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

[aarthrj3811]

Good plan Carl...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[ClonedSIM]

Dell, Dell, Dell. Taking quotes out of context? Pretty low.

Now go and post this on your site for the 15 or so people there to read and let them think they're getting both sides of the story. Will that make you feel better

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=Carl-
HI my friend, will you please post the results of a "series" of tests with the "same" dowser.

Tropical Tramp

 

[Jean310]

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

Is there any possibility at all that during this exercise of testing, it could be your whole world that would be shaken up?

When you say; ....if it would mean something ---aren't you really thinking, If it would prove dowsing works better than guessing?

Based on what you've contended so far, it would seem that if a test could be carried out (doubtful), there is only one outcome you would accept, and all others would be rejected as somehow flawed. Isn't that being just a tad bit closed-minded?

Jean

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI antidowsers. a quote from Carl
*******************
author=Carl-NC link=topic=28701.msg466040#msg466040 date=1168463099]
[[/quote]]You admit that you can not Dowse....So how can you know that the RODS behave the same
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl

Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

swr
Stop with the crybaby act. No untrue statements were made. James Randi said "Winders won’t even apply, though hundreds of other dowsers have…" in an email to me. That is the truth.
*************************
although hundreds of other dowsers have…"
****************
Show me the em an the published proof swr!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*************

Tropical Tamp

 

[Jean310]

swr
Stop with the crybaby act. No untrue statements were made. James Randi said "Winders won’t even apply, though hundreds of other dowsers have…" in an email to me. That is the truth.
*************************
although hundreds of other dowsers have…"
****************
Show me the em an the published proof swr!

Here is a novel idea...why not ask Winders yourself, if they’ve applied for the Million Dollar Challenge? That way, you have it straight from the horses’ mouth and you don’t have to continue with the childish antics. Copy/pasting an email is not published proof

You peaked my interest, so I asked Randi about it too. Got the same answer you did, which of course doesn't surprise me.

Jean

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[SWR link=topic=]
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Show me the em an the published proof swr! **************

Here is a novel idea...why not ask Winders yourself, if they’ve applied for the Million Dollar Challenge? That way, you have it straight from the horses’ mouth and you don’t have to continue with the childish antics. Copy/pasting an email is not published proof
************
Why? you said that YOU had it?? As you said, it is up to "you' to prove it to the sceptic, ME ! Does this that you were / are err not telling the truth - a bit of prevaricating? IF you have it, post it in it's entirety
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HO JUDY

Frankly I can't see why the existence of dowsing as a viable factor is even being discussed any more. It seems that this has been admitted to / established by one of it's leading detractors which makes me wonder ----hmmmmmm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

Either way....it's rather obvious that to mean something the challenges would have to have value to the scientific community.....and as Carl has so politely pointed out, on several occasions....the challenges are not intended to be scientific studies.

Judy

Carl said his challenge is not intended as a scientific study, but he did state that the results could be used with those of later studies, since they were carried out using a double blind protocol.

You're the second person to mis-quote Carl on this one.

It's all well and good to claim you use scientific methods.....but you, yourself, have said that anyone can use scientific methods....therefore canceling out any value of your own "Challenge".

Judy

Anyone can use them, the question is will they?

The "Challenges" are only aimed at debunking one individuals claim of dowsing ability. They don't even claim to do it scientifically....just however they see fit, using their own rules.

Judy

Judy, Judy, Judy....

Randi's site specifically states a dowser can dictate how he intends to show the JREF he can prove his ability. There are rules, of course, but have you read any rule in the challenge that is unfair? If so, repeat it here.

Carl, on the other hand, uses a testing method that is exactly the same that Art uses. If Art scores 100% on his, then what would stop him from achieving the same on Carl's test?

And if the challenge debunks even one die-hard dowser by proving his ability was nothing more than educated guessing, well, I guess we can just draw our own conclusions about the rest of the dowsers out there.

If there are any dowsers out there, who are interested in allowing James Randi or Carl Moreland test their abilities, and are willing to accept their judgement as to what is considered proof.....then GO FOR IT!!

Judy

Agreed! Any takers

 

[aarthrj3811]

Carl said his challenge is not intended as a scientific study, but he did state that the results could be used with those of later studies, since they were carried out using a double blind protocol.

Is that double talk or what?

