$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[aarthrj3811]

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

Dawkins’ sleight-of-hand notwithstanding, according to the rules of Randi’s competition, if a psychic ability is proven, he must pay up. Randi stated to me that a preliminary test would have to yield a probability of one in a thousand that the results were due to chance. After passing the preliminary, the investigator could commence with the formal test, which would have to yield a probability against chance of one in a million.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm

Hey af1733…..How come you do not read any of the links posted on this thread….Then you would know what the test is all about….You keep giving us the same old facts about the test….They all are wrong …Who says so…RANDI .,.1 in 1000 and then it goes up to 1 in 1,000,000….Random chance odds??

'I am a charlatan, a liar, a thief and a fake altogether.' Guess who made this statement...Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Captain Trips ]
I'm going to get picky here. No one has said that dowsing works through the ideomotor effect. Dowsing rods MOVE by the ideomotor effect, I think we've managed to (mostly) agree on this fact. However, that does not explain how DOWSING works, only the mechanism by which the rods move. Dowsing is getting a reading from those moving rods, usually by watching when/where they cross. And science has NO explanation for the way dowsing generates results. (Assuming it even does so.)
Please don't confuse the tools with the actual phenomenon.
**************
Absolutely no disagreement on "rods" Capt (unless I catch you in conduct unbecoming an Officer thingie like fibbing)

Why is this so difficult for both sides to realize. However there is one fly in the ointment.

Mr Cameron devised a series of spring suspended indicators in a glass covered portable boxes in which no-way could the operator tilt the box and make the indicators move short of jarring it -- yet it indicated nicely ??

Were the indicators responding similar to a dip meedle or to a subconscious projected thought from the dowser?

Fascinating, I would love to follow this up, however it is difficult from Mexico. All of my literature and notes on past experiments are in the us.

Tropical Tramp

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Realde.....Ideomotor is the movement caused by a thought or an idea...I am told you can not stop this response of your sub conscious mind. I say that the sub conscious mind can be trained to not respond to a thought or an ideas. I think that the body can sense when you have stepped on a signal line. Heck it may even enter your body. If you train yourself ( mind or brain ) to only respond to this signal you are in business. Is this an Ideomotor Response? I can put the rods in a frame that makes it impossible for them to cross using your hands, wrists or arms. When I step on a coin they will cross. So I have to assume it is not an Idomotor response as everyone defines it. In a thousand or so test both known and unknown targets the rods will only respond to a signal line. How does this happen, I don't know but that will not stop me from using it....Art

 

[angel_09]

Quote from my posting yesterday:

Does the thread title in consonance with Mr. Randi's challenge?
If it is so, then there is no common ground for discussion...since the thread title negates the offer...
If it is not, then who will pay for dowsers?

My observation,
Angel_09

I'm not sure you understand, Angel. Randi is offering the $1,000,000 prize for dowsers because he considers dowsing to fall into the category of paranormal, since science cannot explain why it would work. There is no contradiction there


Quote from Mr. Carl N-C's response dated Dec. 22, 2006:


Another questions:
1. Why did Mr. Randi coined dowsing to paranormal, supernatural or occult power?

This is rather arbitrary, since in reality there is no such thing as paranormal, supernatural or occult powers. However, people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers.

Quote
2. What is the proper observing procedures and what are his basis in formulating these procedures?
a. Is it scientific?
b. Is it from occult?
c. Is it from supernatural?
d. Is it paranormal?

Scientific.

Now it is becoming more confusing. People who believe Mr. Randi seems to have different interpretations regarding his statements, interpretations, offers, beliefs and principles.

Now please let me highlight Mr. Cal N-C's statement:
people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers.

And this statement:
Randi is offering the $1,000,000 prize for dowsers because he considers dowsing to fall into the category of paranormal, since science cannot explain why it would work. There is no contradiction there

Now, with these two statements, it shows that some people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers; where only magicians use this "powers"....

Just curious,

Angel_09

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=af1733
. Don't argue semantics with me, you're really not clever enough.
***************

Wow an extremely clever and intelligent response. Well you warned him..snicker.

Tropical Tramp.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[quote author=And how would you prove this?
***********
statistically of course

Tropical ; Tramp

 

[Sandsted]

Well...logically I don't think it should be to hard to prove dreams. Does anyone deny their existence because of their lack of scientific explanation?

"It's psuedo-science"
"no known scientific principle"
"no explanation"
"unscientific"

It seems that these have been used to support the belief that dowsing is nothing more then self-deception. But this is really proof of nothing. Dreams I suppose are "psuedo-science", concerning them there is "no known scientific principle", they are so far "unscientific" and have "no explanation". But do you refuse to believe in them because of it?

