There are some real peop[le here.

[aarthrj3811]

No no no... dowsing, as it is normally performed, is nothing more than observation and intuition*. When you take away those elements, you are left with guessing... pure luck.

I guess scientist would not agree with thar defination od Dowsing.

N

ow, everyone here, both dowsers and non-dowsers, already agree that dowsing doesn't work in test situations where observation and intuition are removed, so there is no reason for even dowsers to continue to deny that dowsing relies on observation and intuition.

That is your observation and your proof is that we will not be screwed by Randi.

Of course, even Pure Luck dowsing can be mighty convincing. If I were to dowse for water here in NC, I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a good well. If I were to dowse for gold at Ganes Creek, I'm pretty much guaranteed to find a gold nugget, assuming I know how to use a metal detector. In these example, "luck" ends up being about 99% certain, and can skew perception and lead to unwarranted conclusions about dowsing.

That makes no sense at all.

I've already explained that your wrong about this, so it is pointless to keep repeating it. Yes, I do use observation and intuition, all the time. In metal detecting a site, it narrows down the areas I search, and maximizes my finds-to-time ratio. At least, I hope it does.

So if a Dowser uses the same methods the same thing doesn't occur?

You just answered your own question, as well as I could have. You have just explained what dowsing is all about and, if you think about it a bit more, you will realize why dowsing doesn't work in randomized blind testing.

So now please tell what observation and intuition has to do with finding coins? They put me in the right area where I know the objects should be...If I would have been using some other kind of treasure finding device I still would have been in the same area...Art

What does this have to do with blind testing?

*I include in observation and intuition any knowledge attained whether by research or by accumulated prior experiences. Observation is what you see and know, intuition is what you deduce based on experience.

Is this a new dictionary that you have?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

No no no... dowsing, as it is normally performed, is nothing more than observation and intuition*. When you take away those elements, you are left with guessing... pure luck.

I guess scientist would not agree with thar defination od Dowsing.

Get a scientist to define dowsing, and see what you get...

Now, everyone here, both dowsers and non-dowsers, already agree that dowsing doesn't work in test situations where observation and intuition are removed, so there is no reason for even dowsers to continue to deny that dowsing relies on observation and intuition.

That is your observation and your proof is that we will not be screwed by Randi.

Um, Carl said that dowsing relies upon observation and intuition, and that dowsers can't logically deny this. Where did he mention Randi?

Of course, even Pure Luck dowsing can be mighty convincing. If I were to dowse for water here in NC, I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a good well. If I were to dowse for gold at Ganes Creek, I'm pretty much guaranteed to find a gold nugget, assuming I know how to use a metal detector. In these example, "luck" ends up being about 99% certain, and can skew perception and lead to unwarranted conclusions about dowsing.

That makes no sense at all.

Not to you, of course it doesn't, because logic and common sense are required. I'll make it simpler for you, Art.
Say you tell someone that everytime you buy a scratcher lottery ticket, you win. This might be impressive, but when you get up to the counter, you buy 20 of the same ticket. In those tickets, you're almost certain to have at least one winner. Now, what you claimed is still true, but much less impressive.

I've already explained that your wrong about this, so it is pointless to keep repeating it. Yes, I do use observation and intuition, all the time. In metal detecting a site, it narrows down the areas I search, and maximizes my finds-to-time ratio. At least, I hope it does.

So if a Dowser uses the same methods the same thing doesn't occur?

Of course the same thing happens, but dowsers don't give these skills the credit they deserve. Instead, they chalk up any finds to their dowsing "ability."

You just answered your own question, as well as I could have. You have just explained what dowsing is all about and, if you think about it a bit more, you will realize why dowsing doesn't work in randomized blind testing.

So now please tell what observation and intuition has to do with finding coins? They put me in the right area where I know the objects should be...If I would have been using some other kind of treasure finding device I still would have been in the same area...Art

What does this have to do with blind testing?

Carl is trying to make you see that in randomized blind testing, you don't get to use the powers of observation and intuition. When these are taken out of the equation, dowsers suddenly can't dowse.

*I include in observation and intuition any knowledge attained whether by research or by accumulated prior experiences. Observation is what you see and know, intuition is what you deduce based on experience.

Is this a new dictionary that you have?

What do you find incorrect with his definitions? He might not copied them out of Wikipedia as you like to, but these definitions are correct.

 

[aarthrj3811]

No no no... dowsing, as it is normally performed, is nothing more than observation and intuition*. When you take away those elements, you are left with guessing... pure luck.

Now, everyone here, both dowsers and non-dowsers, already agree that dowsing doesn't work in test situations where observation and intuition are removed, so there is no reason for even dowsers to continue to deny that dowsing relies on observation and intuition. Anyone who believes otherwise should rush to Randi's website and fill out an application.

Gee Carl...A few people have said that they can not take tests...Spin it anyway you want doesn't make it true. Randi has screwed 1010 people who have filed applications so you want more?

