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

[Carl-NC]

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

I happen to agree, since psychic, supernatural, and paranormal abilities are in the realm of fantasies and frauds. Nevertheless, quite a few people believe in psychic, supernatural, and paranormal abilities, and dowsing tends to get lumped in with the other nonsense.

"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.

That's fine. None of this changes the fact that Randi accepts dowsing (including the use of LLADs) for his challenge, which seems to be what all this dancing around is about.

As always, you don't have to take my word for it... call Randi and ask him.

No excuses, no alibis.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Captain Trips]

"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.

Well, actually, dowsing IS a "paranormal ability" by the very definition of it. Dowsing works (if it really does) by no known scientific principle -- that is, there is no known or theorized scientific principle to explain how the search object is detected by the dowser. It does not follow Maxwell's equations that describe electro-magnetic interactions as it can be applied to non-magnetic and non-electrical objects, it is not by gravitational effects or there would be no such thing as "map dowsing", it certainly is not by either the weak or strong nuclear forces as those only work over distances a smaller than that of an atom.

Since it doesn't obey these (or any other) established scientific principles, it is therefore, by definition, "pseudo-scientific." And therefore it qualifies for Randi's challenge. Your defining it as "neither psychic, supernatural nor a paranormal ability" is irrelevant, as that is just your definition and not that accepted by the general public, who do see it as a "paranormal ability!" And especially as he has actually stated clearly that dowsing is amongst those things he will accept for the challenge!

(I wrote this as Carl was writing his response. I stand by my statements, as they are in alignment with his.)

 

[ClonedSIM]

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

Magicians claim to use these? I've never heard of a magician referring to him or herself as supernatural or paranormal. Do you have an example?

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

Gee Carl...Maybe you should talk to Randi...It seems there is no list of who has applied to take the test. The only thing I can find is a long forum about some of these people....Art

 

[Captain Trips]

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

Magicians claim to use these? I've never heard of a magician referring to him or herself as supernatural or paranormal. Do you have an example?

To play devil's advocate, Uri Geller is one. He is a illusionist who claims to be psychic. Of course, he'd never refer to himself as a "magician!"

And it doesn't matter if a dowser denies they are using "paranormal, supernatural or occult powers" -- it is still recognized as a paranormal ability by the majority of the world, and especially so by those putting up the money. How YOU claim you do it is irrelevant! (And, if it weren't paranormal, how would it have gotten the nickname of "witching sticks?" Folk definitions have there basis somewhere!)

 

[Sandsted]

I'm not arguing that Randi's challenge won't accept dowsers.

"Your defining it as 'neither psychic, supernatural nor a paranormal ability' is irrelevant, as that is just your definition and not that accepted by the general public, who do see it as a 'paranormal ability!'"

The general public? You mean people like yourself? People who look at a subject like dowsing and being the perfectly logical, scientific people they are, immediately laugh at it ignorantly because no KNOWN scientific principle can explain it?

I don't believe it can be argued that in the field of science, in any field of science, there is still more to learn. This is quite agreeable. Yet you propose we dismiss dowsing and completely throw the art away because primitive science can not yet explain it? You again fall back to your strategy of using this, "Dowsing works (if it really does) by no known scientific principle...", to support your conclusion.

Science can't explain a lot of things. But since science can't explain them, does this mean that we should then, because of this, call them "fantasies and frauds" and subject them to monetary based, pre-concluded challenges and dismiss the notion that they exist because of this mere skeptism founded on futile argument that no KNOWN scientific principle can explain them?!

Dowsing is an art that was developed thousands of years ago...yet it has survived. It is not a parlor trick, self-deception, an occult power, or anything that you feel it is. It is a tool developed by ancient man, passed on for hundreds of generations, surviving today to be utilized by those few open minded enough to study it with the neutrality it deserves.

You will never have your answer concerning dowsing, because you aren't asking the question. This is your mistake.

 

[Sandsted]

"witching sticks"

I may be wrong on this, but I thought the term witching came from the Catholic CHurch. Since they did not know how it worked they called it witchcraft and demonic.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Dowsing is an art that was developed thousands of years ago...yet it has survived. It is not a parlor trick, self-deception, an occult power, or anything that you feel it is. It is a tool developed by ancient man, passed on for hundreds of generations, surviving today to be utilized by those few open minded enough to study it with the neutrality it deserves.

You will never have your answer concerning dowsing, because you aren't asking the question. This is your mistake.

I didn't realize that open-minded and gullible were synonymous.

Okay, Sandy, I'll bite. What is "THE QUESTION" that will lead to the answer about dowsing? Tell us what our mistake is....

 

[angel_09]

""witching sticks"

I may be wrong on this, but I thought the term witching came from the Catholic CHurch. Since they did not know how it worked they called it witchcraft and demonic."

Isn't the same church that condemns the person who said that the earth is round?

Just askin'

Angel_09

 

[angel_09]

"Magicians claim to use these? I've never heard of a magician referring to him or herself as supernatural or paranormal. Do you have an example?"

To date, nobody directly claims any magicians referring himself as supernatural or paranormal or abnormal or whatever. But I do know that someone wants to know if anybody can show evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power. For what purpose? It is still to be verified...
Please let me quote the offer of Mr. Randi...
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.

