Scientific Rules

[Sandsted]

My uncle did this same thing for people, found underground pipes and water lines for their drilling. I heard that on the radio there is a guy in the city near me that has a "Water Witchers" business of dowsing. He'll find the best water line for you and if, when you drill, there's no water there you don't have to pay him.

I wonder how much business he gets...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[xupz]

Well I'm new to the board, have been lurking for quite some time. Anyway, I have MS in Statistics and I assure you, although you can't disprove the concept of dowsing (yet), you can prove whether an individual can dowse or not through basic experimental design. The idea of dowsing may not be disprovable as of yet, but it's open season on individuals making the claims of being dowsers, and that's where you disprove and discredit individuals. Every single experimental design where a dowser has been put to the test, the individual has failed.

 

[Sandsted]

That's not true. I have seen test results that the dowser was successful. My dowser teacher has proved dowsing to me. But I can't dowse under the conditions of a test. I loose the ability.

 

[Sandsted]

I don't always fail, it's just not as accurate as it should be. And then you're trying to do this and you got seven people around you, and their minds can alter the results. This same type of thing affects dowsing, rune casting, and other arts such as these. The people around you must be focused on the subject and say if you're doing these stupid tests and the tester focuses on one and thinks of the dowser getting a reaction it's very likely that will happen. I don't know what causes it, but I've done it to other dowsers by accident. This one time, this particular dowser was trying to date something and I wans't really paying attention and I was just looking at a date, which was 1810, on their sensor board and they could only get a reaction to that. I thought perhaps this was because of me but I didn't know that at the time so I didn't say anything, the actual date of this particular object was 1870 by my dowsing. And later we found proof later. Perhaps if the tester was gone I could do this, but testing myself isn't something that concerns me very much.

 

[xupz]

It's just all excuses. Too many people, some other factors causing problems with "accuracy". You can design the experiment around all of those factors an individual claims would make him fail and guess what, they'll STILL fail. There isn't a single variable or "excuse" by anyone who claims to dowse that can't be controlled by an experimental design taking them into account so don't waste your time trying to make that an argument.

Oh yea and if dowsing works so well, why aren't these people millionaires? Take one of those long range jobs for example. If they actually worked like they said they do why sell the technology? Hell, why sell it so cheap even at $2000? Why not charge millions for one? Oh right, because they don't work and are sold to suckers by people scamming to make a living.

 

[Gluk]

"It's all just excuses."




That's what you think.

 

[Sandsted]

Science can not yet fully explain dowsing...this is true. But as I've said many times this doesn't support the notion that dowsing doesn't work. But dowsing isn't something that can be easily tested under these restrictive monetary based challenges developed for the purpose of "...keeping people from being conned..." by these dowsers and LRL manufacturers.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Gee...Another Scientific Fact is wrong...How could that be so? Pluto is not a Planet? I have been told for weeks that these laws are set in stone. I guess I am right…..They are only right until some one proves they are wrong…Art

Sorry Guys, couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents..........Science is:

"..the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. "

....and as such, is subject to change as more knowledge is acquired.

No one has ever been able to prove that dowsing is of the " physical or material world ".....therefore cannot be classified as Science. Whether or not it is an actual ability.......is an entirely different debate.

Judy

Nice post, Judy.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Science can not yet fully explain dowsing...this is true. But as I've said many times this doesn't support the notion that dowsing doesn't work. But dowsing isn't something that can be easily tested under these restrictive monetary based challenges developed for the purpose of "...keeping people from being conned..." by these dowsers and LRL manufacturers.

There are very few things that have been around for 2000 years or more that hasn't been explained through science, or at least very thouroughly researched.
And as far as the restrictive monetary challenges go, there hasn't been a restrictive non-monetarily based test that has supported dowsing.

Think about it. Science likes to put things through their paces before being able to classify them as facts or conclusions. The reason that dowsing hasn't been classified as such is because the only time it seems to work well is in a very loose environment, meaning that the more you tighten the noose around it, the less it is able to breathe.

