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

[aarthrj3811]

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)

That sounds good on paper. When it comes to data analysis. This is where your study is flawed. How can you analize a statistic when there are none. If the dowser found one out of ten objects did dowsing work? If he found 5 out of ten did it work. Was it a chance guess?

If you use the odds for coin flips the dowser with 5 located loses. If you use the odds of some other study the dowser may win or lose with 1 location. I am not aware of any Scientific Study on the odds of chance guessing by Dowsers. I hear a lot of numbers but where do they come from.

Before you can call any study Scientific you need a baseline for the study. All you have are some satistics that may not even be close to right. If you add the Bias factor, what you have is nothing. Your study will be judged as in conculsive....Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Randi, has shown no evidence of conducting a Scientific study on Dowsing. It's a self serving Publicity gimmick, clear & simple. Who are you trying to fool? Dell

I don't see where Randi has ever offered to fund a scientific study to determine the causes of dowsing. He simply states that the criteria he employs in his challenges have a scientific basis, namely a double-blind format with repetition to eliminate chance results.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Does he have any backing or an endorsement from the scientific community?

If not....what will it prove, and to whom?

Why does he need backing from anyone? Any experiment he performs that is well documented and follows the scientific method should be acceptable to the scientific community.

 

[ClonedSIM]

http://www.randi.org/jr/bio.html

Randi boasts a significant history that, while involving a good bit of magic which no one is denying, also includes an impressive association with members of the scientific community, including hospitals, universities, medical associations and medical corporations. I think you'll find many recognized members of the scientific community that have lauded him.

 

[Captain Trips]

Randi, has shown no evidence of conducting a Scientific study on Dowsing. It's a self serving Publicity gimmick, clear & simple. Who are you trying to fool? Dell

Dell, you are the one trying to fool people. You took Randi's prior challenge (before the million dollar challenge) and failed, and are now bitter over it. Tough.

 

[Captain Trips]

Does he have any backing or an endorsement from the scientific community?

If not....what will it prove, and to whom?

Why does he need backing? If he were to conduct a truly scientific study, then all that is needed for him to be declared legitimate is the publishing in a recognized science journal of a repeatable experiment, one that others can perform with the same results.

"Science" isn't a noun. There is no such thing as "Scientific Authority" despite how that phrase is thrown about.

And as to "why have none of those purported members of the scientific community stepped forward to back him up" I suggest you do some research on the "The Amazing Meeting" conferences over the past several years. Some very prominent and respected scientists HAVE indeed come forward to laud his efforts!

 

[ClonedSIM]

I have to go with SWR and Trips on this one. I don't really believe Randi needs any backers. The same with Carl.

A scientific study stands on it's own merit, regardless of whom conducted the research.

 

[ClonedSIM]

http://www.randi.org/jr/bio.html

Randi boasts a significant history that, while involving a good bit of magic which no one is denying, also includes an impressive association with members of the scientific community, including hospitals, universities, medical associations and medical corporations. I think you'll find many recognized members of the scientific community that have lauded him.

Have you researched any of the self described "Awards " and honors he has listed in his bio? I have. The majority are skeptical societies, little known foriegn universities, and "Honorary" awards that they give just about anybody with a well known name, including pianists. He has several awards for being a good speaker/lecturer....I have no doubt he is, as a public personna he would have to be. My FAVORITE was the one where he was honored by the Science & Engineering Society of the National Security Agency.......in Esquire Magazine, no less.....for being one of the " 100 Best People in the World ".......an honor proudly shared by HOMER SIMPSON.

Give me a break...

You're reaching, Judy.

I have to go with SWR and Trips on this one. I don't really believe Randi needs any backers. The same with Carl.

A scientific study stands on it's own merit, regardless of whom conducted the research.

You didn't respond to this at all.

If Albert Einstein claimed to have discovered a formula that would allow you to reverse the aging process, but refused to show it to anyone, would this be accepted as fact without proof? Hardly, even if it was Einstein.

Conversely, a third-grader in Montana claimed to have constructed a device that would fill the hole in the ozone layer, and then demonstrated it in front of the world, could you deny him this discovery?

I'll say again, a scientific study stands on it's own merit, regardless of whom conducted the research.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Would the world have accepted those discoveries on their own merit....without involvement with the Scientific Community?

