Dell, when asked if dowsers could simply be going by subconscious landscape clues, you say: "Not when .............. you are Dowsing from a map a thousand miles or so from the location". Well, now you're talking about a different type of dowsing: Maps. I'll defer on that for another post. I'm just talking about localized rod-dowsing, on-site, for this question.
Next: "That's skeptic BS rationale. Think about it. Can you create a better DB test to proving Dowsing is not random chance guessing, than Dowsing for, and finding the Gold target buried under 20 feet of water and sand with no human involvement in hiding or touching it for 200 years. Your argument becomes very lame in light of fact. Actually it was accomplished with a physical Directional locator from a distance which Skeptics adamantly claim is Mental dowsing, and not physics related. O.k. I'll humor your closed minded beliefs for the sake of argument since you insist it's Dowsing "
All I can say to that is, to illistrate this way: If you pull up to a traffic light, let's say it's red. If I tell you that you can make the light turn green, by simply tapping on your steering wheel, eventually, the light will turn, right? Now what caused the light to turn green? You tapping on your steering wheel, or random chance? (ie.: it was going to turn anyways). Now if someone suggested a test, to test both methods, to see which one makes the light turn faster, we could do a series of tests, could we not? BUT WAIT! What if someone, who passionately believes the tapping aids to help the light turn, says this:
"That's skeptic BS rationale. Think about it. Can you create a better DB test proving Tapping is not random chance, than tapping for, and seeing the light change before your very eyes, with no human involvement in turning the light green or touching it for street-box-control panel? Your argument becomes very lame in light of fact. Actually it was accomplished with tappers from a distance which Skeptics adamantly claim is Mental tapping, and not physically in the car, by the steering wheel. "
What you're appealing to, is outcome. Ie.: I had success, so that is all the "test" I need. Dowsing need not be tested further, if I can point you to person's outcomes. Well, all I can say is, fine, let's say that you did indeed have successes, and you fully expect to have successes in the future. And via all this, you are convinced that it is not random odds. All of that tells me that there is nothing to fear, and this is a mastered skill for some. If that is the case, then yes, for them, they need not be bothered with tests, as it will only occupy time they could be dowsing for treasure and getting rich. But on the other hand, such confidence in the outcome, would seem to me to be all-the-more reason to want to subject it to a test, to hush up the skeptics. Afterall, you've got great success, and it "will be done in the future" too. So what's there to fear?
When someone comes up with a great new drug, that they say "cures pain", there will be testimonials of persons who swear that it worked for them. How do you argue with testimonials? You can't. So how do doctors, scientists and drug companies know what is the placebo effect vs what is truly bucking the odds? By testing them in double blind tests. The way you would look at it is: "I know my own pain went away, so that's all I need to know. It doesn't need to be tested, because some people are coming in with results" Yes, maybe some people are coming in with results. So too do some people occasionally draw a perfect hand at 21 in black-jack. So you see, results are a great subject, but they, alone, do not disproove random chance. Yes, even if you find a 200 yr. old treasure, does not dis-proove random chance.
Think of it: history is FILLED with stories of persons who have accidentally stumbled onto treasures, w/o even looking, right? You will occasionally read in the paper about a const. company digging, and stumbling into some box of buried goodies, statues in Greece, old cellars, etc... And you occasionally read about a gardener digging in his garden, who finds a buried jar of coins, etc.... So how much MORE SO will a person who is specifically going out and looking for buried goodies, in spots where they will likely be, also going to eventually find goodies? Of course they will.
Yes, the gardener and the const. worker "dug 1000 dry holes" and you would say "I don't dig that many, or I dig no dry holes at all", etc... (to distance yourself from my illistration). That's fine. The minute you say so though, begs to be tested. Like, I would say "really? You don't dig dry holes? let's test that", and then we go round and round where you don't need any test "except my past treasures that speak for themselves".