This of the path to fact as a 1 to 10 scale. 1 being the least scientific, 10 being a proven, hard-and-fast truth. Everything starts at 1, and science goes to work. Through research and testing, it is determined that a subject needs more study. It's then bumped up to level 2. At level 2, restrictive testing is applied to see if the subject cracks. If it holds up, then on to level 3 and more restrictive testing. So on and so on until the subject is rejected or it can be shown that the subject offers repeated expected results.

Dowsing has gone through this scale, and it is found that in restrictive testing, requiring results that can be duplicated, dowsing cannot stand up to the test.

 

[Ramapirate]

I do it when I can't find something in particular that I'm looking for (like a pipe or large piece of conduit deep in the ground). Years ago I found a 4 inch diameter piece of pvc 4 feet down in the ground that everyone had given up on that we needed to run irrigation pipe through with dowsing rods made from metal coathangers (I think you'd call that a run on sentence). Had we not found it, we'd have been dead in the water on the job, they'd already paved over where we had to run the irrigation.

It works, sorta like little fat bees can fly all over the place, shouldn't be able to, but do.

HH,
Ramapirate

 

[Monty]

Next thing you know someone will say the earth isn't the center of our solar system! I'm your daisy if it ain't. Monty

 

[Ramapirate]

Perhaps we should have a spelling contest!

Why you're no daisy, you're no daisy at all!

I'll be your huckleberry...

Why, Kate, you're not wearing a bussel, how lewd...

Sorry, I felt a Doc coming on there.HH,
Ramapirate

 

[Captain Trips]

Gee...Another Scientific Fact is wrong...How could that be so? Pluto is not a Planet? I have been told for weeks that these laws are set in stone. I guess I am right…..They are only right until some one proves they are wrong…Art

(Going back to the OP.) Art, you are mistaken about "Facts" vs "Laws." Pluto being a planet isn't a "law" but a "definition." The law involved is that Pluto follows an orbit around the sun as determined by "the laws of gravity." The definition involved is "we call things that go around the sun 'planets.'" The definition has changed, but the law has not.

Oh, and "Facts" (as you capitalize it) are constantly changing. They fall under the category of pravda, from the Russian word meaning "truth" but when used in English means "OFFICIAL truth" -- it's like the Orwellian idea of "good facts" vs "real facts." "Good facts" are those which support the official point of view, "real facts" are those that really are how things are. You know, like the "good fact" that Iraq had WMD's, vs the "real fact" that the shrub just wanted to get "the guy that threatened to kill my daddy!"

So, the "good fact" has now become "Pluto is not a true planet." The "real fact" is that if it isn't a planet, most of the solar system's bodies are not either.

But then again, assuming that one word has the same meaning as another seems to be a theme with you, as I've seen on other threads.

 

[Sandsted]

Af, dowsing is a very unique art...that doesn't work well under scientific testing for the reasons that this scientific testing is flawed from the start. If you wanted to study dowsing scientifically, why not see if there is any relation to electromagnetic fields and dowsed wells. Or why not take brain scans of someone while dowsing, this has been done when people are praying and meditating with interesting results. Why not see what science has to say about the subject rather then just restrictively test whether it will work under your specific standards.

Yet science can't explain the root of the problem let alone the effects of it. Science is very much in the dark concerning the right side of the brain, it is a very mysterious area of science. It isn't easy to test subjects pertaining to this, it isn't easy to even study this area.

Dowsing is not as simple as you believe; you can't experiment with it like you can...with inventing light bulbs. You test different materials and different shapes and if they don't work they blow up or do nothing and then one time you found a working design that lights up. Dowsing is not like this, it is much more difficult then this...and I quite frankly believe that it is almost if not impossibly to challenge the way you want to.

These challenges are not science...doesn't matter how much you believe they are, you won't change reality.

Carl has stated before that the purpose is to DISPROVE LRL machines so that people won't be conned by the manufacturers of these. You can not go at a scientific study with a pre-made conclusion and outcome already in place.

Surely you agree with this.

