General Comments

[aarthrj3811]

Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — sometimes unwelcome beliefs in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge.[1]

So far I give you guys a F in your attempts to chance our believes. You see there is a little thing called knowledge that stands in your way. The fact that you have no knowledge about dowsing is quite evident. When proof is presented and you go on with the same old theories is a true measure of your knowledge of the subject. How many times do you think we will be fooled by the line (I am an open minded person) You may try to hide who you are but alas….you always’s give yourself away. These facts leads me to believe that you have been Bainwashed.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

You missed a couple, Jerry, but I'm glad to see you're back.

How about:
Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true "You can't prove dowsing doesn't work!"
or
Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case "I once found something with dowsing, so it must work all the time!"
or
Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients):
snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior. "Dowsing has been around for 1,000's of years!"
or
Argument To The Future:
arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point. Self-explanatory when applied to dowsing.
or
Appeal To Authority:
"Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." Again, the exact argument used more than once by dowsers.

This link was just a wealth of knowledge showing that most arguments that dowsers use are attempts at "brainwashing," as you call it, Art. Thanks!

(Do you actually read what is contained in these links before you post them, Art?)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Art, I sympathize with you. I know you've got lots of data, theories, counter-points, etc.. going back and forth. I don't think anyone here is trying to brainwash anyone. At least for me, I just want to know what dowser's think makes dowsing "tick". And I want to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. To say that anyone who questions another persons assertions is trying to "brainwash" them, is a kind tough.

I live in an area of the USA that never gets snow. As such, when I was a kid growing up, most of us that never even seen snow, when we were still grammar school aged. One winter day, it hailed so thick, that it stayed on the ground for most of the night, and into the next day. It looked like snow, and for those of us who'd never seen snow, we thought: "oh boy! It snowed". The next day in school, the teacher told some of us boys who were talking about the "snow", that it wasn't actually snow. She tried to tell us it was "hail", and that snow looked and felt entirely different. I still remember one classmate who firmly believed the teacher was a kill-joy, up to no good. He stood there, steadfast, insisting it had "snowed" at his house. Now to HIM, the teacher is trying to brainswash the class. He is being dealt a string of facts and definitions, to contradict his conclusions, and he doesn't like it.

I see your post as the same thing. It's like you've got a conclusion, and anyone who counters it, is obviously up to no good. Trying to "brainwash" you. Yeah, it could be that, or maybe .... just maybe .... there's truth in what you're being told?

 

[aarthrj3811]

You seem to have a mental block when it comes to the word knowledge

 

[ClonedSIM]

You seem to have a mental block when it comes to the word knowledge

Believe it or not, Art, knowledge isn't defined by how often you post links to someone else's work or definitions from Wikipedia. It's how you apply that information. If you really understood half of the stuff you posted here, you could see that there is little to no evidence that supports dowsing and some of the ridiculous causes for it that are flung around here. Instead, you revert back to one or two core arguments, or you just start a brand new thread in the hopes that it will make your point of view seem more reasonable and valid.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Believe it or not, Art, knowledge isn't defined by how often you post links to someone else's work or definitions from Wikipedia. It's how you apply that information. If you really understood half of the stuff you posted here, you could see that there is little to no evidence that supports dowsing and some of the ridiculous causes for it that are flung around here. Instead, you revert back to one or two core arguments, or you just start a brand new thread

in the hopes that it will make your point of view seem more reasonable and valid.

No AF…The proof is on this forum….What is missing is the fact that the naysayer’s have not posted any proof. You need to understand that your posts are proof of nothing ..Just the words of some guy who owns a computer…

 

[ClonedSIM]

Believe it or not, Art, knowledge isn't defined by how often you post links to someone else's work or definitions from Wikipedia. It's how you apply that information. If you really understood half of the stuff you posted here, you could see that there is little to no evidence that supports dowsing and some of the ridiculous causes for it that are flung around here. Instead, you revert back to one or two core arguments, or you just start a brand new thread

in the hopes that it will make your point of view seem more reasonable and valid.

No AF…The proof is on this forum….What is missing is the fact that the naysayer’s have not posted any proof. You need to understand that your posts are proof of nothing ..Just the words of some guy who owns a computer…

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word knowledge, either, Art. Everything that a skeptic posts here can be found at dozens of different sources, because skeptics tend to be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking.

 

[aarthrj3811]

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word knowledge, either, Art. Everything that a skeptic posts here can be found at dozens of different sources, because skeptics tend to be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking.

