JudyH said:
Are James Randi and/or Carl Moreland and their " Challenges ".....qualified, in any way, for determining what is considered proof?
I think not.
I agree. I'm not offering a method to
prove or
disprove dowsing. I've said that before, though it seems to have fallen on deaf eyes. But I am qualified to do what I do, which is investigate dowsng and dowsing devices, and design tests for dowsing claims.
For those those who weren't paying attention before...
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE DOWSING.
Just as it is impossible to disprove IPUs.
So, let's all stop asking skeptics to disprove dowsing, eh?
However, the
existence of a dowsing phenomena can be proven, by a successful series of demonstrations. Please note that I said
existence, not
mechanism. We need not jump to the task of trying to prove
how dowsing works, until it is proven
to work. And I said
series, not a
single test. It is always possible to get fluke results, have outright fraud, or to design a horrendously bad test. There are many many examples of these occurring throughout the history of science.
So how does one go about proving that dowsing works? Well, you ask the dowsers, "What can you do?" And when they tell you what they can do, you design a test for that particular claim. Believe it or not, this is how science actually works. You don't have to take my word for it, ask the people who do this for a living.
I began a discussion on a specific example of how a dowsing test might get designed in a different thread, a thread that was ironically entitled, "
Wanted: Suggestions for designing a test for dowsing." However, it became clear that there was no interest in discussing such tests, especially when I was specifically told by the originator of the thread that there was no interest in discussing such tests.
It should be very obvious, by now, that the challenge doesn't prove anything.
The challenges can serve two purposes. One is that an individual test event can be used to prove or disprove an
individual claim. Again, note that an individual test does not prove or disprove
dowsing overall. Second, the overall body of evidence from many tests can be used to indicate whether dowsing is likely to work, or not.
Ferinstance, if a number of tests have statistically successful results, and the test protocols and results pass scientific scrutiny (and, especially if the results can be independently replicated), then this might be sufficient proof that dowsing works. However, if the vast majority of tests fail, then that would strongly indicate that dowsing does
not work. Please notice that I did NOT say a majority of failures
prove that dowsing does not work. There could always be one Real Dowser who has yet to be tested. That's why dowsing
cannot be disproven. Never ever. But we
can reach Extreme Confidence.
The challenges have an fascinating third effect, that of drawing out the alibis. When dowsing tests (or LLADs) are discussed, the cain't-do-its come out of the woodwork to deny that such scientific methods have any use, sometimes while emphatically stating that they are pro-science. Just not
that kind of science. Dowsing proponents attack the tests with all sorts of ad hoc excuses, disinformation campaigns, and even personal attacks on the sponsors, while flatly refusing to even give such a challenge the benefit of the doubt by applying for it, and seeing if their accusations have any truth whatsoever. Or if their own dowsing claims have any truth whatsoever. Obviously, truth is not primary concern with them.
In the end, those who say they can do it the loudest, are the ones who cain't do it the mostest.
- Carl
