Talk, talk, enough talk already.

[Tom_in_CA]

.... thanks for the link to Hansens page. That contains quite a few citations to Psychical Research articles I've never read.

Ok. A quick look up on the definition of "Psychical Research" defines that as research into the paranormal. So that's what we're attributing this to, right ? Just want to be sure I'm understanding this corrrectly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Darke]

Ok. A quick look up on the definition of "Psychical Research" defines that as research into the paranormal. So that's what we're attributing this to, right ? Just want to be sure I'm understanding this corrrectly.

That's why I said they were fields most people wouldn't want cited lol. But the work was half debunking, half trying to make sense of the phenomena involved. It did evolve into current parapsychology though.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... The Spainish sent ship after ship full of gold from here all found with Dowsing...

Art, I'm a little familiar with the initial European toe-hold and exploration into the Americas. Due to I'm a docent at one of the California missions. Yes ... I know ... that's far-removed from the fabled stories of their initial toe-hold into Mexico, Columbus in the Caribbeans, etc.... (ok... a lot removed). Still though: In the history of the Spanish conquest into Mexico, where they took (ok, stole) all the gold from the native cultures here : Where are you getting that this was via "dowsing" ?

The way I recall the history, is they simply OBSERVED all the gold that the natives had collected by then. And simply went in and "conquested" it. Where are you getting that DOWSING was involved in finding and collecting it ? Got a link ? The story I've read, is they simply observed the gold that the natives had, and ... simply took it . Albeit by force, conquest, etc....

.... In Europe coal, iron and other metals were located by Dowers.......

And yes, as I've often agreed to: There is no shortage of anecdotal stories and testimonies of persons claiming success by dowsing. I don't disagree with that for a moment. Just as there is no shortage of anecdotal stories and testimonies of persons who've been abducted by UFOs, seen Elvis or Bigfoot or Loch Ness, etc.. I don't disagree. It's just a shame these can't be verified

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... SO, there is much evidence that rods can be skewed....

Good post. I'm very familiar with the various come-back push-back lines, that get rolled out when dowsing fails. And to be fair: Yes: They could all be very legitimate. After all: Detectors can be foiled with "cross-talk" from other detectors. Or discrimination on detectors can get skewed by masking when a nail is placed over a coin. I get that.

In order to compensate for such-possible-explanations (push-backs), I've seen how .... prior to any testing of dowsing, that RIGOROUS interviews are done with the dowsers. Spelling out EXACTLY what the claim is, what the parameters are going to be, what the test conditions are, etc.... And ALL the conditions are agreed to, ahead of time. However, once the tests get failed (or shown to be simply random chance), THEN the "push-backs" get rolled out.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... He in very kind words is .....

Elh, thank you for acknowledging that. Because, yes, I am trying to be very kind. Very non-badgering. And I trust that the mod's have seen this, by your own acknowledgement.

....is calling everyone else liars.....

Nope. I do not call any one a "liar". I know that you are VERY sincere. Thus you are not "lying" in the slightest.

... he is blinded by sciencetificl mumbo jumbo, abra cadra junk. He would'nt know a double blind test because of his
own blindness to other tests and testimonials. ....

Then what would you suggest is the correct "test" of this ? Are "testimonials" and anecdotal stories sufficient evidence ? Or is there a test that can correct for potential biases, outside influences, subconscious terrain clues, etc.... ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That's why I said they were fields most people wouldn't want cited lol....

Yes. And I totally get that. That is the exact reason that a lot of dowsers retreat from these type explanations. Lest it get lumped into an arena of magic, mystical, supernatural, spooks, occult, etc..... If someone wishes to attribute the powers to these realms, then ...... I can totally understand that. But just be aware, this will come with an entirely different set of dissenters (even within their own ranks).

 

[Darke]

Yes. And I totally get that. That is the exact reason that a lot of dowsers retreat from these type explanations. Lest it get lumped into an arena of magic, mystical, supernatural, spooks, occult, etc..... If someone wishes to attribute the powers to these realms, then ...... I can totally understand that. But just be aware, this will come with an entirely different set of dissenters (even within their own ranks).

That's why I usually refer dowsing and LRLs to metaphysics standards. It leaves it in a place most people are ok with unless they're selling them. Most "unexplained science" usually ends up that field.

 

[aarthrj3811]

par·a·nor·mal

adjective: paranormal



denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.



Nov 30, 2018 - Definition of telekinesis. : the production of motion in objects (as by a spiritualistic medium) without contact or other physical means.

noun: clairvoyance



the supposed faculty of perceiving things or events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact.

"she stared at the card as if she could contact its writer by clairvoyance"


I see your giving me a lot of power.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That's why I usually refer dowsing and LRLs to metaphysics standards.....

