find significant water in reasonable drilling distance. And there’s quite a lot of white on that map.
In the greeny-yellowy areas (the aquifers) it varies from spot to spot. Some spots you’ll find a lot of water, some spots only a tiny amount, or none. and a wet spot and a dry spot might be only a few metres apart. Therefore, even when drilling into an aquifer you are quite likely to hit a dry spot unless you know exactly what you are doing.
That is what I have been told by a number of hydro-geologists that I have consulted. I don’t claim any expertise myself. It’s possible I misunderstood them.
I never mention Randi except in response when someone else brings him up. And then only about half of them. It is the likes of Musicat and Czarcasm that hijack the thread, and they always do it.
Lets be clear, are you forbidding ANY cite of Randi’s tests for the remainder of the thread? Please say yes.
It would make me happy if you would extend the same rule to all threads.
There is a large all-white area at the top right corner of your map of Wisconsin, the Door Peninsula. Why it is white I don’t know, for I can personally guarantee that water can be found anyplace (or at least 94% of it) on that peninsula, from a few feet to 600 feet in depth from the surface. We are lousy with the stuff. I speak from personal experience, and I’m pretty sure any local well driller would agree with me. When a well driller is hired, the first thing he is likely to say is, “Where do you want the well drilled?” because just about any place is as good as the next. If a dowser is hired (I’ve heard tales of this, but never saw any working), they always find water, just like the drillers always find it. It’s darn hard to avoid.
So your claim that “you definitely won’t find significant water in reasonable drilling distance” on this map is very, very wrong. In fact, I have a drink on my desk in front of me made with water from my 330 ft well (it’s only ~30 ft to my water, but the state requires me to drill deeper). While slightly high in iron, it’s quite drinkable.
Cheers, Peter! {Musicat raises glass}
nm - did not see the moderator warning.
In this thread, there was no need to attack Randi. He was only mentioned in a passing reference and the thread was not turning on citations to him. Your interruption–particularly the frenzy you displayed in your attack–was the sourse of the hijack.
I was clear: I am telling you that you are not to make any more attacks on Randi in this thread. What I tell other posters to do is not your concern.
I would be quite happy to forbid you from interrupting any thread in which Randi’s name is mentioned.
Further discussion may be undertaken in ATMB.
[ /Moderating ]
See if you can find an actual geologist to support your claims. Until you do, I’ll continue to believe the geologists that tell me that water is generally hard to find.
I’m not going to accept your unsupported word for it.
Regardless of Randy, if the magical power of dowsing exists, why hasn’t anyone ever proved it under controlled, scientific positions? It certainly can’t be a giant Randi conspiracy who suppresses all the supernatural evidence in the world.
The general test design by the JREF of water dowsers is to put a series of pipes underground connected to a distributor which can change which of (IIRC 10) pipes water is running through at any given moment. The dowser is given a chance through a few dozen trials to pick which pipe has the running water under it at any given time. They’re right about 10% of the time - chance.
The interesting thing here is that a whole lot of them are baffled. They’re generally not fraudulent - due to confirmation bias, open-ended criteria, and all sorts of other cognitive biases, they’ve really convinced themselves that they have this power, so to have it fail under test conditions they are shocked. At that point they’ll either make up some excuse like “well I guess the fluorescent lights hampered my powers!” or start accusing the JREF of a conspiracy to falsify the results even though the protocol is established and agreed to be fair by both parties before the test begins, and the tests are typically designed in a way that’s very difficult to falsify (like if the order/times the pipes would be filled with water were pre-set and written down before the test so you could compare afterwards - not sure if that’s actually what they do, but as an example). The test is a legal contract - if the results were positive, the JREF would be forced to pay the people.
Dowsing is pretty convincing because the ideomotor effect is very real. And depending on what you’re dowsing for - you may very well have some clue where that thing is. Perhaps people dowsing for underground infrastructure know the telltale signs, and subconciously pick up on them using the dowsing rods. Other people have such open-ended criteria, cherry picking, and confirmation bias that you can pretty much convince yourself you always succeed what you’re looking for.
It sounds like harmless stupidity generally, but as with all stupid beliefs it has the potential to be harmful if taken too far. A company managed to sell millions of dollars worth of dowsing bomb detector units to the US military basically because one general was a kook. They were basically cardboard boxes with blinking lights on them. They were used for actual real security in place of other bomb detection methods.
If dowsing worked, it would be easy to prove under controlled conditions. No one has ever come remotely close. There’s no scientifically plausible mechanism for it to work - it’s pure magic.
