A highly religious fellow I know claims to be a map dowser – his belief is that the dowsing equipment just channels your spiritual knowledge, so you can actually use dowsing to find anything, even on a map.
Five of us tried a test where we gave him the dimensions of our bedrooms and placed a dinner plate along one wall of the room, and he was supposed to find it by map dowsing.
He didn’t find any of the five. He only got the correct wall once, in fact. It didn’t discourage his belief in dowsing, though.
Not that that would be a show stopper, regarding dowsing other skeptics and researchers already found dowsers to just be proponents of wishful thinking.
Piffle. Randi has not really done anything regarding “grave dowsing” and the “Randi” references already posted have either been in the context of water dowsing or Peter Morris baiting.
If there is an actual claim by Randi that grave dowsing fails, that can be posted without let or hindrance. References to Randi, himself, either lionizing or demonizing, are prohibited.
Assuming as you appear to do that the mechanism by which people fool themselves about water dowsing have no relevance to how they may fool themselves about grave dowsing. A dubious assumption. But we can’t even debate that now. Someone may have a hissy fit if we bring up the subject; so they get to control the agenda. Yay.
Certainly, you can discuss how people fool themselves into believing that dowsing works. You are only constrained from making references to James Randi, (who is not a professional psychologist and who has published darned little explaining personal motivation), while still referring to the hundreds of actual studies by psychologists addressing the same issue.
We can only discuss “how people fool themselves into believing that dowsing works” if we can establish that people are in fact fooling themselves that dowsing works. All the study on dowsing that I have seen is not regarding grave dowsing but other types of dowsing (usually water dowsing). Consequently all you can do is fall back on an analogy with water dowsing, and so whether people are fooling themselves into believing that water dowsing works, or whether instead it is a real phenomenon, is crucial to this thread. It’s not just a question of how people fool themselves.
But if we can mention that the JREF challenge implies that water dowsing is not real, and just can’t make references to Randi the man, then fine. I thought “Randi is off limits” might mean more than that. Perhaps it does, I’m not clear on it but it seems to be what your last couple of posts imply.
As I’ve said in these threads before, Peter, I have a perfectly reasonable test I’d be willing to set up for you, or anyone else who believes in dowsing.
Just down the road from me is a nice flat 50-acre parcel of farmland. This spring, right before the owner plows that land, I will go out and bury three large containers of water. I know a little one-gallon jug is pretty small, so I’ll use 50-gallon containers. I’ll bury them at least three feet deep, far below the depth of the plow, and I’ll carefully note the locations of these containers using GPS and sight triangulation.
Then the farmer will plow the field on his normal schedule (this won’t cost us anything, since he’s going to plow it anyway). The field will be uniformly tilled, with all evidence of the digging concealed. You will not be told where the field is or allowed to visit the area until after this is completed.
Your task: plant a flag within ten feet of any one of the three water containers. You have three tries.
Then why does he show up in every stinking thread about dowsing to attack the nonbelievers?
(scanning this thread) Hmmm. I missed the post above where he said that he doesn’t even believe in dowsing. Now his behavior really doesn’t make sense to me.
Then why does he show up in every stinking thread about dowsing to attack the nonbelievers?
(scanning this thread) Hmmm. I missed the post above where he said that he doesn’t even believe in dowsing. Now his behavior really doesn’t make sense to me.
sigh Forget the challenge, then.
[/QUOTE]
Now, now, not so hasty. Why do only believers get to try? What part of a million dollars are you offering? Make it worth my while!
Edit: He just edited the post I responded to into “nm” but basically he gave the same line about how he supports people that don’t believe in dowsing but that they shouldn’t lie to make their case etc etc.
You say that you don’t think dowsing is real, but you believe that the short-run test that had them score 22% when 10% was chance indicates that there must be something to dowsing, right?
And if we say that 22% measure isn’t a statistically significant result, because the test was such a small sample size that it was not designed to measure such a small effect, therefore the effect is not statistically significant, then we’re liars?
There’s two ways you can play this: You believe the 22% result was an indication that dowsing is a real thing, which you just explicitly denied, or you believe that it wasn’t, indicating that the test was designed in such a way that 22% results weren’t an indicator of statistical significance, in which case you’re saying the same thing you’re accusing all of us of lying about.
Sometimes I wonder what makes people like you tick. Does it not matter to you that everyone in this thread has expressed thoughtful, eloquent arguments, and all of them disagree with you? Usually when I find intelligent people unamimously disagreeing with me I tend to become introspective and examine my position, but it seems to either have no effect whatsoever on you, or makes you more confident in your position.
You wouldn’t be liars but you’d be pretty much wrong. It was significant, basically. Not very significant, but significant to a not impregnable but not too weak level. It’s been too long since I did statistics to work it out myself but SentientMeat says it was a 1% chance and I don’t have any reason to think he is wrong.
Every time this issue comes up some skeptics are so damn determined not to take a backward step they bend themselves into pretzels trying to say the result wasn’t significant, and all they do is make things harder for themselves.
It’s simple: statistics themselves predict that every now and again someone who can’t consistently do better than chance will luck out and do quite well, particularly at the significant but not very significant end of things. Some guy in the much discussed Australian dowsing test lucked out. There’s no indication that he was able to repeat his feat. There was no overall pattern of such results by dowsers.
In short, it’s a big yawn meaning nothing much, only made noteworthy by the overly vociferous denials from people who should know better that it means anything at all.
No, that is your invention. That is nothing like what I said.
What I said was :
a) the 22% figure indicates that the person running the test did something wrong.
b) The person running the test then tried to hide his failure. He adjusted the figures downwards, trying to make it look as if they only got chance rate. This makes him a fraud.
Ah, but you see, none of them are disagreeing with me.
What they are doing is inventing opinions for me, claiming that I think something I don’t, and then disagree with something I never even said in the first place.
The fact that nobody can challenge what I actually say does make me more confident.
You have invented an opinion for me. You cannot disagree with my actual statements. This shows me how weak your position is.
OK, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the test was done improperly and the flaw led to the 22% outcome instead of the expected 10%. Every responsible party gets a slap on the wrist and the next time, it is done differently. What’s your point? Do you have anything to offer beyond “liar, liar, pants on fire”?