But you will not post them on this “FORUM” What are you afraid of if you have sources post them…..You want us to proof you are not right about Dowsing when in fact you will not give us proof that anything you say is a fact.. .Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word knowledge, either, Art. Everything that a skeptic posts here can be found at dozens of different sources, because skeptics tend to be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking.

But you will not post them on this “FORUM” What are you afraid of if you have sources post them…..You want us to proof you are not right about Dowsing when in fact you will not give us proof that anything you say is a fact.. .Art

They're facts, Art! They're everywhere! You just have to open your eyes and look at them! Pick any random post from a skeptic, and research the information within. You'll find there is information aplenty that agrees with that post. Why do we not continually post the same links over and over again? Look at your own posts! You ignore it all, Art!

Skeptics aren't the ones posting incorrect information and/or completely making things up using false logic! Dowsers are the ones doing that!

There is a reason skeptics have to ask the dowsers for the source of their information.

Do you know that reason?

Because a skeptic will look at a dowser's claim, research the statements, come up empty, then come back to the dowser to see where the information originally came from!

Do you understand this?

 

[aarthrj3811]

They're facts, Art! They're everywhere! You just have to open your eyes and look at them! Pick any random post from a skeptic, and research the information within. You'll find there is information aplenty that agrees with that post. Why do we not continually post the same links over and over again? Look at your own posts! You ignore it all, Art!

Skeptics aren't the ones posting incorrect information and/or completely making things up using false logic! Dowsers are the ones doing that!

There is a reason skeptics have to ask the dowsers for the source of their information.

Do you know that reason?

Because a skeptic will look at a dowser's claim, research the statements, come up empty, then come back to the dowser to see where the information originally came from!

Do you understand this?

Yes I do….You refuse to put PROOF on this forum….Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HOI AFL you wrote --->

"because skeptics tend to be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry af, while you are close, you didn't get the gold ring. Sceptics tend to be grounded in ------

"STATUS QO" ---

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[ClonedSIM]

They're facts, Art! They're everywhere! You just have to open your eyes and look at them! Pick any random post from a skeptic, and research the information within. You'll find there is information aplenty that agrees with that post. Why do we not continually post the same links over and over again? Look at your own posts! You ignore it all, Art!

Skeptics aren't the ones posting incorrect information and/or completely making things up using false logic! Dowsers are the ones doing that!

There is a reason skeptics have to ask the dowsers for the source of their information.

Do you know that reason?

Because a skeptic will look at a dowser's claim, research the statements, come up empty, then come back to the dowser to see where the information originally came from!

Do you understand this?

Yes I do….You refuse to put PROOF on this forum….Art

So you don't understand it, then?

Try this.

Dowsers post incorrect logic. Skeptics reseach their claims, and find nothing.

Skeptics post facts. Dowsers don't like facts, so they ask for proof without doing any work on their own.

Do I need to slow it down for you?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Skeptics post facts. Dowsers don't like facts, so they ask for proof without doing any work on their own.

Gee AF....I have looked. The only place I can find any information that you state is from uninform people....No test---no studies----Just people ranting about the same old tired non facts....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Skeptics post facts. Dowsers don't like facts, so they ask for proof without doing any work on their own.

Gee AF....I have looked. The only place I can find any information that you state is from uninform people....No test---no studies----Just people ranting about the same old tired non facts....Art

If you had actually looked for the facts, Art, you would have found them.

Try again.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Albert Einstein famously remarked in a letter to Max Born: Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der Alte nicht würfelt. (I am convinced that God does not play dice).

These remarks were made about Random Chance …Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Albert Einstein famously remarked in a letter to Max Born: Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der Alte nicht würfelt. (I am convinced that God does not play dice).

These remarks were made about Random Chance …Art

Appeal To Authority:
"Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory."

I'm sorry, you were saying?

 

[aarthrj3811]

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

Try to change the subject again...Alright Boss....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

Try to change the subject again...Alright Boss....Art

Knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Very important wording in your rant, Art. Do you understand what it means?

(PS: It's not referring to Einstein.)

 

[aarthrj3811]

Knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

You forgot part of it…consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

You forgot part of it…consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.

Sure, throw that on in. Doesn't change a thing.

You do realize that the person asserting it refers to the person who is using it as evidence, right? Not the person who originally made the quote.

So, when you use something Einstein once said as evidence that you believe somehow backs up your viewpoint, it calls into question you own authority, knowledge and position, none of which rate highly here.