Ok. If this is where someone chalks up possible-dowsing results to, that's fair. Then yes, it's beyond discussions of "proofs", etc.....

However, since you are comfortable with that explanation, then : What would you say if a dissenter then said: "Ok, then what's to stop us from saying that ouiji boards, seances, tarot cards, etc.... aren't therefore equally as valid means to locate goodies ? " I mean, .... those are also metaphysics & unexplained (your words) . Right ?

As you can probably sense, this is the reason why a lot of dowsers retreat from this explanation. And attribute the claimed-abilities to something scientific (albeit un-discovered). Lest, as I say, it falls into these type groupings.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
adjective: paranormal



denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.....

Good point Art. When I am using the term "paranormal", I am using it in the sense of something akin to religion, mystical, supernatural, miraculous, spooks, etc.... But based on your cut-&-paste definition here, I see what you are driving at.

What I have high-lighted above , in your quote, seems to indicate that paranormal is NOT chalked up to supernatural spooks or divine or religion or spirits, etc..... Instead, it is actually scientific. Yet simply "beyond normal scientific understanding".

Have I understood and quoted you accurately ?

If so, then this is what I've been saying again and again: "undiscovered science". Not spooks. Not mystical. Not spirits. Not miraculous. Not God, etc....

Right ? Just un-discovered science, right ?

Said in a friendly non-badgering way.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If I am understanding Darke & aarthrj3811 correctly , as to how they attribute the claimed-powers of dowsing, then .... as you can see, there is varying views, even within dowser's ranks, as to the where the ability comes from. Eg.: Natural vs supernatural.

 

[Darke]

Ok. If this is where someone chalks up possible-dowsing results to, that's fair. Then yes, it's beyond discussions of "proofs", etc.....

However, since you are comfortable with that explanation, then : What would you say if a dissenter then said: "Ok, then what's to stop us from saying that ouiji boards, seances, tarot cards, etc.... aren't therefore equally as valid means to locate goodies ? " I mean, .... those are also metaphysics & unexplained (your words) . Right ?

As you can probably sense, this is the reason why a lot of dowsers retreat from this explanation. And attribute the claimed-abilities to something scientific (albeit un-discovered). Lest, as I say, it falls into these type groupings.

Well only speaking for myself I'd say "right you are" they're all in the same playing field. I mean is there really any difference between map dowsing and Ouija board except for location, questions and the type of pendulum? However when speaking to a lot of dowsers I'm not sure if they exactly understand what metaphysics actually is. I mean it sounds scientific doesn't it? But they do tend to like crystals and minerals that help their dowsing rods whether for calming effect or to enhance perceived function. They do tend to distance themselves from entities though.

 

[Darke]

If I am understanding Darke & aarthrj3811 correctly , as to how they attribute the claimed-powers of dowsing, then .... as you can see, there is varying views, even within dowser's ranks, as to the where the ability comes from. Eg.: Natural vs supernatural.

Yes that is indeed my take, or until it can replicated in controlled environment at least.

 

[aarthrj3811]

If so, then this is what I've been saying again and again: "undiscovered

science" Not spooks. Not mystical. Not spirits. Not miraculous.

Not God, etc.... ? Just un-discovered science, right ?

Gee Tom. What do you think I have discovered?

Something
that people have been using for 8000 years.

English[
edit]

Alternative forms[
edit]



clutch at straws / clutch at a straw

grab at straws / grab at a straw

grasp at a straw



Etymology[
edit]

This idiom refers to a drowning man grabbing any floating object, even a straw, to save himself. It was first used by
Thomas More in A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1534).

　

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I'd say "right you are" they're all in the same playing field......

very revealing. Thanx.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Something that people have been using for 8000 years. .....

Art, so let me see if I understand this rationale correctly : The length of time a belief has been around/practiced , is directly proportional to its validity. Right ? Before I comment on this, I don't want to misquote you. So if you can please tell me if I've interpreted you correctly.

 

[aarthrj3811]

directly proportional to its validity.

Now you want talk about Math theory?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...Now you want talk about Math theory?

Huh ? I just want to talk about this statement of yours:

.... Something that people have been using for 8000 years. .....

That seems to purport that if some practice or belief has been around that long, then it must be valid . Ie.: Based on the length of time . Did I understand that correctly ? I'm just trying to understand the statement, before I comment on it. Does the length of time a practice or belief is done, have a bearing on the amount of validity we can put into it ?

 

[lesjcbs]

I had a very hard time trying to locate this little guy as I was standing right on top of it. I don't know what it is, but here it is.
Here I show it next to a dime. Enjoy.

 

[Carl-NC]

Let's see now. The Spainish sent ship after ship full of gold from here all found with Dowsing.

That's one of those "alternative facts."