Eye witness reliability.

[lesjcbs]

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Dowsing skeptics like to talk about and try to make their case against dowsing based on eye witness reliability. It just so happens, this applies to their tests too, and in a big way.

A double blinded test of dowsing does nothing more than show that dowsing does not work in such a test. When it does not work they rush to judgement that it dos not work. Their eye witness reports are unreliable as they leave out and do not want to see, or take into account the targets that are being found by dowsers, dowsing out in the field. The recovered targets testify and are concrete proof dowsing works, no matter how it works, or what happens in tests. How it works does not matter and never will. Now if nothing was found in the field when dowsing, then skeptics would have a case, but they don't.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[N/A]

When I was a kid in the 70's/80's I work for a landscaper who used dowsing to find water/gas/electrical lines prior to digging. One day I turned around and saw him doing it when I chuckled and asked WTHeck are you doing? He explained and then handed me the rods. I was fascinated that it worked and from then on out when underground hazards need to be found he asked me to do it.

Will the method find gold? I imagine it will because gold is one of the best conductors of electricity known to man

 

[aarthrj3811]

When I was a kid in the 70's/80's I work for a landscaper who used dowsing to find water/gas/electrical lines prior to digging. One day I turned around and saw him doing it when I chuckled and asked WTHeck are you doing? He explained and then handed me the rods. I was fascinated that it worked and from then on out when underground hazards need to be found he asked me to do it.

There hundreds of stories like yours. One of my sons has spent almost 30 years working for a water company. When a team needs help he is the first they call..Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... based on eye witness reliability.....

If you re-read the couple of comments about that, I believe you will see that those posters did not say that "eye witness" accounts (eg.: personal testimony) are always unreliable. After all: Our court-systems are FILLED with cases where, yes, eye-witnesses testify as to what they saw, etc.... That shows the value of eye-witness accounts.

The only thing we were saying is: That eyewitness accounts (personally testimonies) don't stand alone. Like in court-cases, they are just one of the forms of evidence introduced. Or that if "testimonies" were conflicting, then there'd be immediate concerns about reliability. This is where a prosecutor hopes to add physical evidence on top of whatever testimonials he can gather.

So too is it with the subject at hand. Like bigfoot or Lochness sightings (by very sincere people): It would be one thing to get people to say they saw it. Ok, that's compelling. But it would be quite another thing to get photographs, capture one for study, etc.....

 

[lesjcbs]

In felony trials, where beyond a reasonable doubt is shown, the verdict is not guilty. In civil cases, it is responsible or not responsible. But, in both, where there is doubt, the decision is ALWAYS in favor of the defendant. The dowsing finds trumps test results, making the defendant, dowsing, not guilty or not responsible and goes free.

 

[Doubter in MD]

In felony trials, where beyond a reasonable doubt is shown, the verdict is not guilty. In civil cases, it is responsible or not responsible. But, in both, where there is doubt, the decision is ALWAYS in favor of the defendant. The dowsing finds trumps test results, making the defendant, dowsing, not guilty or not responsible and goes free.

In a criminal trial, felony or otherwise, if reasonable doubt is shown, the verdict should be "Not Guilty". If there is no reasonable doubt, the verdict should be "Guilty".

 

[lesjcbs]

In a criminal trial, felony or otherwise, if reasonable doubt is shown, the verdict should be "Not Guilty". If there is no reasonable doubt, the verdict should be "Guilty".

No it is not the same in all trials. You are wrong. I know, I was a pro-temp judge for several years. For civil, it is a percentage factor (50/50, 51/49, 49/51). In a felony trial it is the doubt factor. The dowsing find shows the double blinded test lacking as the dowsing finds are solid tangible proof that it works. Now if nothing was found while dowsing in the field, then the double blinded test would win, NO DOUBT about it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The dowsing find shows the double blinded test lacking as the dowsing finds are solid tangible proof that it works.... .

Something's not adding up here. If the a) dowsing finds are solid tangible proof, and b) there is no doubt that many testimonials abound for finds, then c) why WOULDN'T the double blind test therefore work (ie.: be "lacking") ?

Well, There is no shortage of reasons why double- blind tests are not possible to perform.

 

[aarthrj3811]

why WOULDN'T the double blind test therefore work (ie.: be "lacking") ?

Gee Tom...We offered to provide the dowsers , Now where are your 50 non dowsers and the 1/2 million dollars. We know we can dowse so now the ball is in your court...Art

 

[Doubter in MD]

No it is not the same in all trials. You are wrong. I know, I was a pro-temp judge for several years. For civil, it is a percentage factor (50/50, 51/49, 49/51). In a felony trial it is the doubt factor. The dowsing find shows the double blinded test lacking as the dowsing finds are solid tangible proof that it works. Now if nothing was found while dowsing in the field, then the double blinded test would win, NO DOUBT about it.

No. You are wrong. I said nothing about a civil trial and I understand that the burden of proof is different in a civil trial. You keep referring to "felony" trials and I corrected it to "criminal" which is more accurate. Not all crimes are felonies.

In addition, you said, "In felony trials, where beyond a reasonable doubt is shown, the verdict is not guilty.". This is also wrong based on my interpretation of the statement. If something is shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt then the verdict should be "guilty". You state that it should be "not guilty".

 

[lesjcbs]

In the United States, the felony / misdemeanor distinction is widely applied. The federal government defines a felony as a crime so serious; the punishment is by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. Felony and criminal can mean the same thing. Where I live, depending on who you are talking with, both terms can be used. A traffic ticket is a misdemeanor. Murder is a criminal or felony offence. Felony requires beyond a shadow of doubt for guilty and to convict, but in a misdemeanor case, it is the preponderance of the evidence (50 / 50, 49 / 51, 51 / 49).
Civil trials handles misdemeanors and criminal trials deal with felonies.