I’ve never seen a controlled, scientific test of dowsing. Most dowsing tests are run by people with no scientific credentials. Often, they don’t get the results they were expecting. And then they adjust the results to get what they want.
The case you cite is one such. The man running the test isn’t a scientist, and makes a lot of mistakes. Somehow, the dowsers scored quite considerably above chance when tested. This is almost certainly due to him making some sort of error that slanted the results. Faced with resulst that he wasn’t expecting, he adjusted them to suit his own agenda.
Tom’s ruling prevents me from going into greater detail.
This is quite possibly true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know.
If it is true, then people can in fact use dowsing rods to find things that they are not consciously aware of. IF it is true then dowsing works. And that would explain the mechanism.
You have just provided a scientifically plausible mechanism.
If you fall asleep while driving you’re drowsing for a grave.
Does that count?
What study are you referring to where the dowsers scored significantly above chance? I want to see the methodology.
If there were people with real dowsing abilities, why aren’t they working for oil companies or as surveyors and such? Why wouldn’t they be dying at the chance to objectively prove their abilities?
This would only work in the rare cases where someone is finding actual clues to real things - and even then I’m not convinced this can be done unambiguously. I’ve heard claims of utility workers going to the job to dowse for buried utility lines to figure out exactly where they need to do their work - but actual examination of such people often shows them to be very generously assessing their results - finding something in the general area of where they were looking for it, but close enough to be useful information.
This isn’t magic, though - if these cases even exist, it’s just someone knowledgable looking for objectively verifiable clues to find something. It’d be like an architect dowsing for structural beams in a building hidden behind a wall - his experience tells him where they’d probably be, and he’ll be right often enough to convince him he has magical powers.
Even so, people claim to be able to dowse just about anything, even things that wouldn’t have objectively verifiable signs. Clearly some of their claims of magic are bullshit, right?
Are you generally admitting that any dowsing success is due to the person being familiar with what they’re looking for and making a good guess, rather than any special magical ability?
If I am reading your location properly, it seems you are served water by the Silrian-Devonian aquifer. See this map
The other map only showed one type of aquifer with the assumption that there are no other types of aquifer in geology.
While that is the general methodology (but not the number of pipes) used in the test cited above, it’s very time consuming and expensive to use a custom layout of pipes. More common is a series of 10 plastic water jugs, each hidden under an opaque bucket, with only one having water, the rest, sand. Since dowsers agree, before the test, that their powers work under those conditions, it’s much easier, and all that have tried have failed to improve upon chance.
The disadvantage of the jug test is the failed participants will say, “Well, sure, but that’s not flowing underground water, and that’s what my rod works on.”
I’m sure you’re right. Peter made a claim based on what appears to be insufficient geological knowledge, and one that can easily be refuted.
That is a likely explanation for much dowsing, but the picture changes when dowsers claim to be able to “map dowse” or do it from a distance. At that point, all theories of “electromagnetic fields,” “human interaction” and “waves emanating from the ground” are off, and we’re into a strictly paranormal category, where distance is irrelevant.
[quote=“SenorBeef, post:55, topic:572380”]
What study are you referring to where the dowsers scored significantly above chance? I want to see the methodology. /quote]
The same one that you referred to. The one with water flowing through pipes.
Specifically, they scored 22% when they should have only scored 10%. tatistical analysis shows this as a positive result for dowsers.
And please note this doesn’t show that dowsing works. What it shows is that the test design was flawed.
I never said it was.
That’s a condition that you are making, and it’s a strawman. Most dowsers will tell you that their skills aren’t magical, it’s something anyone can do, and is scientifically explainable.
I don’t believe in dowsing.
What I do believe is this: that the false claims made by certain dopers are transparently obvious as lies, and only serve to make dowsing seem more plausible. What they do damages the fight against ignorance. And I feel I must oppose them.
Really?
The thing is, I’m confident enough of my claims to actually take a test on them.
You CLAIM that I’m wrong and can be easily refuted. If you really believed that, you should support the test being carried out. And If I win, then you should declare that in your opinion, I have done something paranormal.
How about it. Are you willing to put up?
Peter, I just tossed a coin 10 times on my desk (really, I did) and it came up heads 3 times. Chance would be 5 times, wouldn’t it? Then by your logic, my test design was flawed, and my test was not scientific.
Nonsense. Probability doesn’t say that it has to come up 5 out of every 10 tries, but an average over time tends toward that result. The same thing applies to the dowsing test you hate. If 10% is the average you expect over multiple tests, a 22% result in one test is well within the bounds of probability.
I leave it to others as to what point 22% fits on the bell curve, but it’s not so far off the mark to be meaningful by any means.
