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

[ClonedSIM]

Just ask him. A participant can have whomever he wants attend the testing, but it's obvious why none of them can watch the hiding of the target.

After reading Randi's web site and other material on this forum it is my opinion that af is GUESSING HOW RANDI'S TEST operates.....Are these real guesses or are they backed up by math....Art

Let's see. You want mathematical proof that friends of the candidate can't view the target being hidden.....

That would be (ART+DOWSING)/LOGIC=USELESS QUESTION

Why would anyone in their right mind think that Randi would allow friends of the person being tested to watch him while he hid the target

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Captain Trips]

[=Captain

Hi my friend, can you gve me "one" reason why they would want, or allow, anyone to pass the test?

Tropical Tramp

Because they are SKEPTICAL, not DISBELIEVING! There is a difference -- a skeptic says, "show me you can do it, and I will accept that you can." A disbeliever says, "NOTHING you do will get me to accept you can do it."

And to the argument of "why would they be willing to lose a million dollars?" Well, they've ALREADY lost it. They can not access it themselves, as it is being held in escrow. They have, in effect, already given it away -- they just don't know to whom yet. When someone actually comes up and passes all the way through the challenge, THEN they will know who they've given it to.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi a curious thought is it in a type of ser up that draws interest
?
Beside the money, they lose crditibility and so the program dives in ratings etc etc. this is enough reason for playng hanky panky, it has been done for far less. no?

Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hi a curious thought is it in a type of ser up that draws interest
?
Beside the money, they lose crditibility and so the program dives in ratings etc etc. this is enough reason for playng hanky panky, it has been done for far less. no?

Tropical Tramp

If one person does take the money (no one is saying it will be a dowser) there are plenty of other claims out there that have yet to be proven. They'll simply move on and mark that particular item off their list.
As Captain said, they are skeptics, and once something is proven they'll no longer be skeptical of it.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

H I see that typically, Jean has refused to try a little experiment that is outside of her firmly entrenched little kingdom since she would be entering into a realm of the unknown to her.

Obviously this means that she has a completely closed mind.and doesn't wish to learn more, especially since it is outside of her present knowledge. we peons must not shake the royal ego.

So I am canceling it since it has now "proven" my point.

p..s SWR she has been informed by her friends and natural curiosity would have prompted her to at least peek, incidentally, some of her posts indicate that I am on her voluntary (selective) ignore not the button one..This way she can concentrate on art, and bide her time and not have to answer embarrassing questions until I make a boo boo.

Tropical Tramp[

 

[ClonedSIM]

Realde,
A little FYI for you. Jean came here as a fence-sitter, but has been firmly shoved into the skeptic side of life thanks to the numerous and hilarious rantings and claims of the dowsers here. Good job, guys!

 

[aarthrj3811]

A little FYI for you. Jean came here as a fence-sitter, but has been firmly shoved into the skeptic side of life thanks to the numerous and hilarious rantings and claims of the dowsers here. Good job, guys!

And I have a bridge in San Francisco to seel you...Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

A little FYI for you. Jean came here as a fence-sitter, but has been firmly shoved into the skeptic side of life thanks to the numerous and hilarious rantings and claims of the dowsers here. Good job, guys!

And I have a bridge in San Francisco to seel you...Art

Awww, Art! You mean you don't believe everything I say like you expect us to blindly believe you? Just ask her or, better yet, go back and read her first few posts yourself.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Is this all you've got, Judy? Someone starts a post looking for dowsers to take one of these challenges, and the challenges have been gone over in great detail, and now you want proof that the challenges will produce proof?

You want proof of proof.

And you call this thread a waste of intelligence?

Just answer me this. If a dowser was able to find a target hidden under on of 10 possible locations to a success rate of 70%, and was able to do this repeatedly, would you consider this proof that this person can dowse?

I would.

And if this person can dowse, then it would be apparent that dowsing works and is a real thing and more than one person should posses this talent?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Is this all you've got, Judy? Someone starts a post looking for dowsers to take one of these challenges, and the challenges have been gone over in great detail, and now you want proof that the challenges will produce proof?

You want proof of proof.

And you call this thread a waste of intelligence?

Just answer me this. If a dowser was able to find a target hidden under on of 10 possible locations to a success rate of 70%, and was able to do this repeatedly, would you consider this proof that this person can dowse?

I would.

And if this person can dowse, then it would be apparent that dowsing works and is a real thing and more than one person should posses this talent?

I don't doubt you would, AF.
But, in the same respect.....are you qualified to determine what is proof?

