My today's dowsing finds.

[boogeyman]

I am what is called a Physical dowser. I use no metal action . so if you want to give dowsing a try
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/dowsing/10838-want-try-dowsing.html

don't be afraid because the boogie man will not come

Who says I won't?
Sorry Arthur couldn't resist!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

For the most part I only look for gold. I will use any and all tools needed to get the job done. Tom is right about the visual clue’s sometime. When looking for a Spanish sunken ship you would not look for it in the middle of Kansas. You look in an area where your efforts may be rewarded.....
Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

When you have been out hunting are you sure you checked the whole area? It may be that you missed a treasure by 10 foot. If you knew how to Dowse you would be sure that there was not a big treasure worth enough to pay all your expenses for a few months...Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

When you have been out hunting are you sure you checked the whole area? It may be that you missed a treasure by 10 foot. If you knew how to Dowse you would be sure that there was not a big treasure worth enough to pay all your expenses for a few months...Art

Couldn't the same be said of any md'r as well ? Even w/o a dowsing rod ?

If he or anyone fails to "branch out in ever-widening 10 ft. circles", he "might miss a big treasure" ? And if the dowser or md'r branched out further, and scored something big, then in that case, it was random odds. And not dowsing rods that led him to it. Eh ?

 

[MadTom]

I'm sensing a lot of negativity towards dowsing. I've never done it and probably never will. But, on a job I was doing years ago we were trying to find a old water line. One of the guys said he would dowse it. He found it, it was a four inch line, six feet down. He might of been off by a foot or so.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I'm sensing a lot of negativity towards dowsing. I've never done it and probably never will. But, on a job I was doing years ago we were trying to find a old water line. One of the guys said he would dowse it. He found it, it was a four inch line, six feet down. He might of been off by a foot or so.

That is a common story that told to use all the time

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That is a common story that told to use all the time

And it's a bummer that

a) it can't be replicated when tested in double blind scientific tests. Even with the highest best acclaimed dowsers. And...

b) that this is treasurenet, not water-net.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I think every homeowner should know where his underground utilities are. I have found underground power lines under a patio. I have found trees over sewer lines.

 

[aarthrj3811]

If he or anyone fails to "branch out in ever-widening 10 ft. circles", he "might miss a big treasure" ? And if the dowser or md'r branched out further, and scored something big, then in that case, it was random odds. And not dowsing rods that led him to it. Eh ?

Gee.I don’t walk in circles. If you took a set of dowsing and walked a line until you found a signal and followed it you would increase ood's of not missing a big target. I have found a lot treasure in bushes where it is impossible to swing your tool...Art

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom:

Mine and Aarts' dowsing finds over the years show there is something really wrong with testing dowsing via the double blinded method. Also, the claim that dowsers can read the ground and thereby know where a target is, is wrong, at least for me. My major in college is English literature, not reading the ground for treasure. If I could read the ground like that, I would not use dowsing rods or my metal detector. I would pack up my shovel, my pick etc and head out. But, thanks to skeptics for the compliment anyway.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Mine and Aarts' dowsing finds over the years show there is something really wrong with testing dowsing via the double blinded method......

Yes. And the question is: What is "wrong" with that testing. "Testing" is heralded as the right way to go about figuring out whether or not something will work. Right ? Ok, so the ball's in your court: Why doesn't the testing work ?

Interestingly, your post seems to be an admission that dowsing has failed the testing (yes? no ?)

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes. And the question is: What is "wrong" with that testing. "Testing" is heralded as the right way to go about figuring out whether or not something will work. Right ? Ok, so the ball's in your court: Why doesn't the testing work ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment
A blind — or blinded — experiment is an experiment in which information about the test is masked (kept) from the participant, to reduce or eliminate bias, until after a trial outcome is known.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is understood that bias may be intentional or unconscious, thus no dishonesty is implied by blinding. If both tester and subject are blinded, the trial is called a double-blind experiment.
Blind testing is used wherever items are to be compared without influences from testers' preferences or expectations, for example in clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of medicinal drugs and procedures without placebo effect, observer bias, or conscious deception; and comparative testing of commercial products to objectively assess user preferences without being influenced by branding and other properties not being tested.
Blinding can be imposed on researchers, technicians, or subjects. The opposite of a blind trial is an open trial. Blind experiments are an important tool of the scientific method, in many fields of research—medicine, psychology and the social sciences, natural sciences such as physics and biology, applied sciences such as market research, and many others. In some disciplines, such as medicinal drug testing, blind experiments are considered essential.
Could you tell us where the results from a real Double Blind can be found

 

[Tpmetal]

you know if you throw enough poop at the wall, something is bound to stick, kinda how i see dowsing. you randomly try and find something enough your bound to get lucky. I as well need hard proof, which I have never found. You're ignoring everything humans used to evolve to what we are today. We evolved by making decisions based on solid findings. If something couldn't produce results reliably when we needed it to, it was not used. Untill i am presented with solid evidence it's all just mumbo jumbo to me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Art, thanx for the wiki entry for the definition of double-blind (aka "blinded") testing. And from your final sentence, I take that to mean you're asking me (us) where any such tests have been done ? But you are already on record (I can quote/link you, if you like) as saying that you don't read the writings/links of skeptics. Hence I fear that any "test" I can link you to, where the results came out negative on dowsing, will be chalked-up-by-you as being from skeptics. Hence summarily dismissed out of hand.

