$1,000,000 for anyone who can dowse.

[Captain Trips]

Why should it be held against me if I haven't posted to this thread in a couple of days? I do have a life away from this forum, you know!

And, yes, I'm getting a little tired of reading all the "here's why I won't do it" responses. I want to know who WILL do it! Or at least try! Saying "I won't because I won't" only gives skeptics more fuel for their argument of "why don't those who say they can come forward?"

So, if you want to turn this into a debate on why dowsing works/why dowsing doesn't work, go ahead. But you will only have shown me that there is no on willing to defend their saying that they can dowse. At least, no one here.

Too bad.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Well, Captain, there appears to have been just a bit of progress towards a test of sorts between Sandsted and Carl. Did you get a chance to look at it?

Pretty interesting, and I have to give Sandy credit for stepping forward and taking on the challenge, even if it's not for the $25K prize, and then for allowing Carl to post the results here. It's very exciting, to say the least!

 

[Captain Trips]

Well, Captain, there appears to have been just a bit of progress towards a test of sorts between Sandsted and Carl. Did you get a chance to look at it?

Pretty interesting, and I have to give Sandy credit for stepping forward and taking on the challenge, even if it's not for the $25K prize, and then for allowing Carl to post the results here. It's very exciting, to say the least!

Somehow, while wading through the rest of the muck, I guess I missed it. I also recall Musstag several months ago saying he could pass the Randi challenge, but later backed down.

Well, at least one person has the guts to "put his money where his mouth is." I've noticed Dell Winters is long gone from this thread, though. Just as well -- he was only interested in saying how much of a fraud Randi was, and not realizing he was just looking into a mirror!

Okay, so we have Musstag and Sandsted. Anyone else? After all, if you're so certain about your abilities, why not?

 

[Gluk]

Well af?..  You already so graciously pointed out how miniscule my dowsing skills are ( ) with your top-notch arithmetic . So all i can do is "fact it."
---ten foot square---twelve inches to a foot---120 inches to a side---squared---14,400 square inches in your ten-foot square plot.
                                                                                                 


(I didn't believe they had the right smiles for that.)

 

[ClonedSIM]

Well, Captain, there appears to have been just a bit of progress towards a test of sorts between Sandsted and Carl. Did you get a chance to look at it?

Pretty interesting, and I have to give Sandy credit for stepping forward and taking on the challenge, even if it's not for the $25K prize, and then for allowing Carl to post the results here. It's very exciting, to say the least!

Somehow, while wading through the rest of the muck, I guess I missed it. I also recall Musstag several months ago saying he could pass the Randi challenge, but later backed down.

Well, at least one person has the guts to "put his money where his mouth is." I've noticed Dell Winters is long gone from this thread, though. Just as well -- he was only interested in saying how much of a fraud Randi was, and not realizing he was just looking into a mirror!

Okay, so we have Musstag and Sandsted. Anyone else? After all, if you're so certain about your abilities, why not?

Dell is supposedly off digging treasure that he had map dowsed, somewhere in the Carolina's, I think. He said it was supposed to take a couple of weeks.
Remember, I posted a map dowsing vs. guessing challenge to him in response to his nonsensical "guess where my culvert is" offer? He left right after that.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Lets see if I understand the Skeptics right. If someone would just take Randi's Million you would all become Pro-Dowsing fans? ...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

I've said exactly that, Art.

If someone were to prove dowsing was correct 70 or 80% of the time, and actually could locate treasures like you say it does, then why not?

I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/betz_toc.html End of debate

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey, I've read these reports as well. And?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee af1733......All Dowsers fail when studyed....now 96 % is failing

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee SWR...I think it is a Scientific Fact that water in some parts of the world is a treasure. In fact it is more valuable than gold in some areas of the world. Don't dis-respect some thing that you know nothing about....Art

 

[Sandsted]

"water is a unknown buried treasure"

I'm not apart of this argument...but...water is an unknown buried treasure. Water is a necessatity of life...and this is the main purpose for dowsing and is the best example of dowsing. You can't dismiss water dowsing.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey, I've read these reports as well. And?

I did not see anything about treasure (gold/silver/diamonds) being recovered. Art must have misunderstood you when you said: "If someone were to prove dowsing was correct 70 or 80% of the time, and actually could locate treasures like you say it does, then why not?"

I've bolded your quote for E-Z reading.

You're absolutely right, SWR. I did specify Art's claims of finding treasure (in the traditional sense, gold, silver, diamonds) when I wrote that. It's been conveniently ignored.

 

[Captain Trips]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/betz_toc.html End of debate

Interesting thing from that site. Right on their introduction:

...The fact must therefore be emphasized that there were no pure research projects which could have been planned and executed according to generally accepted scientific criteria and exigencies.

(my italics)

I believe the request was for PROOF that dowsing works, even for one person. And by their own admission, they weren't able to apply the necessary scientific criteria needed for such proof. (Okay, so it was "If someone would just take Randi's Million..." But, since Randi does require strict scientific criteria, they can, in this context, be construed to mean the same.)

So, that web site is not valid proof that dowsing works, try again.

 

[aarthrj3811]

...

The fact must therefore be emphasized that there were no pure research projects which could have been planned and executed according to generally accepted scientific criteria and exigencies.

These people didn't know what they were doing and a EX-Magician giving a test is a Scientfic Study. This test by beening planned and executed will meet accepted scientific criteria and prove that one person can dowse or not. ....Art

 

[angel_09]

"But, since Randi does require strict scientific criteria, they can, in this context, be construed to mean the same.)"

