Af, you say: "
If a negative thought can somehow leave a person's brain, travel through the air, and reach another person with enough force to cause them not to be able to dowse, then anything at all is possible" I actually have no trouble believing that a nearby skeptic's "negative thoughts" can affect a dowser's success. You're right: that does sound like ESP, casting spells, new age, and things along that line, thus, you make fun of it. But don't you get it?? That's the point! Dowsing
IS along the same lines, therefore, I can see how the negative thoughts belief thing is not a stretch at all, once you get past the premise that dowsing is not scientifically or naturally based. So rather than seek to analyze that through a skeptic's lense, I see it as more of a validation of the point you want to make, to start with.
Don Jose, you say: "
I have found that dowsing is dowsing. It is the same no matter how it is used. The only differentation is how it's reaction's are visually used and hence receives a popular name such as mental, phyical, or electonically (.LRL) " I think you are right. And this sheds light on the dilemna of supposed different sorts of dowsing.
When I first chimed into this forum, I tried to find out how dowsing worked -naively thinking there would be one basic theory. But I discovered many theories. I am now convinced that what has been given different NAMES (physical, mental, and LRL), are actually just names given to the different theories as to how dowsing works, NOT a different type of dowsing. I mean, if one dowser thinks it's his mind somehow sensing the distant objects, and the next dowser thinks that a distant object sends a signal picked up by the energy in his body, etc..., they can each call it a different "type" of dowsing, if they want. But maybe what it actually is, is different theories of how the rod turns, BUT the same type dowsing itself. I would think this satisfies both sides: it doesn't deny the different types dowsing (or "theories", in this case) that some dowsers insist on, nor does it create truly different types of dowsing that some skeptics object to.
No skeptic or dowser would disagree that there ARE different theories as to how/why dowsing seems to work sometimes. So whether you give those theories a name for the "type" of dowsing, or just relegate it as a theory as to how
all dowsing works, is just semantics. If Jerry is still around, does this satisfy him? If Dell is reading this, does this satisfy him? If so, they can kiss and make up!
"
The important thing to us is...It works for us no matter what anybody thinks....Art" Art, a result's oriented satisfaction is .... to each his own, as they say. Ie.: no one can argue with someone's personal testimonial and feeling. Just like there are people who swear that a certain vitamin potion cures them of all ills, gives strength, etc....
I guess someone could try to show that what dowsers think are
results, can be shown to statistically be nothing more than random chance, hunches, etc... But ultimately, it will boil down to the user's feelings and opinions, which are subjective. So unless the "results" defence were subject to double-blind scientific analysis, it will always remain ancedotal & subjective.
For example: Let's say a dowsers doesn't have success one day. Naturally, that
must mean one of several things: Sunspots, nearby negative vibes, minerals, or just simply: there were no treasures there in the vicinity they were hunting. So on those fruitless days, his rod was working 100 per cent correctly, but there were
other mitigating factors. It would be like me trying to metal detect a quarter through the door of my refrigerator: No one would argue that the metal detector wasn't operating correctly, when it failed to beep on the quarter. Afterall, that's "masking". Same for minerals that bedevil detectors at some locations. Same for a location that just simply didn't have any coins within range of my detector! So too is for the dowser, as it is the metal detector hobbyist, in that sense.
But then one day, the dowser finds something good! On that day, the dowsing rods proved themselves to be 100% effective, 100% of the time! Afterall, you can't count those days you
didn't find goodie, because of course, there were outside limiting factors. So in a SUBJECTIVE way, the dowser sees 100% success, even though he dug many dry holes. To the skeptic, he sees series of statistics that lead him to believe that it is nothing but random chance. There is simply no way to proove the dowser wrong, unless they wanted to squabble over whether there were the same moon phases and minerals present on the day of success, as there was on the day w/o success. Once you start bickering over
those environmental things, is when you have to resort to a staged controlled double-blind test.
On my honeymoon many years ago, my wife and I struck up conversation with the fellow next to us in the casino health club. Turns out he was a well-to-do fellow, who enjoyed nothing more than to fancy himself a professional gambler. All he did in his semi-retirement was travel around the country, casino to casino, enjoying the high-roller life. As he talked to us, he boasted of how he'd just finished winning some great amount that night at the craps tables. Me, being a kill-joy non-gambler, asked him "how much did you loose over time, to eventually make today's good wins?" It was as if I hadn't even asked the question! He just went on and on about this win and that win at different times and places. I asked my question again, more to the point. This time, he admitted to some pittance of a loss, before his luck turned at the tables. I pressed him further, to include the days, weeks, months, etc.. before. In other words, the
whole gain/loss picture. The guy had no clue! He honestly couldn't tell me, a he kept no track of those things. In his eyes, he had WON that night, so therefore, in a wierd way, to him "gambling
worked" No amount of common sense math would detract him from his opinion, because afterall, how do you argue with this feeling of contentment? How do you argue with the wad of cash in his pocket?
To me, I think dowsing is kind of the same way: Dowsers don't count the days of loss, because afterall, on those days, there was outside interference, that had no bearing on the truth or workability of dowsing. So you only count the days you find something, and hey, that's 100% results, right?
The above 6 paragraphs are a monologue on the viewpoint that any possible successes in dowsing, or just random chance(dig around enough ruins and you WILL eventually find something), hunches with leads you already had, detectors or sluices to "pinpoint", etc..... I believe that covers most of the supposed finds I read about.
