My today's dowsing finds.

[Tom_in_CA]

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

Heaven forbid someone should make a living. How does a profit-motive dis-qualify the results ? So rather that refute any data, methods, conclusions, test results, etc.... , this is all you have to say ? And thus it will not work to give you any reports, links, etc.... I will add this to your easy-to-reach-for repertoire of dismissal reasons. Ie.: "that person is just in it for money", eh ? Up along-side "rigged", "unfair", "solar flares" "un-qualified dowser test subjects", "magnets in pockets", etc....

Does it occur to you that you will forever be "moving the goal-posts"? Such that NO AMOUNT of evidence will ever convince you ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Heaven forbid someone should make a living. How does a profit-motive dis-qualify the results ? So rather that refute any data, methods, conclusions, test results, etc.... , this is all you have to say ?

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.

Does it occur to you that you will forever be "moving the goal-posts"? Such that NO AMOUNT of evidence will ever convince you ?

Every time I use my rods I am convinced they work...I have always answered the questions for the past 15 years. The proof is on the Dowsing forum. I have been Dowsing the whole time...Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... 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]....

Sure. Ok. So what's the point ? Isn't this exactly what we want ? To ensure the tests are accurate ? I don't get your point.

....Every time I use my rods I am convinced they work...

No doubt. But could it be that all of those "every times" you don't consider "more plausible explanations" ?

And while "personal testimony" is great, yet ultimately, don't we evaluate our "personal testimonies" in light of truth ? Rather than vise versa: Deciding truth by the standard of "personal testimony" ? Otherwise: There are people with "personal testimonies" who think they are Napoleon. Or that crystal balls have accurately told the future. Or that they saw Elvis or Bigfoot etc....

 

[lesjcbs]

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 ?)

It is not a matter of “why doesn't the testing work? It is a question is the test applicable or not to the subject matter? In this case it is not as the testers are looking to see if the dowsing rods will act like electronic metal detectors, and they do not.

Even though dowsers have “suckered to” and agreed to taking double blinded tests of the type and style sponsored by James Randy and others like him, the challengers know the dowser has experienced many successful dowsing sessions and feels extremely confident about their ability. So much so they feel they can find anything all the time,anywhere, regardless of the circumstances. Knowing this human tendency, the challengers play on it. It is the moment of being analogize to the slight of hand in magic tricks and key to the dowsers failure.


Let the challengers tag along with the dowser out into the field where nothing has been placed before hand as the target to find, or waterlines laid down side by side in a laboratory type fashion to see which row the water is in etc and see how the dowser does.


The history of dowsing used as a means and method to locate targets, even precious metals, is an established undeniable fact in world history. Yet, today, there are those who will do anything in their power to change that fact. These people are forever learning (Testing), but will never come to a knowledge of the truth.


BTW,at the end of that video you put up, after all failed to find the water line, all still said dowsing works. The reason is they and they alone know what their record is and it would be more than foolish to deny or doubt it and that is what James Randy and others like him are trying to get them to do, of course, in the name of science and that gives science a bad name.

Remember,James Randy is a magician and uses his knowledge and skill to deceive people.

 

[tinpan]

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

Hi I donot believe that a wealthy philanthropist Dick Smith made the production for money but to expose fakes that take money by telling lies. TInpan

 

[lesjcbs]

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 ?

When I said dowsers have never passed a double blinded dowsing est, I was quoting what testers have said. It also goes with out saying, but I will say it anyway, if dowsers had passed a double blinded test in the past, we would not be having this conversation.

BTW,the explanation given by wikipedia about double blinded tests that Aart posted says; “Blind testing is used wherever items are to be compared without influences from testers' preferences or expectations,...”


I did not see what their dowsing was being compared to in the dowsing water test Mr. Randy sponsored in Australia?


It is clear the testers' (Mr. Randy) preferences or expectations are that the dowser will fail.

 

[suberdave]

I had a red eared slider turtle escape my pond. Got my rod out and it led me rite to the turtle. L [emoji217]

 

[Tom_in_CA]

lesjcbs, I have read your explanation . I see that you have not glossed over the fact that there were attempts to make the tests fair and impartial. You acknowledge that the dowsers themselves made the claims on how it works. And under what circumstances it can be tested, their abilities, etc.... Rather than an "unfair" test on the part of the challengers, you agree that it's simply going by the claims and standards of the dowsers themselves . Ok.

But then you distance yourself from the fairness of this, by saying that the dowsers were then "suckered" into the test. By the challengers preying on this confidence. As if to imply that the challengers knew that the "circumstances" of the test would be different (subtly, yet enough to cause the failure). And that the testers were using "magic tricks", etc...

Then, pray-tell, how can it ever be tested ? No matter HOW much the dowsers are quizzed ahead of time about the requirements of settings, etc.. And no matter HOW MUCH the two sides mutually agree ahead of time , .... then upon failure: What's to stop the dowsers from saying the very things you are saying now ? It sounds like a "convenient" fall-back, eh ?