By the way, Mr. Randi claims that he is a magician...Does he use paranormal, supernatural and occult power? I think some people are misguided on who is to be asked...Dowsers never claim they used supernatural power, instead they claim all process involved are scientific, yet they still persist that dowsing is supernatural; while in fact Mr. Randi is a magician who might be the one who uses these "powers", why not ask Mr. Randi instead of dowsers?

Just askin'

Angel_09

 

[ClonedSIM]

By the way, Mr. Randi claims that he is a magician...Does he use paranormal, supernatural and occult power? I think some people are misguided on who is to be asked...Dowsers never claim they used supernatural power, instead they claim all process involved are scientific, yet they still persist that dowsing is supernatural; while in fact Mr. Randi is a magician who might be the one who uses these "powers", why not ask Mr. Randi instead of dowsers?

Just askin'

Angel_09

You said it all right there. Dowsers claim that their abilities are based on sound scientific principles, but no one seems to know what those principles are.

 

[Carl-NC]

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

Gee Carl...Maybe you should talk to Randi...It seems there is no list of who has applied to take the test. The only thing I can find is a long forum about some of these people....Art

I've talked to Randi. I've even visited JREF in Ft. Lauderdale. He has filing drawers full of applications and test documentation. It is all open to the public; anyone can drop in use the files, or his extensive library. Or even just sit down and chat with the man, as I did.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

People who look at a subject like dowsing and being the perfectly logical, scientific people they are, immediately laugh at it ignorantly because no KNOWN scientific principle can explain it?

You're pulling an "Art" again, ignoring recent posts. Science has thoroughly explained dowsing.

I don't believe it can be argued that in the field of science, in any field of science, there is still more to learn. This is quite agreeable. Yet you propose we dismiss dowsing and completely throw the art away because primitive science can not yet explain it?

Science has thoroughly explained dowsing.

Science can't explain a lot of things. But since science can't explain them, does this mean that we should then, because of this, call them "fantasies and frauds" and subject them to monetary based, pre-concluded challenges and dismiss the notion that they exist because of this mere skeptism founded on futile argument that no KNOWN scientific principle can explain them?!

Science has thoroughly explained dowsing.

You will never have your answer concerning dowsing, because you aren't asking the question. This is your mistake.

I'm not looking for an answer.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

By the way, Mr. Randi claims that he is a magician...Does he use paranormal, supernatural and occult power? I think some people are misguided on who is to be asked...Dowsers never claim they used supernatural power, instead they claim all process involved are scientific, yet they still persist that dowsing is supernatural; while in fact Mr. Randi is a magician who might be the one who uses these "powers", why not ask Mr. Randi instead of dowsers?

Randi is an illusionist. Nothing supernatural about what he does, nor does he claim so.

- Carl

 

[Mike(Mont)]

Science hasn't explained anything. A simple example is how to define a circle. Science has only explained an approximation, a close estimate but nothing more than a "square circle". That is not real. Mathmatics cannot explain infinity or anything that is real. You can quote me "Mathematics is an impotent attempt to confine the infinite, AKA God".

 

[dowser501]

I am still trying to work you out. Are you for real. Why don,t the French like you?
Max

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thank you JudyH....I have a lot more to read and learn but this is a great post to get me started...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Now I am understanding what you people are trying to tell the Dowsers. You have a theory that you think is backed up by the Statistics generated by Mathmatics. The only reason we can not prove our theory is that those darn Dowser will not help us.....I think that covers what you guys are about.
From the Dowsers point of view I will not help you because you have not done your home work. There should be some studies that have some real facts at the end of it. Pick people at random on the street, give them a set of dowsing rods and have them step on a metal plate. At the end of this study you would have some real numbers to work with.

Next you could pick random people and hide the plate and see if the rods would cross when they walk by the hidden object. Now you would have two sets of numbers to work with. This is the way a Scientific Study should begin but all you want is the end study.

This is one of the reasons I don't trust Statistics...Remember when the statistics about how many lives would be saved by wearing sear belts. Remember how many lives would be saved with air bags.....I don't remember what all the statistics were in all the saftey improvements on Autos in the passed 20 years but if you totaled them all up No One would have died last year in Auto Accidents. So don't try to tell me Satistics are always right. Bad information in gives Bad information out....Art

 

[xupz]

The only problem is that neither of you ( Judy and Art ) know enough about statistics, bias, significance levels, or power (and the trade-off) to make any of your own conclusions on the subject matter. Your lack of education in the subject is to such a degree you don't understand the articles or material they cover at even the basic level. Instead of posting some links, how about posting what you actually think the articles were saying and to which areas of statistics they are appropriate for and explain them. This should be rather amusing.

Oh yea Art, I already posted a link to an introductory design of experiments book in another thread for you. Until you have any education on what a real experimental design is and its modeling structure, your concept of "understanding" is nonexistent. Don't confuse sampling & survey design with DOE because they are different subject areas despite overlap, you can learn them independently.

 

[xupz]

Gee Xupz,....are you asking for my Opinion?

I'm asking you to summerize what the artilces you posted actually mean in your own words. Here's a good link:

http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/dexanova.html

This has only a small fraction of the types of designs that are out there.

Couple more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics