Dowsing sceptics!

[dowser]

It's only obvious that if you don't believe in dowsing, you haven't practiced right. Always check the spot you are about to practice at for other signals, there is usually allways other signals, just practice with big objects and rods not so sensitive. Don't go around saying you don't believe, unless you think the world is still flat.. Dowser..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[xupz]

Ok now practice and test your skills under a double-blind experimental design that is adjusted and controlled for any and all variables (I believe in your terms they're called excuses) you would consider interferes with your dowsing ability. Hell, if you can even beat a simple hypothesis test where your claim is significantly different than the expected random probability of occurance you should be good to go. Then again how many dowsers are statisticians? None I'll wager.

 

[xupz]

Ok so run the design in a giant faraday cage to block all external electric fields. I find the excuse of a radio signal being a culprit so preposterous it's mind boggling. In order for you to make that even a lame excuse you better list some frequencies that you think interfere with dowsing. Otherwise stating some radio signal causes the interference implies anyone within any radio signals FM / AM / ETC can't dowse. This also suggests that the magical wizard dowser must be in a complete radio wave dead zone which is impossible as even the most fundamental astral bodies emit radio waves such as pulsars. So now you not only have to list frequencies that you claim interfere with dowsing, you also have to range the signal strength of those frequencies. The next thing you know another magical dowser will claim that no radio signals also interferes with the ability to dowse which contradicts the statement that you can't dowse with radio signal interference.

What other excuses, oh I mean variables, do you magical dowsers have?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yea and before any of you magical dowsers get to thinking the statistical methods are incorrect, I have a masters degree in Statistics and would gladly destroy any and all attempts to debunk any of the reasoning you can possibly come up with to invalidate the methodology, assuming you even know any statistical methods to begin with. There's your fair warning, so please enlighten me as to possible excuses to control for in an experimental design.

 

[xupz]

Oh really, the range is between 450 and 470 mhz right?

Ultra high frequency UHF 9 300–3000 MHz
1 m – 100 mm television broadcasts, mobile phones, wireless LAN, Bluetooth, and Two-Way Radios such as FRS and GMRS Radios

400 MHz - 470 MHz UHF Repeaters

According to this site:
http://www.tscm.com/bugfreq.html

"If the TSCM specialist already knows what frequency the RF eavesdropping device is (or may be) operating on, then the detection of the device becomes several orders of magnitude easier. For example a very popular "SpyShop" bug frequency is 398.605 MHz, 300.455 MHz, and 399.030 MHz. By configuring a modern spectrum analyser or receiver and targeting the specific parameters of this device it may be found from hundreds, and often thousands of feet away. There are roughly 3500 popular "bugging" frequencies used by the various Spy Shops devices around the world. It takes less then 5 minutes for a computer controlled radio to check all 3500 channels. Of course the entire RF spectrum still has to be checked in detail (which takes many hours), but knowing what specific frequencies might be used by the opposition gives the TSCM specialist a major advantage."

So now within several minutes to a worst case scenario of a couple hours (for being detailed), one can scan all the frequencies between 450->470 according to your claim and control for the possible excuse as a variable in a dowsers ability. This once again is irrelevant if you conduct the testing in a faraday cage as no radio signals can be transmitted in or out.

I would also suggest you not use the word "fact" in the same sentence as dowsing. It's flat out ludicrous because dowsing has not been proven to work to begin with. It's your "opinion", far from being a "fact".

So what other excuses are there? So far we'll conduct all experimental designs in a faraday cage to control any potential signals one can claim to interfere with the dowsers ability. This is of course unless another wizard dowser on the forum contradicts this dowser.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks Musstag...I did't kown about that one. I don't know for a fact but I have heard that some metal detectors will stop some of the others from working....Can anyone tell me what having a masters degree in Statistics has to do Dowsing? ...Art

 

[xupz]

The fact is there isn't a single person on earth who's been verified as a dowser. The truth is that these people calling themselves dowsers are delusional. What does have a M.S. in Stats have to do with dowsing? Well it makes me qualified to design an experiment to verify or debunk any and all dowsers making claims. I'll simply design the experiment around all your "excuses" as to why you can't perform under testing. Once all the "excuses" are controlled for, the dowser is debunked as a fraud when he fails. The problem is though that you're dealing with delusional people whom I believe are also uneducated in scientific and academic rigors.

How about a simple poll of what degrees you dowsers have (if any)? What's your educational background? I'm just curious because I could not for the life of me imagine anyone who's been under academic scrutiny making these delusional claims without being to back it up. The last thing you do is make these kinds of claims without having done significant and methodological research into showing it's at least "possible".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

So let's hear these excuses as to why dowsers can't be tested under an experimental design?