Of course, even Pure Luck dowsing can be mighty convincing. If I were to dowse for water here in NC, I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a good well. If I were to dowse for gold at Ganes Creek, I'm pretty much guaranteed to find a gold nugget, assuming I know how to use a metal detector. In these example, "luck" ends up being about 99% certain, and can skew perception and lead to unwarranted conclusions about dowsing.

More screwed up logic.

I've already explained that your wrong about this, so it is pointless to keep repeating it. Yes, I do use observation and intuition, all the time. In metal detecting a site, it narrows down the areas I search, and maximizes my finds-to-time ratio. At least, I hope it does.

Just like I and many others do....so what your point?

Quote
So now please tell what observation and intuition has to do with finding coins? They put me in the right area where I know the objects should be...If I would have been using some other kind of treasure finding device I still would have been in the same area...Art

You just answered your own question, as well as I could have. You have just explained what dowsing is all about and, if you think about it a bit more, you will realize why dowsing doesn't work in randomized blind testing.

Another bit of pure logic for us?

Quote from: af1733 on Yesterday at 09:31:20 AM
What Carl is trying to point out, unsuccessfully in your case, is that once you take away the human elements of observation and intuition, what's left is dowsing.
Exactly, guessing = dowsing.

Um, Carl said that dowsing relies upon observation and intuition, and that dowsers can't logically deny this. Where did he mention Randi?

A great non-answer

Of course, even Pure Luck dowsing can be mighty convincing. If I were to dowse for water here in NC, I'm pretty much guaranteed to get a good well. If I were to dowse for gold at Ganes Creek, I'm pretty much guaranteed to find a gold nugget, assuming I know how to use a metal detector. In these example, "luck" ends up being about 99% certain, and can skew perception and lead to unwarranted conclusions about dowsing.

What are you trying to say?

Not to you, of course it doesn't, because logic and common sense are required. I'll make it simpler for you, Art.
Say you tell someone that everytime you buy a scratcher lottery ticket, you win. This might be impressive, but when you get up to the counter, you buy 20 of the same ticket. In those tickets, you're almost certain to have at least one winner. Now, what you claimed is still true, but much less impressive.

You say I would cheat myself?

Yes, I do use observation and intuition, all the time. In metal detecting a site, it narrows down the areas I search, and maximizes my finds-to-time ratio. At least, I hope it does.

So if a Dowser uses the same methods the same thing doesn't occur?

Of course the same thing happens, but dowsers don't give these skills the credit they deserve. Instead, they chalk up any finds to their dowsing "ability."

Great logic

Carl is trying to make you see that in randomized blind testing, you don't get to use the powers of observation and intuition. When these are taken out of the equation, dowsers suddenly can't dowse.

You know this how...Not from the 0 tests that Randi has done or the 0 test Carl has done so that leaves what 0 proof of this statement.
You have quite an imagination but you will call it something else.....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Now, everyone here, both dowsers and non-dowsers, already agree that dowsing doesn't work in test situations where observation and intuition are removed, so there is no reason for even dowsers to continue to deny that dowsing relies on observation and intuition.

That is your observation and your proof is that we will not be screwed by Randi.

Um, Carl said that dowsing relies upon observation and intuition, and that dowsers can't logically deny this. Where did he mention Randi?

Quote from: af1733 on Yesterday at 09:31:20 AM
What Carl is trying to point out, unsuccessfully in your case, is that once you take away the human elements of observation and intuition, what's left is dowsing.
Exactly, guessing = dowsing.

Um, Carl said that dowsing relies upon observation and intuition, and that dowsers can't logically deny this. Where did he mention Randi?

A great non-answer

Again, Art, where did Carl mention Randi? Maybe you should read the posts again?

Not to you, of course it doesn't, because logic and common sense are required. I'll make it simpler for you, Art.
Say you tell someone that everytime you buy a scratcher lottery ticket, you win. This might be impressive, but when you get up to the counter, you buy 20 of the same ticket. In those tickets, you're almost certain to have at least one winner. Now, what you claimed is still true, but much less impressive.

You say I would cheat myself?

I didn't say you were cheating yourself, Art, you just believe in something that isn't quite correct because you don't take all the extenuating circumstances into account.

Yes, I do use observation and intuition, all the time. In metal detecting a site, it narrows down the areas I search, and maximizes my finds-to-time ratio. At least, I hope it does.

So if a Dowser uses the same methods the same thing doesn't occur?

Of course the same thing happens, but dowsers don't give these skills the credit they deserve. Instead, they chalk up any finds to their dowsing "ability."

Great logic

It's perfectly solid logic, Art, you just don't recognize something so foreign to you. A detectorist would give the credit for any great finds to his machine or a well-researched and well-chosen location. A dowser would give the credit to his dowing "ability." Do you see the difference?

 

[ThTx]

af1733,

I see you hijacked this thread, too. Is there any post in Dowsing you don't hijack. Or is it just Peg Leg's posts?

Never mind answering - it would simply be another rant.