"There are very few things that have been around for 2000 years or more that hasn't been explained through science, or at least very thouroughly researched."

One example that you have heard many times before...dreams. And these have been around for as long as time and science can not explain them.

"The reason that dowsing hasn't been classified as such is because the only time it seems to work well is in a very loose environment, meaning that the more you tighten the noose around it, the less it is able to breathe."

Loose environment? Af, to dowse one must be relaxed, focused, etc...You can not dowse under excessive restrictive testing and (not literally) choked in attempt by the tester to make the "subject crack".

You can not prove nor disprove dowsing in such a manner...you can't even study it in these conditions. Neither can you study dreams in this manner. So I guess since this 10 point scale is the only scientific way to study an unknown subject...we'll never understand dreams.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Reading your post, Sandy, makes me think you'd rather dowsing go on untested, forever to drift in the realm of pseudo-science, akin to other pseudo-sciences like astrology, telepthy and telekenisis.

 

[Sandsted]

Ummm...okay, but actually I'd rather see it be studied scientifically.

 

[ClonedSIM]

If you wanted to study dowsing scientifically, why not see if there is any relation to electromagnetic fields and dowsed wells. Or why not take brain scans of someone while dowsing, this has been done when people are praying and meditating with interesting results.

Like this, you mean? But any results of studies like you have suggested will only lead to more questions, not answers.

If there is a link to electromagnetic fields and dowser wells, then how does an electromagnetic field affect a dowser? You then would have to test electromagnetic fields on dowsers, which could easily be performed, but it would involve dowsers walking over or otherwise trying to identify magnetic fields which, in a controlled environment, would take us back to scientists generating electromagnetic fields and then having a dowser point out where he/she thinks it is. Since this is a testing situation you don't like, studying links between electromagnetism and dowser wells would be pointless as far as dowsing was concerned.

 

[Sandsted]

No, if a study found that say 85% or 90% of dowsed wells were over a dramatic change in the electromagnetic field then...one could probably conclude that there is a connection between this. Then if you have this one can do scientific experiments that are founded on nuetrality and have dowsers find good spots for wells...then one could check the electromagnetic fields again.

If it were found that these wells were over top of changes in electromagnetic fields one would have to conclude that yes dowsing does work and there is probable evidence to say that it is because of changes in electromagnetic fields.

The outcome of your challenges (if someone were actually able to dowse under these conditions) would be...the dowser found a piece of gold under 1 of 10 plates repeatedly. It appears dowsing works because of this...but with this challenge there isn't any evidence as to why or how it does.

You see the difference?

 

[ClonedSIM]

If it were found that these wells were over top of changes in electromagnetic fields one would have to conclude that yes dowsing does work and there is probable evidence to say that it is because of changes in electromagnetic fields.

This is a dangerous assumption to make though, Sandy. If you conclude that electromagnetic fields exist near dowsed wells, then it would follow that dowsers detected these electromagnetic fluctuations in order to dowse the well location. Could it have been something entirely different they picked up on to pick those well locations?
You would have to eliminate all possibilities before being able to conclude someone dowsed a well because it contained an electromagnetic field.
Are wells the only underground items that generate an electromagnetic field? Could something in the area have been generating an electromagnetic field? If the dowser were to be blindfolded, could he/she still find his/her way back to a doswed location twice in a row, without the benefit of sight? Without the benefit of hearing?

This is why the scientific process exists, to prevent assumptions from being formed from incomplete information. When people thought the world was flat, they generated this assumption from non-authoritative tales of ships leaving but not coming back, and from the thought that since they had not seen anyone come to them from far out in the ocean, it must stop at some point.

 

[musstag]

This is from (Judys) Space Storm website: News flash, there are some things we don't yet know....
( I MOVED the info that was here TO THE PRO DOWSING Forum - look for dowsing noaa website )

Read more at http://sec.noaa.gov
(now back to me... and no doubt the trouble it casues Dowsers) (Really THAT right there above tells me you skeptics ain't got it Covered!! Therre are unknows in your world!! OH MY!! there is more to the Glue, then you have a Clue!!))