Judy

So you don't want to answer my question?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Just answer me this. If a dowser was able to find a target hidden under on of 10 possible locations to a success rate of 70%, and was able to do this repeatedly, would you consider this proof that this person can dowse?

Like JudyH said .....How can this be done....Randi's challenge will not do it so what is your plan....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Judy has cast her lot with the dowsers and is now asking repetitive questions while offering no answers whatsoever.

Dowsers don't want someone to take the challenge and fail, because they are worried it will give more ammunition to the skeptics. That's why they call the test unfair and say it will prove nothing, but here's the rub; these same dowsers don't want to take the test themselves because they don't have the accuracy needed to pass the pre-test.

Just answer me this. If a dowser was able to find a target hidden under on of 10 possible locations to a success rate of 70%, and was able to do this repeatedly, would you consider this proof that this person can dowse?

I would.

And if this person can dowse, then it would be apparent that dowsing works and is a real thing and more than one person should posses this talent?

I call this proof. Any dowser that can do this I'm quite sure would be happy with their success as well, but as it's already been stated, dowsers don't need proof. They already know they can dowse, right?

But any dowser who took and achieved 70% accuracy in Randi's challenge would be more than happy to refer to the test when someone asks him for proof.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[ClonedSIM]

So if a dowser passed Randi's test, he would not offer that as proof that dowsing works?

 

[ClonedSIM]

Yes and yes.

Simple answers, I know, but at least it's an answer. You seem to have run out of them.

 

[Captain Trips]

Um, what would be considered proof of dowsing?

Well...let's see.


DOING IT. Doing it under a controlled situation, where there can be no question of it. Doing it in such an environment with credible and uninterested witnesses such that there can be no doubt of it being done.


(Hey, I think I just summarized the Randi challenge!)

 

[aarthrj3811]

Dowsers don't want someone to take the challenge and fail, because they are worried it will give more ammunition to the skeptics. That's why they call the test unfair and say it will prove nothing, but here's the rub; these same dowsers don't want to take the test themselves because they don't have the accuracy needed to pass the pre-test.

And if this person can dowse, then it would be apparent that dowsing works and is a real thing and more than one person should posses this talent?
I call this proof. Any dowser that can do this I'm quite sure would be happy with their success as well, but as it's already been stated, dowsers don't need proof. They already know they can dowse, right?

Dowsers don't want someone to take the challenge and fail.....That sounds logical to me..

because they are worried it will give more ammunition to the skeptics. No..it would prove that person could not Dowse.

That's why they call the test unfair and say it will prove nothing.
Wrong about that

these same dowsers don't want to take the test themselves because they don't have the accuracy needed to pass the pre-test.
Right beside ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TAKEN THE PRE-TEST. Why has everyone failed?

I call this proof.....Real Scientic Proof...

dowsers don't need proof.......Most Dowsers do a lot of self testing

They already know they can dowse, right?
Thank you for telling us that.
Did I give you an answer?....Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI one question, why havent the antidowsers ever answered my posts # 6 #88, and others similar. Until this is addressed and incorporated into the test, it is meaningless. while it might indicate non-dowser or poor dowsers guessing protocols, it does not test dowsing as such, period.

All of the useless parading of statistical data will not change this one iota, just feed desperate egos that need it to survive.

I am just thorougly disgusted with the inflexability of certain posters and their atempts to remain under a false cloak of scientific testing, which appears to be more personal gratification rather than a sincere interest of nvestigation.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Carl-NC]

Are James Randi and/or Carl Moreland and their " Challenges ".....qualified, in any way, for determining what is considered proof?

I think not.

I agree. I'm not offering a method to prove or disprove dowsing. I've said that before, though it seems to have fallen on deaf eyes. But I am qualified to do what I do, which is investigate dowsng and dowsing devices, and design tests for dowsing claims.

For those those who weren't paying attention before...

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE DOWSING.

Just as it is impossible to disprove IPUs.

So, let's all stop asking skeptics to disprove dowsing, eh?

However, the existence of a dowsing phenomena can be proven, by a successful series of demonstrations. Please note that I said existence, not mechanism. We need not jump to the task of trying to prove how dowsing works, until it is proven to work. And I said series, not a single test. It is always possible to get fluke results, have outright fraud, or to design a horrendously bad test. There are many many examples of these occurring throughout the history of science.

So how does one go about proving that dowsing works? Well, you ask the dowsers, "What can you do?" And when they tell you what they can do, you design a test for that particular claim. Believe it or not, this is how science actually works. You don't have to take my word for it, ask the people who do this for a living.