Any such links to tests given in the past, has always been dismissed by dowsers as somehow unfair, rigged, magnets in pockets, solar flairs that day, hostility that skewed the rods, etc....

So before I give you any links, this forum needs your solemn promise that you will accept the results, and change your views accordingly. If you have utterly no intention of going where the evidence leads/points, then ........ why are you asking to see the proof ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes. And the question is: What is "wrong" with that testing. "Testing" is heralded as the right way to go about figuring out whether or not something will work. Right ? Ok, so the ball's in your court: Why doesn't the testing work ?
Did you see the entire test. The answer is NO

Interestingly, your post seems to be an admission that dowsing has failed the testing (yes? no ?)
I never saw a Dower fail the test
Yes. And the question is: What is "wrong" with that testing. "Testing" is heralded as the right way to go about figuring out whether or not something will work. Right ? Ok, so the ball's in your court: Why doesn't the testing work ?

Did you see the entire test. The answer is NO

Interestingly, your post seems to be an admission that dowsing has failed the testing (yes? no ?)

I never saw a Dower fail the test

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....Did you see the entire test. The answer is NO

Did you see the entire test. The answer is NO ....

Not sure what you are driving at here. What "test" are you talking about ? Are you talking about the "tests" you linked in post #94 ? If so, yes, I read that entire link. I answered it with a counter-link answering that in post #96. It addresses your link in detail. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking about here ?

..... I never saw a Dower fail the test

And did you see what I said about this ? I said you would simply dismiss the results out of hand. Right ? You will find some way to say it was "unfair" or "rigged" , etc..... Right ?

If you commit ahead of time NOT to do this, and you commit to go where the evidence points, then I will show you where "dowsers failed the test". Agreed ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I never saw a Dower fail the test

Oh, I think I understand this quote now. You were quoting me, when I had paraphrased lesjcb's admission. Right ? HE was the one saying that dowsing had failed double blind tests. So rather than saying that dowsing PASSES the tests, he admits they DON'T pass the test. Quite a telling admission, eh ? Not that this changes his views mind-you. He just goes on, from there (if I understood him correctly) to say it is a practice/art/skill *not bound* by such testing. Ie.: can't be measured by such tests. And so .... those tests can't dis-prove it.

Kind of like trying to weight a chicken with a yard-stick: Wrong tool for measuring.

Whereas you are saying dowsing *does* pass double blind scientific studies. Right ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Not sure what you are driving at here. What "test" are you talking about ? Are you talking about the "tests" you linked in post #94 ? If so, yes, I read that entire link. I answered it with a counter-link answering that in post #96. It addresses your link in detail. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking about here ?

No. It was the Randi tests

And did you see what I said about this ? I said you would simply dismiss the results out of hand. Right ? You will find some way to say it was "unfair" or "rigged" , etc..... Right ?

I said ...they did not show the entire test

If you commit ahead of time NOT to do this, and you commit to go where the evidence points, then I will show you where "dowsers failed the test". Agreed ?

Show me

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... I said ...they did not show the entire test ....

Really ? If they edited out parts which showed that dowsing DID work, I would very much like to know about this. Can you refer me to where I can read this ? Ie.: a link etc.... ? I am totally open to the fact that a dowsing test done somewhere was, in fact, was edited unfairly. And I will dedicate time to get to the bottom of it, with an open mind.

HOWEVER: I will only do so if the reverse reciprocal will be true as well: If I show you that nothing (of substance) was edited out, then will you change your views ? And by "of substance", what I mean is that: OF COURSE anything that is made for TV or youtube or whatever, will, of course, be cut down for continuity. Eg.: if someone picks their nose, or there is small talk of no importance, etc.... then , sure: Anybody making a movie or documentary, etc... does editing. But the question here is: Was something left out that had any substantive effect on the outcome of the tests ?

Before I research your proof on this, I need your promise that if this notion is dis-proven, that you will change your views. Agreed ? Otherwise, I would simply be wasting my time. The open-mindedness has to work both ways.

Re.: showing you where dowsers failed a test, you say:

.....Show me

I repeat: I need your solemn promise that if I do, that you will not dismiss it out of hand. You are already on record as saying you won't read the writings of skeptics. So a part of me is thinking "why bother? He'll just dismiss it and say it was rigged, or unfair, or solar flares, or magnets in pockets, of edited-out-evidence, or "I don't read skeptics", or the dowsers they chose weren't qualified/good enough", etc....

So what assurance do I have from you, that this is doing any good ? That you will change your views in light of evidence ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Anything made by Randi is just a commercial to get donations.