A Question for skeptics.

[lesjcbs]

Here is scenario and a follow up question for you skeptics about dowsing.


I posted in times past in this thread how I stopped tracking my dowsing finds at 300 shots. Of that 300, I missed less than 10. Don/t know why, don't care why. Be it luck or what ever you want to call it, I don't care. It just simply happened that way. There are much more experienced dowsers than me, many who claim the same very high success rate / percentage. Call their success luck or what ever you will, it still does not matter, Luck is luck at any percentage.


Like the rest of us, being the great treasure hunter you are, one day you decide to go hunt for a treasure that is report-ably in an area so large, it would take you many years to cover every inch of it with your larger than stock coil you just bought and put on your favorite MD. I in fact know of one such place.


You plan your trip then send out notices to other treasure hunters that you want two (2) partners to come along with you.


In response to your notice, a dowser applies.


Question: Would you or would you not take him along?


What say you skeptics? I could not say “YES” fast enough.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

....Question: Would you or would you not take him along? ....

No. Because I don't believe it works. Any anecdotal testimonies that get floated (eg.: your 300 finds, etc...) can be attributed to other means (eg.: using subtle subconscious landscape clues, using a detector to "pinpoint", etc...). And any time controlled tests are done to test dowsers, it's shows nothing but random chance.

Hence, ... to answer your question : No

BTW: Why pose this question on this forum ? Why not another forum heading ? Because you know the rules: This forum subsection is for affirming views , not dissenting views. Which is fine (to keep the peace). The only reason I'm answering this here, is that you had a prompt from the other section 'calling all skeptics', and directed them here.

 

[Darke]

I'd take him. And have many times with many people in about 15 states. Even as many a ten dowsers and LRL users at once. And probably about 500 trips with my father. Many trips found nothing but there were items recovered later by metal detectors. Some trips items were recovered in the area dowsed....Well kinda at least since they were recovered by scanning the area with a metal detector too. Those can chalked up to random chance also. But then I've built rods for paranormal experts too and I've never found a ghost either so it might just be me lol.

 

[Carl-NC]

Everything would depend on the total skill sets of the applicants. IMO, if a dowser is successful it's because of something other than dowsing. Ferinstance, Art claims to be successful at dowsing gold nuggets. In reality, he's probably just a good prospector who knows how to read rivers or channels or whatever terrain he happens to hunt. His rods simply 'tell' him what his intuition (based on years of experience) has already figured out. So, if I were going to look for nuggets in a terrain similar to what Art hunts in, I would invite Art. Dowsing rods and all.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Everything would depend on the total skill sets of the applicants. IMO, if a dowser is successful it's because of something other than dowsing. Ferinstance, Art claims to be successful at dowsing gold nuggets. In reality, he's probably just a good prospector who knows how to read rivers or channels or whatever terrain he happens to hunt. His rods simply 'tell' him what his intuition (based on years of experience) has already figured out. So, if I were going to look for nuggets in a terrain similar to what Art hunts in, I would invite Art. Dowsing rods and all.

Yes. This is the "subconscious landscape clues" I was alluding to.

I know a guy in the Sacramento/Auburn area who got into nuggets with detectors way-back when that was just beginning to take off in popularity. Even before they had specialty machines to do it (they used 6000 D's !). And today, he is SO WELL VERSED in nuggets , that he can look at any stream , or any tailings beds, etc... and tell you exactly where the most likely spot is that nuggets will be found (mother nature's likely zones).

Same with me and md'ing: Good md'rs will can read landscapes, like an eroded beach, and immediately decide "left or right". Has nothing whatsoever to do with rods, or attractions, etc....

 

[lesjcbs]

Thank you skeptics. I reallyappreciate your answers.


Here is what we came up with on thisquestion directly related to dowsing:


2 yes" One did and one would..
1 no.


The yes' have it and I am not surprisedit came out that way. This shows how even skeptics, way down deepreally feel about and see the value in the dowsing technique,no matter how it works.


Carl: I especially like your answerthat you would take my friend and teacher, Art and his rods with you. You would be very wise and smart to do so and so would anyone elsefor that matter.


I hope to one day be just like Art.

 

[Doubter in MD]

You've wrapped up the thread and made your declarations after less than 24 hours and three responses? That seems to be a bit premature.


I wouldn't take a dowser. Dowsing doesn't work. It's been scientifically proven that it doesn't work. No one who believes in it has been able to scientifically prove that it does work. That's enough for me.

Edit: I need to modify my answer.

I'd ask a dowser if he was going to swing a coil!

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl: I especially like your answerthat you would take my friend and teacher, Art and his rods with you. You would be very wise and smart to do so and so would anyone elsefor that matter.

Only for hunting nuggets in the particular terrains Art is good at. His dowsing is more likely useless in other situations.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Only for hunting nuggets in the particular terrains Art is good at. His dowsing is more likely useless in other situations.