Question:

How can Randi requires strict scientific criteria when he himself doesn't know what is dowsing itself and how it works? Can anybody set up standard for something he doesn't understand? If dowsing is really wanted to be explored, learned, why not let the dowsers establish the standard of test since they are the one who understand how it works?

Just askin'

Angel_09

 

[Carl-NC]

If dowsing is really wanted to be explored, learned, why not let the dowsers establish the standard of test since they are the one who understand how it works?

That's exactly how the Randi challenge works (you should read it some time). The dowser gets to propose the test protocol. All Randi requires is that it follow good scientific procedure, i.e., randomized, blind, repeatable, and observable.

And, yes, Randi does understand how dowsing "works," as do I, and the scientific community in general. It is only the dowsers who insist that science doesn't understand dowsing because they refuse to accept the scientific explanation for dowsing.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

That's exactly how the Randi challenge works (you should read it some time). The dowser gets to propose the test protocol. All Randi requires is that it follow good scientific procedure, i.e., randomized, blind, repeatable, and observable.

Hey Angel 09....Thats all you will get from them. Did you know that no one has passed a pre-test for Randi's Challenge. Did you know that NO-ONE has taken the Challenge for the big bucks in 42 years. The Tests you see on TV are MEDIA-EVENTS. There is no easy place to learn if any Dowser has taken the pre-test or has even ask to take it. Just a few facts about the Challenge...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

I don't know how many Water Dowsers there are. Dispite what the Skeptics think there is large areas of the US and the world where water is hard to find. In the west water is stored above ground for later use. The City of LA and the surrounding areas get most of their water from 400 miles away. Millions of people need water wells for their homes.

I owned a home where everyone around me had wells and more water than they could use. My poor well would go dry if I watered the lawn for a 1/2 hour. Before I would spend $10,000 on a new well I did my research. I found the best well driller in the area. I was at work when he came out but the wife said he used rods and just walked around. I didn't need a new well...It just had to be 20 feet deeper. I hired the man to do the work with a money back guarantee.

This is not Anecdotal Evidence. This is FACT as is what someone saw their grand father do. The days of calling every thing an Anecdotal is over.....Fact is fact....Art

 

[Captain Trips]

"But, since Randi does require strict scientific criteria, they can, in this context, be construed to mean the same.)"

Question:

How can Randi requires strict scientific criteria when he himself doesn't know what is dowsing itself and how it works? Can anybody set up standard for something he doesn't understand?

Uh, that's how science actually works. You see a phenomenon you don't understand, so you set up a process to study it. Once you have either performed enough experiments or made enough observations, you then can draw a conclusion.

Example: gravity. No one knew what it was or how it worked. Yet Galileo was able to perform some simple experiments to study how it behaved. Building on his research, others performed more complex experiments, and made strictly controlled observations. Based on this, we now have an extremely good understanding of how gravity works. (Scientists are still building on these results to try to understand what it really is, there is still some debate over that -- yet they are still able to study it.)

As to the argument of, "how can a stage magician claim to observe things scientifically," well, you don't need to be A Scientist to understand and use "the scientific method." (That's what science really is -- a method of studying. It's an adjective and not a noun!) Anyone can study something scientifically, and anything can be studied in a scientific manner. You just have to understand the rules of logic behind the method -- they are set up so as to eliminate opinion from entering into the conclusion. It's really not that hard, the process is hypothesis-study (either experimental or observational)-collate data-analyze data-conclusion. What most people have a hard time with is setting up the experiment/observation phase of the study. It has to be set up so as to be unbiased. And you have to be ready to examine all of the data, not just that which you like. And finally, you must be willing to accept that your original hypothesis may be proven wrong.

So, with dowsing, we would have this (for example):
- Hypothesis: Dowsing for gold works.
- Experiment: Set up one gold coin under ten paper cups, have a dowser make attempts to locate said coin. Repeat a given number of times.
- Data collation: How many times did the dowser succeed?
- Data analysis: Was this rate of success statistically significant?
- Conclusion: Dowsing for gold (works/doesn't work)

There -- I'm not a scientist, yet I just came up with a scientific method of studying the phenomenon. (Note: it doesn't have to be the only way of studying it, but it does have to follow the same general steps.) Of course, you do have to be able to set up an unbiased experiment, which a double-blind method would do nicely. And you do have to have an understanding of the mathematics of statistics in order to have a valid analysis, and to understand how to set up the experiment in the first place to get useful data.

Where the Randi challenge comes in is that his foundation has put up a million dollar escrow fund for anyone who can demonstrate (following such a scientific method) some sort of "pseudo-scientific" phenomenon, dowsing falling into that category. Should a dowser want to pursue this challenge, (s)he would get to propose an experimental method in order to support their own hypothesis. (Example: Hypothesis is that I can find a gold coin hidden in one of ten paper cups, at least eight tries out of ten. Experiment is that someone unknown to me hides such a coin in one of ten cups, I come in and tell an unbiased observer which cup it is in. If I can do this as I claim, then I walk away a million dollars richer.)

One problem with the challenge is that often the claimant hasn't proposed a clear experiment, or even a clear claim of what they can do. The JREF does make suggested alterations to the claim and experiment, and when (and only when) both sides agree to this will a pre-test be arranged. Once the pre-test has been passed, then the claimant will go on to the actual challenge.

Another problem is that there are many people who make a claim, but relatively few who actually go through the entire process leading up to the pre-test, they usually drop the ball during the proposal/counter proposal period -- and of those that have gone through a pre-test, none (NONE!) have actually been able to perform as they claim, so no one has yet made it to the final step of the actual challenge. (Despite what some people say, the JREF has well documented cases of this happening on their web site.)

I hope this clears up some of the confusion of "how can a non-scientist set up a scientific study" and "how would this apply to dowsing?"