Well, the scientific community was involved in my second hypothetical situation, but I think you're missing the point here, Judy.

Randi spreads any information he accumulates with anyone who reads his site. He doesn't hide anything, not does he try to profit by selling devices that haven't been accepted by the scientific community. Quite the opposite, in fact, as he attempts to debunk these things.

At any challenger's request, I have no doubt he would love to have any number of scientific minds present at a pre-test or a challenge.

Randi records and publishes all of his findings. No scientific journals choose to publish them for one reason...because of the subject matter. The tests have merit of their own accord, but because they involve dowsing and levitation and telekinesis and lack of proof of these items, they posses little interest to the scientific community.

Think about this. The scientific community might dabble in these things from time to time, more for their own amusement I suspect, but they have been dismissed as pseudoscience. Why would Randi, and his experiments debunking items that science feels has little value anyway, hold great interest for the scientific community?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Before you can call any study Scientific you need a baseline for the study. All you have are some satistics that may not even be close to right. If you add the Bias factor, what you have is nothing. Your study will be judged as in conculsive....Art

A scientific study stands on it's own merit, regardless of whom conducted the research.

Your right...A Scientific Study will stand on it's on merits. Lets see now. You will have a study of ONE (1) person. You are comparing the results to some satistic from what source? You have proved that ONE (1) Person could or could not do what they said they could do. I am sure all the Scientific People will be standing up and clapping ...Art....

 

[Carl-NC]

Eh, I see that, once again, dowsers are blaming Randi for the failures of dowsing.

First, Randi has offered a challenge. It is not an offer to conduct a formal scientific study of dowsing (though he has been involved in such). His challenge does not need any "endorsement," whatever the heck that means. It's really, really simple: if you can demonstrate that you can dowse, using your own test protocol, then you win $1,000,000. If it turns out that you were self-deceived, and could not do what you thought you could do, you don't win. So far, no one has won.

As for his credentials, Randi is actually better suited for examining paranormal claims than many scientists. Professional magicians know the tricks that many con artists use, and have a keener eye for spotting them. For years, people (including scientists) were taken in by Uri Geller's spoon-bending antics. Randi looked at his performance and said, "Oh, that's pretty easy to do... here, let me show you." I've watched Randi, in person, perform the spoon bending trick, and he's very good at it. But, unlike Geller, he tells you it's only a trick that doesn't require psychic powers. Randi also blew the lid off psychic surgery, a technique that has cost many people their very lives. And, Randi sometimes serves as a consultant in scientific studies, where his expertise as an illusionist helps seal the holes in test protocols that scientists cannot see.

Randi sponsors "The Amazing Meeting" every year in Las Vegas, where folks (often prominent scientists) give lectures and presentations on various topics related to skepticism. If you live in the area (Art, hint hint wink wink) and want to see for yourself what Randi is all about, then give it a try. Next meeting is Jan 18-21.

- Carl

 

[angel_09]

Another questions:

1. Why did Mr. Randi coined dowsing to paranormal, supernatural or occult power?

2. What is the proper observing procedures and what are his basis in formulating these procedures?
a. Is it scientific?
b. Is it from occult?
c. Is it from supernatural?
d. Is it paranormal?

3. Those witnesses he mentioned in his application, why is it that no scientist and engineers involve?

4. If scientist and engineers are not involve, how can scientific and engineering procedures be applied?

Just askin'

Angel_09

 

[Carl-NC]

Another questions:

1. Why did Mr. Randi coined dowsing to paranormal, supernatural or occult power?

This is rather arbitrary, since in reality there is no such thing as paranormal, supernatural or occult powers. However, people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers.

2. What is the proper observing procedures and what are his basis in formulating these procedures?
a. Is it scientific?
b. Is it from occult?
c. Is it from supernatural?
d. Is it paranormal?

Scientific.

3. Those witnesses he mentioned in his application, why is it that no scientist and engineers involve?

They can be involved. But it's not necessary.

4. If scientist and engineers are not involve, how can scientific and engineering procedures be applied?

Because anyone on Earth can apply scientific methodology to what they are doing. The scientific method is not for the exclusive use of scientists.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

You guys are so found of the phrase...SHOW ME....SHOW ME....