 

[xupz]

Xupz, I call myself a ProfessionalTreasure Hunter/Salvor. Do you consider that delusional?

In my occupation, Map, Photo, and Information Dowsing have proven to be invaluable research tools.

Your criticism of me expresses your lack of experience, knowledge and wisdom. There is much the human mind is capable of learning but,

"The door to knowledge and understanding is never open to a closed, or prejudiced mind" Dell

---------------------------------------------------

Once again, I'm a statistician. You do have some concept of what we do in our jobs yes or no? This is a serious question, I would like hear what you think statisticians actually do then have the balls to call me "delusional". I'm not the one who spends more time defending your wizard tactics to the death and can't even PROVE anything. So who's the one who's delusional?

You are correct on the lack of experience. I have never dowsed. I have also never once seen any studies or experiments conducted which prove dowsing in any shape or form. Take a look at all the dowsers here. Not a single one of them has proven ANYTHING. Instead of them trying to figure out ways to validate their claims, they just simply state "oh you don't understand, I have a power". They have and will fail every single time because dowsing is a joke. My claim is that dowsing is 100% completely false and it is put forward by a bunch of delusional people who are either uneducated, delusional, or scamming. Feel free to prove me wrong, it's just as arbitrary as any of you claiming to be able to dowse yet can't prove anything. In academics and research, if you made any claim this ridiculous you had better be able to support it with data.

"ProfessionalTreasure Hunter/Salvor" What the hell degree is that? Oh, it's an "occupation". Where exactly does dowsing qualify as a research methodology?

Stating that I lack knowledge and wisdom followed up by an irrelevant quote is ignorant to say the least. Once again a dowser resorts to using a broad philosophical argument regarding a "prejudiced mind". Here's a quote of my own:

“A judicious man uses statistics, not to get knowledge, but to save himself from having ignorance foisted upon him.” - Thomas Carlyle

That quote is spot on. Now how about after 15* posts one of you dowsers actually link me to any experiments conducted, data, methods used, anything that has some actual DATA regarding performance measures on dowsing. Also will someone please list some "excuses" that may interfere with your so called dowsing abilities

 

[xupz]

WOW! I didn't expect my size 16 hillbilly snake squashers which support my Cranium computer, would be stomping on a statistician's intellectual egotism. It appears a statistician can make errors also. No where in my comment do I suggest you are delusional. That is an inference you apparently tagged for your self in your emotion.

Yes we make errors as well. Unfortunately we fully expect random error and it is in every single calculation we make from basic confidence intervals to full blown experimental design models. I still maintain that people who dowse are delusional just as they maintain it works.

Most of us are here to share our personal experiences with Dowsing. (It's a Dowsing forum) Your expectations of us on a public forum may be unrealistic. What proof of each of our individual experience would you have us provide? Certainly, nobody has asked you proof of your ability as a statistician.

This thread title was "Dowsing sceptics!", in case you missed that. Is asking for proof beyond "experiences" and "opinion" really that unreasonable to ask for? Why is it dowsers are so afraid to back their claims up? Perhaps because they'll find out they have wasted their time or be called a fraud? Like I said before, I will gladly discuss any and all statistical methodology that comes up.

I can't speakfor other Dowsers, but I am certainly not endowed with any special power, or gift. In my experience, any one with intelligence can learn to develop their mind to Dowse with a degree of accuracy. It's a slow meticulous learning process and requires patience and practice to become profecient

This is exactly my point, ambiguous claims like "degree of accuracy". You can't have a "degree of accuracy" if you have no measurements or data. There isn't even a basis for comparison on what you would consider accurate.

Research through dowsing provides me a starting point to search for a specific anomaly.

research: diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.

Seems to me your definition of research by dowsing is in opposition to what most consider "research". Obviously since you claim it is research, lets here a simple methodology you use to "search for a specific anomaly" as you put it. I mean this "research" must be based on some repeatable process in which you "believe" performs. Let's here your magical methodology and process.

I prefer to honor what Dowsing has proven to me in the field to be fact, rather than armchair statistics

Proven to you? If it has proven anything whatsoever then there was a process involved that is testable and can be repeated, otherwise "dowsing" is the equivalent of random probability. As people claim to be able to dowse, then there must in fact be a testable scenario to prove it does in fact work.