 

[ThTx]

SWR,

I've done that - didn't seem to do any good. Is it wrong then for me to post my opinion?

 

[ClonedSIM]

af1733,

I see you hijacked this thread, too. Is there any post in Dowsing you don't hijack. Or is it just Peg Leg's posts?

Never mind answering - it would simply be another rant.

How about this? Try reading the thread from the beginning and see how we ended up here. You might learn something.

 

[ClonedSIM]

SWR,

I've done that - didn't seem to do any good. Is it wrong then for me to post my opinion?

SWR made another great point. You're obviously the only one who feels this way, otherwise the moderators would step in. I'm not doing anything more or less than the dowsers here, yet you accuse me? I'm guessing you're......hmmmm, let's see.....a dowser?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey ThTx....Welcome to the zoo....Any Treasure Hunter is welcome here but you will have to argue with the non-treasure hunters.....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey ThTx....Welcome to the zoo....Any Treasure Hunter is welcome here but you will have to argue with the non-treasure hunters.....Art

Let me translate this for you, ThTx. Any dowser or non-dowser is welcome here, but twisted logic will always be corrected.

 

[ThTx]

I'm guessing you're......hmmmm, let's see.....a dowser?
[/quote]

Nope, not a dowser - I just like to read different sides to issue without the ranting from people who seem to become boderline psycotic if they can't (read won't) try to understand something they can't see. Must be Air Force training.

[/quote]
How about this? Try reading the thread from the beginning and see how we ended up here. You might learn something.
[/quote]

Read it all the way - Yep, you're ranting.

 

[ClonedSIM]

I'm guessing you're......hmmmm, let's see.....a dowser?


Nope, not a dowser - I just like to read different sides to issue without the ranting from people who seem to become boderline psycotic if they can't (read won't) try to understand something they can't see. Must be Air Force training.


How about this? Try reading the thread from the beginning and see how we ended up here. You might learn something.


Read it all the way - Yep, you're ranting.

Apparently the Air Force taught you all about ignoring the laws of physics and the accumulation of scientific knowledge we all have access to but some choose to ignore. Did your plane fly on hopes and dreams?

And are you calling yourself a borderline psychotic because you can't (won't) understand logic and common sense? Because I'm sure you're not calling me that. That would definitely get your post deleted.

 

[ThTx]

So, delete it.  And, I was certainly not Air Force, either.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Apparently the Air Force taught you all about ignoring the laws of physics and the accumulation of scientific knowledge we all have access to but some choose to ignore. Did your plane fly on hopes and dreams?

Hey af1733...You keep saying we are breaking the "laws of physics".

I will keep this question simple so you won't have much room to twist and spin.
What Laws of Physics are Dowsers breaking?....Art

 

[point hunter]

Hi. I've let a couple of days go by to see if I had any more takers on my infamous $100.00 challenge. LOL

No response is proof to the members that I was right. No one can take my money.

So, now it's time to take it to the next level. I think Oroblanco has the right idea. Let's have a contest! The "guessers" vs. the "dowsers". We could even set it up with a local, then regional, and finally a national "dowse-off". Rules could be established by forum members to insure a fair contest. That would make sure both sides felt like the tests would actually prove something. We could even have different categories based on different members skill level. NO CHEATERS ALLOWED! This would all be for fun only. We could even possibly find a few sponsors and get some prizes donated.

I'm sick of reading about stats, probabilities, and a lot of nonsense. WHO CARES! Why does dowsing work? WHO CARES! Gravity works too, explain that! I also don't want to hear about the big money challenges that the dowsing members feel like are rigged. Oh, BTW, Peg Leg you can count me in.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=af1733 ]and never when there are skeptics around, because you just can't dowse with a skeptic around putting off those negative thoughts.
******************
Speaking of short term loss af this is an excellent example. on your part, this was explained by the infamous post #6 plus others
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another fatal flaw (sure are a lot of those coming from you) is the fact that you can't disprove dowsing. How can you prove something doesn't work when that particular something doesn't even exist?
******************
If it even works once it works, this I have proved to myself. It is not a matter of 100% or 5%, success, if it works once it works, period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and repeatably
******************
Why repeatably? as above, if it works once, it works.

You haven't improved much while I have been gone art sigh.

Don Jose de La Mancah

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=SWR ]So...is gravity a big mystery to you? If I, or someone else explained how gravity works, would you still believe in dowsing?
***************
So explain it swr

Jose de La mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

No response is proof to the members that I was right. No one can take my money.

A-yup. I already told ya that.

NO CHEATERS ALLOWED!

Ah, yes... we'll prevent cheating by not allowing cheaters.

I also don't want to hear about the big money challenges that the dowsing members feel like are rigged.

How would you know if you haven't tried? Or is this the self-denial of your dowsing skills that I predicted earlier?

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

How would you know if you haven't tried? Or is this the self-denial of your dowsing skills that I predicted earlier?
Great logic Carl...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

You haven't improved much while I have been gone art sigh.

Hey Realde....I think I have...Just getting more ammo...Art