angel_09 said:
"But, since Randi does require strict scientific criteria, they can, in this context, be construed to mean the same.)"
Question:
How can Randi requires strict scientific criteria when he himself doesn't know what is dowsing itself and how it works? Can anybody set up standard for something he doesn't understand?
Uh, that's how science actually works. You see a phenomenon you don't understand, so you set up a process to study it. Once you have either performed enough experiments or made enough observations, you then can draw a conclusion.
Example: gravity. No one knew what it was or how it worked. Yet Galileo was able to perform some simple experiments to study how it behaved. Building on his research, others performed more complex experiments, and made strictly controlled observations. Based on this, we now have an extremely good understanding of how gravity works. (Scientists are still building on these results to try to understand what it really is, there is still some debate over that -- yet they are still able to study it.)
As to the argument of, "how can a stage magician claim to observe things scientifically," well, you don't need to be A Scientist to understand and use "the scientific method." (That's what science really is -- a method of studying. It's an adjective and not a noun!) Anyone can study something scientifically, and anything can be studied in a scientific manner. You just have to understand the rules of logic behind the method -- they are set up so as to eliminate opinion from entering into the conclusion. It's really not that hard, the process is hypothesis-study (either experimental or observational)-collate data-analyze data-conclusion. What most people have a hard time with is setting up the experiment/observation phase of the study. It has to be set up so as to be unbiased. And you have to be ready to examine all of the data, not just that which you like. And finally, you must be willing to accept that your original hypothesis may be proven wrong.
So, with dowsing, we would have this (for example):
- Hypothesis: Dowsing for gold works.
- Experiment: Set up one gold coin under ten paper cups, have a dowser make attempts to locate said coin. Repeat a given number of times.
- Data collation: How many times did the dowser succeed?
- Data analysis: Was this rate of success statistically significant?
- Conclusion: Dowsing for gold (works/doesn't work)
There -- I'm not a scientist, yet I just came up with a scientific method of studying the phenomenon. (Note: it doesn't have to be the only way of studying it, but it does have to follow the same general steps.) Of course, you do have to be able to set up an unbiased experiment, which a double-blind method would do nicely. And you do have to have an understanding of the mathematics of statistics in order to have a valid analysis, and to understand how to set up the experiment in the first place to get useful data.
Where the Randi challenge comes in is that his foundation has put up a million dollar escrow fund for anyone who can demonstrate (following such a scientific method) some sort of "pseudo-scientific" phenomenon, dowsing falling into that category. Should a dowser want to pursue this challenge, (s)he would get to propose an experimental method in order to support their own hypothesis. (Example: Hypothesis is that I can find a gold coin hidden in one of ten paper cups, at least eight tries out of ten. Experiment is that someone unknown to me hides such a coin in one of ten cups, I come in and tell an unbiased observer which cup it is in. If I can do this as I claim, then I walk away a million dollars richer.)
One problem with the challenge is that often the claimant hasn't proposed a clear experiment, or even a clear claim of what they can do. The JREF does make suggested alterations to the claim and experiment, and when (and only when) both sides agree to this will a pre-test be arranged. Once the pre-test has been passed, then the claimant will go on to the actual challenge.
Another problem is that there are many people who make a claim, but relatively few who actually go through the entire process leading up to the pre-test, they usually drop the ball during the proposal/counter proposal period -- and of those that have gone through a pre-test, none (NONE!) have actually been able to perform as they claim, so no one has yet made it to the final step of the actual challenge. (Despite what some people say, the JREF has well documented cases of this happening on their web site.)
I hope this clears up some of the confusion of "how can a non-scientist set up a scientific study" and "how would this apply to dowsing?"
) with your top-notch arithmetic ![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
. So all i can do is "fact it." 