No excuses! Dowsing, may continue work for me, or it may not. I don't control the results. Each time I Dowse a location, or Information, I have no way of knowing if the target is going to be there until I see the physical results.

I'll contend it never worked to begin with, that and any "results" you stumbled upon were due to information you already had and in your own mind correlated with dowsing, or were a function of random probability of occurrence. I'll even go a step further and suggest that a "treasure hunter" who doesn't rely on magical wands to point the way is vastly more successful than one who does.

--------------------------------

I wanted to add that if you have information regarding a particular place, where something might be, completely independent of the "dowsing", and it is in that area, clearly the probability of getting a result at random is higher than if you were in a location based on no information. Perhaps "dowsers" who've actually dowsed anything were in fact already going to find something based on information such as maps etc and probable locations. The rods themselves do nothing but make them look like idiots with magical sticks.

 

[Carl-NC]

A low freq. radio signal, like that used to bug offices, can disrupt a Rod dowser's results without them knowing what is going on. It will cause a false signal (signal=L-rods crossing) when they are directly in between the Transmitter source and a metal object. The dowser would THEN Think They are Standing ON the target. I found this out, So I know others, those offerring money for proof, know of this. So you can snuff any notion of passing a test for cash.

For my challenge, I would agree to ride in a neutral vehicle to an undisclosed test site, and agree to a search. That way, it would be impossible for me to conceal a transmitter.

An alternative, is to test your claim of being able to detect an interferring transmitter. Instead of hiding a gold target, I could hide the transmitter, and you would have to dowse its location. Some details of this procedure would have to be worked out, but I think it could be done.

- Carl

 

[xupz]

I read through your link Dell, I still maintain that you had an enough information prior to "dowsing" to narrow down the location, thus increasing the probability of finding something in that area. This is completely independent of your magical wands. The photos themselves prove absolutely nothing. We have absolutely no way to correlate any "markings" you claim with the positions you dowsed. You present no map/gps coordinates prior to the pictures and you failed to mention how large the probable "dowsed" area is before you went there to take pictures.

I contend the information you had prior to any dowsing was enough to increase the probability of finding something and that something whether it be rocks or markings is in your own mind attributed as a result of the dowsing when it was not. I mean you entire thread refers to OODLES of maps, information, research and other sources beyond dowsing, yet you claim dowsing is what lead you to a particular spot.

Do you dowse blind folded or you looking at the map while you dowse?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee xupz..I read about what statistician tell us all the time. They told us all to wear seat belts in our cars and reduce death by 90%. They told us to reduce the speed limit and the death rate would go down. Didn't happen. You can design a test and have someone take it. You may or may not prove that some one can dowse.I understand those odds but you don't seem to....Art

 

[xupz]

Gee xupz..I read about what statistician tell us all the time. They told us all to wear seat belts in our cars and reduce death by 90%. They told us to reduce the speed limit and the death rate would go down. Didn't happen. You can design a test and have someone take it. You may or may not prove that some one can dowse.I understand those odds but you don't seem to....Art

Yea I happened across your posts in other threads. Your opinion is quite frankly worthless to me. You clearly understand nothing about statistics. You also clearly don't understand what experimental designs are capable of testing and what valid conclusions can be drawn from them. Since you understand odds, please enlighten me as to basic formula used to calculate odds. You're clearly an expert.

I'd like you back up each and every claim you just made regarding accidents and source your estimate for the percentage. Don't forget to factor in the increase in the number of cars on the road. You don't really have to though because I know you made them up, much like your claims of being able to dowse. All you did was make a fool of yourself with those claims.

 

[xupz]

Interesting results on this dowsing test for water:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/divining.htm

Funny how the dowsers claimed a mean success rate of ~92%, when the actual results were 13.5%.

------------------------------------

"The test of dowsing is, therefore, not whether the rod moves—but whether such movement actually shows us something we did not previously know."

Think that applies to you Dell? I certainly think so.


-----------------------------------------

Now this is a good idea of what I'm looking for:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html
http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm

Here's some more links I've googled:

http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-344.html
http://geotech.thunting.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=info.dat
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

"Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves."

 

[aarthrj3811]

Lets see...I could take a test. I may pass or fail. So thats two things that could happen. What did I prove? As far as your test report....What would the odd from a statistician be that you have not read this forum? If you had you would know that the study had been judged by Real Scientist to be flawed.

 

[xupz]

http://www.phact.org/e/dowsing.htm

 

[xupz]

Lets see...I could take a test. I may pass or fail. So thats two things that could happen. What did I prove? As far as your test report....What would the odd from a statistician be that you have not read this forum? If you had you would know that the study had been judged by Real Scientist to be flawed.