For a former Dowser you sure have some stupid views. Yes I'm know where gold likes to hide. Yes I go to these places. That's called hunting not luck. I don't have to set on gold to follow th signal that many run for miles...

 

[Mackaydon]

I'm a dowser skeptic but I'd take a dowser along anytime with the hope that he could show me his process works.
Don......

 

[releventchair]

Art could join me for whatever. Because he offers help , (and has helped) not an attitude.

If I was using a detector (non two box) as you scenario'ed, the treasure would not be deep. Why else would I be using a detector?
Now if it was deep , and other techniques ,methods,equipment were being used , Why would I turn down another back to shovel regardless of their preferred locating method? Unless I did not want company...In which case it has nothing to do with dowsing. Does it?

 

[Darke]

Only for hunting nuggets in the particular terrains Art is good at. His dowsing is more likely useless in other situations.

Maybe it could be looked at as a crutch. The rods boost confidence in his other skills. I've seen it a lot in believers of good luck charms.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... This shows how even skeptics, way down deepreally feel about and see the value in the dowsing technique,...

You counted Carl's yes a "valuing the technique" ? Read his writings, long & hard. And .... you will see he does ascribe any belief to it. Any "value" would only be to certain individuals who pick up on subtle terrain clues. This is not the same as saying there's any validity to dowsing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... with the hope that he could show me his process works.......

I thought about answering "yes". So as to conclude "we'll see if it really works, kind-of-attitude. Ie.: "doesn't hurt anything" and ... Can be a useful tool to aid in future opinions on the matter. Ie.: "does it really work or doesn't it?" sort of attitude. Thus making me think to answer "yes".

But I realized, that wouldn't be conclusive. Because, even if it DIDN'T work , to aid in finding stuff, in a particular situation/hunt, then it would STILL not be "conclusive" to aid in the discussion of their merits. Ie.: No one would take any such failure to mean anything. The excuses (for the failure) would be rolled out before the hunt was even over.

This is why no tests, whatsoever, are ever conclusive in drawing the matter to a close. No amount of dry holes or failures ever point to whether-or-not it works. There will always be the claims of "trickery" or "rigged" or "sunspots" or .... you name it. It will never be that it didn't work. It will just be a one-day fluke. And the user will point to other testimonials, on other days, where it worked.

So .... I changed my "yes" to a "no". Knowing that any such trial and error efforts would add any merit to the eternal debate. Ie.: it wouldn't change any minds. Both on the believers or unbelievers side. So ... why bother ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And as a post-script to # 15 above, I suppose the adherents would point out that I am making the assumption, ahead of time, that it wouldn't work. Ie.: I'm starting with an implied outcome, that hasn't even been concluded yet. Thus an intellectual error on my part. Ie.: Since when is that a given premise ? Ie.: What if it DID work ?

But in the O.P., the way I saw the question laid out, is that a detector would be used to "pinpoint". Can anyone see the implicit skewed results , already ? Ie.: if you take a detector out to any set of "likely spots" (ruins, out-of-place trees, foundations, etc...) and dig enough beeps, then ....... SURE, the md'r will eventually find metal . Maybe even a goodie.

So I did not see the scenario, outlines in the O.P. #1 post, as spelling anything other than eventual random odds.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Carl has admitted that he can dowse. He just does not find it usful. A study at a Utah college showed 80 percent who dowsed a unknown target right. These were not dowsers

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... A study at a Utah college showed 80 percent who dowsed a unknown target right. ...

Got a link ? I have heard of a few studies (perhaps this is one of them) that get pointed to as "proof". But invariably, if you study deeply, there are other things at play. They fall under criticism of not having fail-safes, being vulnerable to subtle clues, inaccurate translation of the #'s and data, etc.... I would be open to looking at the study you allude to though. Because every study (when done in careful controls) that I have heard of , show that it is nothing but random chance guessing. Not "80% accurate".

....Carl has admitted that he can dowse.....

Is this right Carl ? I certainly have not seen or perceived of this, in anything you've written.

 

[Carl-NC]

Got a link ?

Do a search on Chadwick & Jensen, Univ. of Utah as I recall.

Is this right Carl ? I certainly have not seen or perceived of this, in anything you've written.

Dowsing is simply using one's intuition. Sure, I do that all the time, I just don't use dowsing rods. Very often I dowse for car keys and glasses.

 

[lesjcbs]

For a former Dowser you sure have some stupid views. Yes I'm know where gold likes to hide. Yes I go to these places. That's called hunting not luck. I don't have to sit on gold to follow the signal that many run for miles...

Art: I don't think these skeptics understand your last line and what it means. I do as you kindly shared with me how many miles you are referring to, and bingo, there it was.

 

[lesjcbs]

Here's a link: http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/dowsing/11014-dowsing-printed-facts-studies-research-info.html