" And, Randi sometimes serves as a consultant in scientific studies, where his expertise as an illusionist helps seal the holes in test protocols that scientists cannot see. "

SHOW ME anywhere I can verify this.....and I'm not talking about his self written Bio ( where I believe you copied this statement from ).

Read his book Flim-Flam!. Or just call him up and ask him.

 

[angel_09]

" A. If you can dowse, but either can't or won't demonstrate it under the controlled environment of the "Randi Challenge,"......... " by Captain Trips

" B. It's really, really simple: if you can demonstrate that you can dowse, using your own test protocol, then you win $1,000,000." By Carl N-C

Another question:

On two statements above, which of the two really applies for dowsing test: A or B?

Just askin'....in case...but I prefer my own test protocol as suggested by Carl N-C

Angel_09

 

[Carl-NC]

" A. If you can dowse, but either can't or won't demonstrate it under the controlled environment of the "Randi Challenge,"......... " by Captain Trips

" B. It's really, really simple: if you can demonstrate that you can dowse, using your own test protocol, then you win $1,000,000." By Carl N-C

Another question:

On two statements above, which of the two really applies for dowsing test: A or B?

Just askin'....in case...but I prefer my own test protocol as suggested by Carl N-C

Angel_09

Both. You can propose your own protocol, but it still must be executed in a controlled environment.

The basics are: randomized, blind, observable, repeatable.

- Carl

 

[angel_09]

Quote from: angel_09 on Yesterday at 09:40:07 PM
Another questions:

1. Why did Mr. Randi coined dowsing to paranormal, supernatural or occult power?
This is rather arbitrary, since in reality there is no such thing as paranormal, supernatural or occult powers. However, people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers.


Quote
2. What is the proper observing procedures and what are his basis in formulating these procedures?
a. Is it scientific?
b. Is it from occult?
c. Is it from supernatural?
d. Is it paranormal?
Scientific.


Quote
3. Those witnesses he mentioned in his application, why is it that no scientist and engineers involve?
They can be involved. But it's not necessary.


Quote
4. If scientist and engineers are not involve, how can scientific and engineering procedures be applied?
Because anyone on Earth can apply scientific methodology to what they are doing. The scientific method is not for the exclusive use of scientists.

- Carl


The reason I asked those questions is because of the contents of Mr. Randi's one million dollars challenge. Please let me quote: " At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."
If everybody will notice, nothing has been mentioned about dowsing, so where does the scientific methodology fits in?

Just clarifying,

Angel_09

 

[angel_09]

As I understand to the test application of Mr. Randi regarding 1 million dollars offer, dowsers are not qualified and dowsing is not included in his testable agenda.

Please let me quote:
"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations."

As what Mr. Carl N-C said, please let me quote my questions and his answers again:
1. Why did Mr. Randi coined dowsing to paranormal, supernatural or occult power?
This is rather arbitrary, since in reality there is no such thing as paranormal, supernatural or occult powers. However, people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers.

Quote
2. What is the proper observing procedures and what are his basis in formulating these procedures?
a. Is it scientific?
b. Is it from occult?
c. Is it from supernatural?
d. Is it paranormal?
Scientific.

I think there are contradictions between the two ideas.

Angel_09

 

[Carl-NC]

The reason I asked those questions is because of the contents of Mr. Randi's one million dollars challenge. Please let me quote: " At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."
If everybody will notice, nothing has been mentioned about dowsing, so where does the scientific methodology fits in?

You seem to be going around in circles, so I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. Scientific methodology can be applied in any test of any claim.

As I understand to the test application of Mr. Randi regarding 1 million dollars offer, dowsers are not qualified and dowsing is not included in his testable agenda.

Don't know how you reached that conclusion. It so happens that dowsers make up a majority of applicants.

I think there are contradictions between the two ideas.

You'll need to be more specific.

- Carl

 

[Sandsted]

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations."

What Angel is pointing out is that dowsing is neither psychic, supernatural nor a paranormal ability.

AND

"However, people who don't understand what they are doing, or people who wish to deceive, often attribute their abilities to paranormal, supernatural or occult powers."

I have never once seen any dowser nor any other man claim to utilize paranormal, supernatural or occult powers...well, except magicians.