Good try at almost writing out a complete thought. Seriously though, that is some of the worst writing I've ever seen in quite a few years. What is "Real Scientist" and how do you "judge" if a design is flawed? What portion of the study are flawed? Was it the methodology? Were the assumptions not verified? What study are you even referring to? Go ahead and post another poorly written attempt at a thought or point and ignore my previous replies. Thanks.

 

[ClonedSIM]

xupz,
I admire the intelligence you've brought to this subject and the tenacity you possess when posting, but I've got to warn you that you're on a fool's errand. I should know, I've been trying for months and have met with the same results you're getting.
No matter what information or arguments or facts you bring to dowsers, they're all convinced that what they do is a hard-and-fast reality, and no amount of common sense can possibly convince them otherwise.
It's unfortunate that they have no intention of offering a shred of proof or the desire to have their "ability" tested, but that is their history. The ones that do get tested fail miserably, but this is attributed to any number of conditions (excuses) present at the time of testing.
In fact, there's only one true statistic that can even apply here. Percentage of dowsers that can perform under scrutiny: 0%. To me, that speaks volumes.

 

[xupz]

xupz,
I admire the intelligence you've brought to this subject and the tenacity you possess when posting, but I've got to warn you that you're on a fool's errand. I should know, I've been trying for months and have met with the same results you're getting.
No matter what information or arguments or facts you bring to dowsers, they're all convinced that what they do is a hard-and-fast reality, and no amount of common sense can possibly convince them otherwise.
It's unfortunate that they have no intention of offering a shred of proof or the desire to have their "ability" tested, but that is their history. The ones that do get tested fail miserably, but this is attributed to any number of conditions (excuses) present at the time of testing.
In fact, there's only one true statistic that can even apply here. Percentage of dowsers that can perform under scrutiny: 0%. To me, that speaks volumes.

Thanks for the reply, it was the first I've received with quality and substance. I did some reading last night regarding the dowsers and I'm sure you're absolutely correct. It's an uphill battle with no end in sight which has been around for centuries. From the material I've come across, this "ideometer" response seems to be a real psychological response. Dowsers tend to believe this response is more than just psychological so it must be something more than random probability when they have a response and find something, despite there hasn't been a single dowser who's ever passed a controlled experimental design. Even when they fail the test beyond any reasonable doubt, they look for excuses when there are none. Passing or failing a test of their ability is irrelevant to them as they maintain it doesn't disprove their ability, when in fact it does exactly that.

I am rather curious as to why these people are so "convinced" in their abilities when not a single dowser can prove it. I mean is it a function of education? Perhaps they don't have enough training in scientific rigors to come to the right conclusions? From what I've seen in this thread alone, they clearly don't understand the uses of experimental designs in controlling extraneous variables. Is it perhaps just the pyschological effect from the ideometer response just overpowers all logic and reason? I'm not sure if I should feel pity for these people so convinced by their own delusions or happy for them for thinking they have some extraordinary ability which makes them special.

I'm sure I'm better off not wasting my time debating with dowsers. I'd probably have better luck convincing Richard Dawkins evolution is a complete fraud :P


In my spare time though I have been working on an experimental design for properly testing the performance of metal detectors through an application of breaking strength analysis methods (logistic modeling). It'll basically come down to predicted logistic probabilities vs depth. Just have to iron out as many variables as I can control for, although the soil variable might be impossible. Maybe I'll set a site up where people can input their test bed results following the methodology and then have a map to post the results from various places around the country for different detectors. Not knowing how much depth various detectors can achieve at different settings really erks me.

Oh yea and thanks for taking the time to reply af1733, it was breath of fresh air

 

[aarthrj3811]

xupz...You and Af are great treasure hunters. I am doing some testing on some new rods today. I will start my test 8 miles south of this location -119.729 x 38.8761. Use you smart pencil and calculators and tell me what my results will be? I know other can tell me what is buried near this location so you experts should have no problem. ...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

"Most psychics and dowsers, for example, do not even realize that they need to do controlled tests of their powers to rule out the possibility that they are deceiving themselves."

Most Skeptics of dowsing, for example, do not even realize that with a simple set of coat hanger rods they can learn the truth about dowsing. They fear that they will be able to dowse. They are so afraid of what they may learn about themselves.

They want us to take a test that will prove if ONE PERSON can dowse or not. They no nothing about how dowsing works but claim they have a perfect test. That tells me that they are afraid to learn and don't have the guts to even try to dowse...Art