So what test (beyond "personal testimony" ) can ever be done ? Apparently none.

..... dowsing used as a means and method to locate targets, even precious metals, is an established undeniable fact...

Really ? Beyond "personal testimony" ? If there is anything besides personal testimony that can show this, I would very much like to see it. I would accept "personal testimony" if it did not have any accompanying "more plausible explanations". But the minute anything is done to rule out such more-plausible-explanations, is the minute the dowser will cry "foul", right ? Because that's the "minute" it becomes a "test". Andi s therefore the minute the fall-back lines get rolled out.

..... undeniable fact in world history. ...

The thing I see as "undeniable fact of world history", is that many people *claim* (personal testimony) to be able to do it. Yet can never show or prove it beyond personal testimony claims. It's their sincere beliefs. Which do not take into account more-plausible-explanations. So for example, your coins and aluminum in the park: Some persons would consider the "more plausible explanation" to be that : The random odds of going to any park anywhere, picking a spot at random, and turning on a detector .... you will find metal.

Yes yes I know you deny that. So if two sides sit down to establish WHETHER OR NOT that WAS the "more plausible explanation" or not, they can never do it. Any time the results of a test showed that, in fact, my explanation was "more plausible", you would cite the fall-back lines: Skewed testing conditions, magic tricks, etc.... Right ?

.... at the end of that video you put up, after all failed to find the water line, all still said dowsing works. The reason is they and they alone know what their record is and it would be more than foolish to deny or doubt it ....

That is one explanation for their failure to concede. Another explanation could be that the human mind has a history of believing in, and falling for, snake-oils.

Consider cultures with witch doctors who perform incantations, dances, pixie dusts, etc... to cure ailments. Would you rather go to that type doctor for hernia surgery ? Or a doctor here in the USA who practices conventional medicine ? Yet I betcha that witch doctor "still believes". And has personal testimony of supposed successes on his part. Naturally there are more plausible explanations for any supposed cures on his part. Hence the fact of those dowsers "still believe" can be nothing more than strongly held superstitions. Simple human nature.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I did not see what their dowsing was being compared to in the dowsing water test Mr. Randy sponsored in Australia?


It is clear the testers' (Mr. Randy) preferences or expectations are that the dowser will fail.

I lost ya here bro. Seems to me they laid out parameters that were more than fair. And agreed to ahead of time by each side. And what does it matter the "expectations" of either side ? The dowsers also had an "expectation" they would succeed ? So what ?

And I should point out that scientific tests have been conducted by persons w/o biases (persons who held out hope, or had not yet decided on the issue, etc...). And those carefully controlled tests also failed to show anything more than random chances and more-plausible-explanations.

The bottom line is, that no test will ever debunk. No matter how carefully the parameters are set in advance, the fall-back-lines will be instantaneous upon failure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... James Randy is a magician and uses his knowledge and skill to deceive people....

Actually, if you look at his dossier on the history of how he started : Back in his younger days, he saw persons bilking the public with supposed mind-reading. Eg.: Persons who were supposedly "channeling" messages from deceased loved ones, etc... He recognized it (since he was a magician) as nothing more than magic tricks. Tricks normally done for amusement and entertainment. Yet charlatans were using the tricks to deceive people, bilk money, etc... So he set about to reveal them and debunk them.

So far from using his skills to "deceive" people, he was using his skills to ENLIGHTEN people.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee Tom. You ask why we do not put our finds on the board. You should know that answer by now. Les put his finds on here. There are now 167 posts telling him that he did not make the find. You give us all the old excuses for why dowsing does not work that are no true. ..bye...Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... telling him that he did not make the find. ...

A testament to failure to read here ? Notice no one said he "did not make the find". He most CERTAINLY DID "make the finds". The question is: What is to attribute for the finds ? Rods? Or random chance of turning on a detector at a random spot in a park ?

And actually, the skepticism (that you say drives away dowser from posting their finds) should be very revealing to you. Rather than being a cause to "keep the finds secret", it should give you pause to wonder "is there merit to the questions?"

 

[miboje]

Sadly, Tom the troller never tires of trolling certain T'net subjects, do you Tom? While he tries to tempt you to talk, Tom's true intent is trolling to create drama, tease, and waste your valuable time. Apparently Tom has a lot of time on his hands.
Don't throw away your time feeding trolls, folks.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The question is: What is to attribute for the finds ? Rods?

He told you what rods he used

Or random chance

What are the random chance odds for finding Dinosaur bones and Mammoth Tusks with Dowsing rods?

of turning on a detector at a random spot in a park ?

What are the odds and where can the study be found?

it should give you pause to wonder "is there merit to the questions?"

It’s your question....Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

He told you what rods he used

What are the random chance odds for finding Dinosaur bones and Mammoth Tusks with Dowsing rods?

What are the odds and where can the study be found?

It’s your question....Art

Art, name calling (via miboje) is the much-too-easy "fall-back" to avoid the tough questions. Right ? And ironically, you continue to post come-backs. And I can't answer them lest the "name-calling" (troll) ensue. Right ?