I began a discussion on a specific example of how a dowsing test might get designed in a different thread, a thread that was ironically entitled, "Wanted: Suggestions for designing a test for dowsing." However, it became clear that there was no interest in discussing such tests, especially when I was specifically told by the originator of the thread that there was no interest in discussing such tests.

It should be very obvious, by now, that the challenge doesn't prove anything.

The challenges can serve two purposes. One is that an individual test event can be used to prove or disprove an individual claim. Again, note that an individual test does not prove or disprove dowsing overall. Second, the overall body of evidence from many tests can be used to indicate whether dowsing is likely to work, or not.

Ferinstance, if a number of tests have statistically successful results, and the test protocols and results pass scientific scrutiny (and, especially if the results can be independently replicated), then this might be sufficient proof that dowsing works. However, if the vast majority of tests fail, then that would strongly indicate that dowsing does not work. Please notice that I did NOT say a majority of failures prove that dowsing does not work. There could always be one Real Dowser who has yet to be tested. That's why dowsing cannot be disproven. Never ever. But we can reach Extreme Confidence.

The challenges have an fascinating third effect, that of drawing out the alibis. When dowsing tests (or LLADs) are discussed, the cain't-do-its come out of the woodwork to deny that such scientific methods have any use, sometimes while emphatically stating that they are pro-science. Just not that kind of science. Dowsing proponents attack the tests with all sorts of ad hoc excuses, disinformation campaigns, and even personal attacks on the sponsors, while flatly refusing to even give such a challenge the benefit of the doubt by applying for it, and seeing if their accusations have any truth whatsoever. Or if their own dowsing claims have any truth whatsoever. Obviously, truth is not primary concern with them.

In the end, those who say they can do it the loudest, are the ones who cain't do it the mostest.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

But I am qualified to do what I do, which is investigate dowsng and dowsing devices, and design tests for dowsing claims.

Ok Carl....What makes you Qualified to be a tester of Dowsing? If you read between the lines of this post it is the same old B/S. If you want to settle this 400 plus year dowsing thing give us a way to do this. You my want to ask Randi to pitch in his $1,000,000 dollars to help with the cost of this study, I am sure he will agree. You have found that thowing some money in the pot gets you no where. Giving bad test reports do not stop people from buying.

Lay a plan on us. It may surprise you how many Dowsers would be interested in doing some testing if it would mean something.
But let me warn you...It will shake your whole world when you find out the truth...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Ok Carl....What makes you Qualified to be a tester of Dowsing?

• I am very familiar with dowsing, dowsing claims, and dowsing alibis.
• I am very familiar with dowsing devices, including LLADs.
• I am very familiar with traditional geophysical devices, and how those devices might be used in an attempt to cheat.
• I know that the most likely causes of dowsing successes are overt observation, intuition, and luck, and I know how to eliminate or account for them in a test.
• I know how to design tests that utilyze good scientific methods, namely randomization and double-blind protocol.
• I know how to calculate probabilities, and how they play into expected results.
• I know how to conduct tests to prevent intentional or unintentional information leakage.

If you want to settle this 400 plus year dowsing thing give us a way to do this. You my want to ask Randi to pitch in his $1,000,000 dollars to help with the cost of this study...

You are still insisting that mine and Randi's challenges are intended to be "studies." Here, let me clarify just a little...

Dowsing challenges are not intended to be studies of dowsing.


That doesn't mean you cannot take the results from these challenges and extrapolate the efficacy of dowsing from them. But they primarily are challenges, NOT studies. Show ME that YOU can do what YOU claim. In particular, I want LLAD manufacturers to show me that their LLADs are NOT just money-making scams.

It may surprise you how many Dowsers would be interested in doing some testing if it would mean something.

So far, all I've heard are excuses for avoiding tests no matter what. In fact, that's been the primary theme over the past month or so. But, hey, my challenge does offer you something. $25,000 if you are successful*. And knowledge of dowsing's deception if you are not**. So you see, it's a win-win deal for the dowser.

Amazingly, it's a no-win deal for me. I will either lose $25,000***, or I will gain nothing. So why do I have the challenge? It's 99.9% for the LLAD manufacturers to show the true nature of their business.

But let me warn you...It will shake your whole world when you find out the truth.

Oh, don't worry too much about me, I can handle anything. Question is, are you up to putting your dowsing skills to a REAL test? So far, not.

- Carl

*And worth a million bucks if you go through Randi.
**Assuming you are willing to accept the ramifications of failure.
***But will gain the knowledge that dowsing might Really Work, which is a questionable gain at best.