Dowsing sceptics!

[aarthrj3811]

The reason you had trouble trying the knot slowly is you had tied that knot quickly your whole life once you learned how, and could do it without thinking about it. This does not mean it was your sub-conscience taking over.
I never have to think about taking my keys out of my pocket and unlocking the door and sitting down and starting my car, because I know this process by rote, not because it is my sub-conscience slipping behind the wheel.

Thanks af1676...You just proved my point. The above are all trained responses...Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

The reason you had trouble trying the knot slowly is you had tied that knot quickly your whole life once you learned how, and could do it without thinking about it. This does not mean it was your sub-conscience taking over.
I never have to think about taking my keys out of my pocket and unlocking the door and sitting down and starting my car, because I know this process by rote, not because it is my sub-conscience slipping behind the wheel.

Thanks af1676...You just proved my point. The above are all trained responses...Art

Trained in what way, Art, in the practice of logic? Think carefully. And try to come up with an original response for once, don't just ask a bunch of pointless questions and repeat previous posts.

 

[ClonedSIM]

xupz,
That's what it boils down to anyway, right?
Dowsers are aware that in a testing situation that involves keeping records of actual results, there is no way they can prove dowsing to be more accurate than pure chance. This is why they have so many excuses for not being tested. They will not allow themselves to be tested, unless it is blatantly apparent that the test is designed in such a way that they cannot possibly fail.
I guess we can take comfort in the fact that the bulk of the population of the world has enough education to realize the bunk they are passing off, a smaller portion does not have the education but has the common sense to realize this, and the tiny sliver of the remainder ore the dowsers themselves.

 

[lucky1777]

Just my opinion, but when you call people names and make fun of handicap people it makes YOU look uneducated.

 

[jeff of pa]

Just my opinion, but when you call people names and make fun of handicap people it makes YOU look uneducated.

And it gets Posts Deleted when I see it

 

[xupz]

You know what? I couldn't care less. I've made my point clear and this thread is pointless. It's no longer entertaining and I'm done bothering.

GG.

 

[Gluk]

well i think to determine wether or not a dowser has ever "proven himself", one must first know the context by which the word "proof" is being used.

for example it is widely known that if somone stands near a dowser while he tries to work and DESIRES the dowser to fail, those mental signals will be unintentionally picked up by the dowser, and thus, disrupt his dowsing.

however, if one refers to proof as an instance where the dowser suceeded... lets say 10 or more times in a row in his first attempts, i think all one has to do is look (and try to look) and the findings should be as such... But, one must consider the falsities and baised results of tests, including those of skeptics, as well as people who just really want dowsing to work and rig the study.

 

[ClonedSIM]

well i think to determine wether or not a dowser has ever "proven himself", one must first know the context by which the word "proof" is being used.

for example it is widely known that if somone stands near a dowser while he tries to work and DESIRES the dowser to fail, those mental signals will be unintentionally picked up by the dowser, and thus, disrupt his dowsing.

I think by "proof," we mean better-than-chance. For example, finding a coin under ten coffee mugs by chance or guessing would lead to approximately a 10% success rate. I believe a dowser, comfortable with their skills, should be able to rate much higher, perhaps 60-70% success.

I can't say I agree with you that the thoughts of a nearby person can thwart a dowser, but how about having a disinterested third party monitor the testing, while any skeptics can be either watching remotely via CCTV or perhaps just at a distance from the testing site?

however, if one refers to proof as an instance where the dowser suceeded... lets say 10 or more times in a row in his first attempts, i think all one has to do is look (and try to look) and the findings should be as such... But, one must consider the falsities and baised results of tests, including those of skeptics, as well as people who just really want dowsing to work and rig the study.

That's a thought with some merit, Gluk.
How about a test designed and agreed upon by both parties prior to testing? This would prevent any bias. The results would also have to be agreed upon as well, I imagine.

 

[aarthrj3811]

This is a very interesting concept. Where can one follow-up on this claim of mental telepathy, and how is it widely known? Is there a published study of this phenomenon?

Hey SWR...Where have you been....Have you every read the comments that we found the object because someone knew where it was or that we found it because some ones actions gave us the location. Read Carls test protocol and see how he feels about this subject. It works both ways they say. When some one is with me I am told I found the object because of the other guy. When I am by myself the story is that I can't prove I found it. Art

Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

Formal debate in education
In English speaking societies, rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and colleges. This is a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for"), or opposed to ("against"), a statement (proposition) which if adopted would change something.
Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are
required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.
To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.
The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to destroy; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or destroyed after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short. Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them.