Yet ....... let me see if I understand this correctly ....... "I" am the "troll". Not you? So a person is only a "troll" if they are critical. Not if they are supportive. Then it's hunky-dory, right ? Ok, I got it. Nothing curious here in those definitions. Right ? Move along people. Eh ?

 

[aarthrj3811]

What are the random chance odds for finding Dinosaur bones and Mammoth Tusks with Dowsing rods?

In a very liberal sense, random is just something that is unpredictable. A fair coin toss, then, is sufficiently random. The problem comes in when you try to apply a more strict definition of random; perhaps an event is truly random when the probability of the possible outcomes is equal.
Statistically significant is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is used to determine whether the result of a data set is statistically significant.
In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. ... Random variables can appear in random sequences.
What are the odds and where can the study be found?

Art, name calling (via miboje) is the much-too-easy "fall-back" to avoid the tough questions.

Then it's hunky-dory, right ? Ok, I got it. Nothing curious here in those definitions. Right ? Move along people. Eh ?

By the way. I have located Dinosaur bones and Mammoth Tusks. What are my random odds or the luck factor for doing that?

 

[lesjcbs]

Who is Dick Smith? Never heard of him.

Thank you Tom.



Yes I did find that 22 spent shell while dowsing in the open desert. That desert is hardly a city park. I take your statement to mean I no longer need to post pictures of dowsing finds. But maybe I will from time to time.


So,how and why dowsing work? I do not know for sure but, I do believe and subscribe to Einsteins statement that points to our nervous system as being at the root of how dowsing works.


My example of the young mother, while being miles away from their home senses something is wrong and insists she and her husband go back home to find their house on fire, is, I think, an example of our nervous system at work. Call it intuition, a hunch, a gut feeling or whatever you will, the sensing happens in the brain and happens probably more than we know of or are told by the evening news. Tell the young mother that no double blinded test has ever verified her feeling is correct and while describing how she feels about your statement, she will tear your head off.


Everything on earth gives off energy. I believe our nervous systems are able to sense these, all though they be tiny, energies from targets. Thus, it is necessary for the dowser to practice dowsing to hopefully make our nervous system more sensitive to those energies.



The energy from targets are like the transmitting stations and our nervous systems are the receivers. All of the receiving takes place on a subconscious level and our brains move our hands which moves the rods..



That is what I think and it makes sense to me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Art, thanx for all the word definitions of "random" in # 176. And the talk of dinosaur bones. Let's just cut to the chase though: "You can dowse". And it's "not random", etc... Right ? Then there's an entire world out there that would love to see it pass tests (beyond personal testimony). But you and I know that will never happen. The "roll-out" "fall-back" lines will immediately ensue ? So they will remain just claims. Albeit sincere.

But never with proof beyond the "just because I said". The test of whether more plausible explanations might-be-at-play, can never be tested or known. Ok. But then you must therefore have a *little* sympathy for why those that aren't satisfied with this level of "proof". Just as those believing/proving they are Napoleon, or those with crystal balls, relying on "personal testimony" are also don't tend to be taken too seriously.

lesjcbs, thanx for being open to discussion. And thanx for addressing individual points and links. I have ventured an explanation before at the "intuition" of the example of the "young mother". I suggested this is probably memory bias. We *all* have "un-canny" premonitions, all day (and all-night during our dreams). We all "double check to make sure we turned off the stove burner" or "call home to make sure such & such is ok". Each time, with "un-canny premonitions". 99.9% of which never amount to anything more than simple caution. And when nothing amiss was going on, we promptly forget our premonitions.

However, when .... one time.... our premonitions come true, only THEN do we remember our premonitions and think "aha ! I was psychic". Because we simply don't remember the other 99 when nothing at all was amiss. Same with how some people think horoscopes come true. They are simply focusing on those few (very general) things that came true, and gloss over those things that didn't.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Anyone that wants to do a blind test of his dowsing can do it at home. I have 6 plastic Easter eggs halves. Put them in the front yard. Go in the house and have your wife go out and put a target under one of the egg halves. She then goes around to the back door and knocks on it. I go outside and find the target. Repeat it 10 times. Then you know how good you are...Art

 

[lesjcbs]

Tom:



Einstein said: “The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time.” I like the word simple.



The "certain factors” here is the energy from targets buried in the ground we cannot see with our naked eyes, that we are sensing on the sub conscience level. The dowsing rods are the visual devices that makes us aware we are picking up that energy.



I have read how some dowsers are so sensitive to target energies, they do not need the rods as they can feel the energies with their hands only.



The web site below talks about how we (Including you) have the ability to sense energies both inside and outside ourselves (bodies), and through practice, how we can develop that sensing ability. The last sentence in the next to the last paragraph talks about sensing objects.



Goto: https://www.changeyourenergy.com/blog/712/20131031-did-you-know-you-can-sense-energy-heres-how