For Randi's test....

The dreams you have each night have no scientific explanation. Therefore they are paranormal (therefore fit into Randi's test).

All I have to do is prove that something paranormal exists (like dreams).

If I do this I'll get my million dollars.

Now all I have to do is prove dreams. Do you think if I emailed Randi and told him just this that he would deny the existence of dreams? Maybe I should try that.

Any thoughts?

Any problems with any of this? I'm just playing with your definition of paranormal. Which I guess is the definition of paranormal.

So I guess my ideas for proving dreams or thought are quite justified...hmmmm...interesting.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=xupz link=Tropical Tramp
[/quote]

. My professors have all stressed this point a billion times. To even make the claim one thing "causes" another requires such massive evidence that it rarely happens.

************

I will answer this in two posts, perhaps too simple or practical for your Professors.

A) I shoot you in the head, you are dead from a single obvious cause, repeatable yet.

B) I serve you a teaspoon of Cyanide, it reacts with your stomach acid creating Hydrogen Cyanide and you die, also repeatable

C) Etc., etc., etc.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

The dreams you have each night have no scientific explanation.

Really? Are you absolutely certain about this?

 

[Sandsted]

Well I guess some people hypothesize that it is the result of random firing of nuerons...or something like this. But the general consensus is that there is no real known answer.

 

[Carl-NC]

But the general consensus is that there is no real known answer.

"No real known answer" doesn't mean there are no explanations, which is what you guys are claiming, and extending that claim to imply that dreams are, therefore, "paranormal". That is a very fallacious argument.

- Carl

 

[Sandsted]

Hey, to my knowledge there is no scientific explanation for dreams. At the most there may be a theory or two, but no scientific explanation.

paranormal - of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

Dreams have no scientific explanation...therefore paranormal. Do you disagree?

I have heard people claim that dreams are along the lines of the result of "random firing of nuerons." This is a theory, and they themselves don't believe it to be a good one. But this is not an explanation.

It's a theory, an opinion, both unproven and untested....UNTESTED?!

gasp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Sandsted link=

It's a theory, an opinion, both unproven and untested....UNTESTED?!
*********

Nor statistically tested yet snicker Right Sandsted.

An electro encephalograph only shows brain activity and origin but not content, possibly the same brain activity that allows dowsing?.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Sandsted]

I've been referred to as Sand and Sandy and I just want to clarify that my name is actually supposed to be Sandstedt...
which is swedish.

The first D

sanDstedt

is silent and the last T is also silent. It is pronounced like San-sted. and means "Sand place"

Anyway, just a clarification.

Carry on.

 

[Carl-NC]

paranormal - of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.

No, I don't believe that science regards dreams as a "supernatural phenomena." But I tellyawhat... if you can show me that any prominent researchers in dream psychology consider dreams to be supernatural, then I'll concede this.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=Carl-]"No real known answer" doesn't mean there are no explanations, which is what you guys are claiming, and extending that claim to imply that dreams are, therefore, "paranormal". That is a very fallacious argument.
*****************

Curious, Isn't that the basic argument against dowsing? Testing is secondary, so far seriously flawed.

Tropical; Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

Curious, Isn't that the basic argument against dowsing?

Is what the basic argument against dowsing?

Testing is secondary, so far seriously flawed.

You probably wouldn't say that if dowsing worked in those tests.

- Carl

 

[Sandsted]

"No, I don't believe that science regards dreams as a 'supernatural phenomena.' But I tellyawhat... if you can show me that any prominent researchers in dream psychology consider dreams to be supernatural, then I'll concede this."

Carl, it is plainly seen that that list is just mere examples of paranormal. Because something is paranormal does not make it a supernatural phenomena.

I'm asking you if it is paranormal...which I think it is...since it hasn't been explained by science.

Therefore...I think technically it fits perfectly find in Randi's test.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

morning Carl: what about my posts #78 & #88?

Tropical Tramp

 

[xupz]

I will answer this in two posts, perhaps too simple or practical for your Professors.

A) I shoot you in the head, you are dead from a single obvious cause, repeatable yet.

B) I serve you a teaspoon of Cyanide, it reacts with your stomach acid creating Hydrogen Cyanide and you die, also repeatable

C) Etc., etc., etc.

Tropical Tramp

People have been shot in the head and lived, the probability of death isn't 1. Anyway that's not the point. Your argument is laughable at best. The cause of something like cancer is not comparative to a being shot in the head. You're just trying to make some trivial BS argument that isn't even in the same realm as correlation and cause. I'm sorry but your "examples" are utterly worthless and anyone who knows statistics would mock you into oblivion.

"DER IF YOU SHOOTS SOMEONE IN DUH HED DEY DIE (x_X)"