[

 

[Carl-NC]

This is a very interesting concept. Where can one follow-up on this claim of mental telepathy, and how is it widely known? Is there a published study of this phenomenon?

"Widely known" is a relative term. Dowsing is "widely known" to be an effective way to obtain unknown information... by dowsers. But dowsing is also "widely known" to be an excercise in self-deception... by scientists.

Sometime when you have an hour or so to burn, visit some of the "alternate science" web sites... there you will find "widely known" Tesla techniques, "widely known" perpetual motion machines, "widely known" UFO levitation engines, and "widely known" conspiratorial cover-ups. It's all very entertaining.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

Sometime when you have an hour or so to burn, visit some of the "alternate science" web sites... there you will find "widely known" Tesla techniques, "widely known" perpetual motion machines, "widely known" UFO levitation engines, and "widely known" conspiratorial cover-ups. It's all very entertaining.

It may be entertaining but what would scientists who are experts on Tesla, perpetual motion machines etc. know about Dowsing. They would be no more of an expert than a ditch digger and know far less than a Dowser...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Sometime when you have an hour or so to burn, visit some of the "alternate science" web sites... there you will find "widely known" Tesla techniques, "widely known" perpetual motion machines, "widely known" UFO levitation engines, and "widely known" conspiratorial cover-ups. It's all very entertaining.

It may be entertaining but what would scientists who are experts on Tesla, perpetual motion machines etc. know about Dowsing. They would be no more of an expert than a ditch digger and know far less than a Dowser...Art

Show me one scientist that has come up with a working Perpetual Motion Machine.

 

[Carl-NC]

It may be entertaining but what would scientists who are experts on Tesla, perpetual motion machines etc. know about Dowsing. They would be no more of an expert than a ditch digger and know far less than a Dowser...Art

I posted in another thread an article that I highly recommend folks read, at least once a year:

Click Here​

A point well-made is:

The usual causes of pseudoscience fantasies include…

Extreme hubris that fails to recognize the lifetime commitments
that untold thousands of scientists and engineers have made.
Like it or not, at least some of these people are rocket
scientists. They are a lot smarter than you are.

- Carl

 

[Bill]

Greetings Carl,
Could you answer a question for me please? Do you believe that the US Gov't used what is known as "remote viewers" back in the '70's and '80's? Just a one word answer will suffice.
Bill

 

[aarthrj3811]

Show me one scientist that has come up with a working Perpetual Motion Machine.

Your the one that is always yell....Scientfic Testing by a Magician...Art

 

[Siegfried Schlagrule]

Simply put because I don't recall the specifics. I believe the process now called "double blind" was specifically put in effect due to scientists finding the results they thought they would find. Now if expectation can create unreliable results why can't deliberately poisoning the psychic well create unreliable results? If intent can not cause problems then why can dowsing instructors implant streams in the middle of convention floors as learning devices for new dowsers? As to an "unbiased" observer who is to say who is unbiased? Better to lay out your tests and set up an automatic movie camera sending a signal to a remote tamper proof location. If you want to hide a coin under ten cups set up each test you want on a different table and film as each coin is dowsed and each cup is turned over. That way the sceptic can't caim that the film had been altered or modified and the dowser doesn't have to deal with the distractions and distortions. I return you now to your regular anti-dowsing programing. siegfried schlagrule

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks for the article Carl...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Greetings Carl,
Could you answer a question for me please? Do you believe that the US Gov't used what is known as "remote viewers" back in the '70's and '80's? Just a one word answer will suffice.
Bill

Even through the mid-90's.

Is this a query into the wisdom of the federal government?

- Carl

 

[Captain Trips]

Greetings Carl,
Could you answer a question for me please? Do you believe that the US Gov't used what is known as "remote viewers" back in the '70's and '80's? Just a one word answer will suffice.
Bill

Come on! Everyone knows the answer to that question is "yes!" The CIA has admitted to having done so.

A better question would ask towards the conclusions of such attempts. They also publicly admitted that they dropped "remote viewing" because it was shown to be completely useless to them.

Your question is like asking, "was an experiment performed?" This question is really meaningless unless you also ask "what were the results of the experiments?" So, saying "Tell me yes or no -- do you believe experiments were performed" is a semantically null question. The answer is not a yes/no situation, as it ignores the real point of the question, examining the results of said experiments. To put it more simply, it obfuscates the issue.

A good example is this: "Tell me yes or no -- have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If you are only allowed to answer "yes or no" then you damn yourself either way.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Great post, Trips!