Randi's site specifically states a dowser can dictate how he intends to show the JREF he can prove his ability. There are rules, of course, but have you read any rule in the challenge that is unfair? If so, repeat it here.

No I have not read any rule in the challenge that is unfair....BECAUSE..There are no rules posted on Randi's web site.

Carl, on the other hand, uses a testing method that is exactly the same that Art uses. If Art scores 100% on his, then what would stop him from achieving the same on Carl's test?

And you have told me that my test sucks

 

[Jean310]

When you say; ....if it would mean something ---aren't you really thinking, If it would prove dowsing works better than guessing?

Jean

Perhaps Jean should consider taking the "Challenge" with her mind reading abilities........ESP now, eh?
Or just another example of Skeps twisting words around to suit their purpose?

Judy

Twisting words? Gosh Judy, even you should have seen the question (?) mark. That would make it a question, not a statement of fact. It was merely a logical inference I was suggesting might be true based on everything I've read of Art's so far.

Try not to get your knickers in a twist without some due cause.

Jean

 

[angel_09]

Dowsing challenges are not intended to be studies of dowsing. - Carl

If it is not intended for studies, so be it....
but take my words... IT WORKS!!!
How it works? Well, you have to change your mindset that dowsing needs to be learned to prove that it really works...

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE DOWSING.- Carl

If it is impossible to disprove dowsing, then why do you challenge the dowsers?

Just curious,

Angel_09

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=SWR You peaked my interest, so I asked Randi about it too. Got the same answer you did, which of course doesn't surprise me. JeanSimple, eh?
**********

Sorry, as swr said, "anecdotal data is not accepted in here" , show this sceptic the proof.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

=angel_09 ]dowsing challenges are not intended to be studies of dowsing. - Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
If it is not intended for studies, so be it....
but take my words... IT WORKS!!!
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE DOWSING.- Carl
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
If it is impossible to disprove dowsing, then why do you challenge the dowsers? Just curious,Angel_09
***************
To let the egotists spout off about their vaunted failed statistics and to hide the fact that while he admits that he can dowse, he is a lousy one, so to compensate he runs the others down. (second week of beginning psychology)
snicker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Operational definitions are inherently difficult — arguably, even impossible — to apply to mental entities, because these latter are generally understood to be accessible only to the individual who experiences them and are therefore not independently verifiable."
=================
Of course I can dowse! It's quite easy, just not very useful. - Carl
*****************


Tropical Tramp

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI ROOM
isn't it about time to discuss Dowsing rationally and try to suggest ways to improve it instead of just mocking, ridiculing it and some of it's posters.etc ?

Even Carl, one of the most devoted attackers, has admitted to dowsing, so since there is no longer a question of it's existence, why don't we start on ways to improve it.

As to how it works , that is outside of any of our indvidual expertise, so put that aside, and discuss dowsing rationally

Tropical Tramp

 

[ClonedSIM]

Carl said his challenge is not intended as a scientific study, but he did state that the results could be used with those of later studies, since they were carried out using a double blind protocol.

Is that double talk or what?

No, it is what it is. Carl has never once said that his challenge is a scientific study carried out to discover the causes of dowsing, and some here would like to believe. His test is executed using a double blind protocol, which is the accepted method of the scientific community. This means that the test is carried out fairly.

Randi's site specifically states a dowser can dictate how he intends to show the JREF he can prove his ability. There are rules, of course, but have you read any rule in the challenge that is unfair? If so, repeat it here.

No I have not read any rule in the challenge that is unfair....BECAUSE..There are no rules posted on Randi's web site.

Exactly! So where are these unfair rules that everyone keeps talking about!?! There are no rules in place until a challenger brings his own challenge to the JREF, then a list of rules is generated to define the results of the challenge and to prevent any tomfoolery from either party.

Carl, on the other hand, uses a testing method that is exactly the same that Art uses. If Art scores 100% on his, then what would stop him from achieving the same on Carl's test?

And you have told me that my test sucks

You're test does suck, Art! Glad you see that now. But that doesn't mean that parts of yours can't be incorporated with true double-blind testing standards to create a test that does not suck!

But you're steering everyone away from an important detail. Your wife hides a target under a half-shell and you then find it with 100% accuracy, in your own words. Substitute Carl hiding them and you have the challenge! Remember,
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE!!! - dell

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey af1733....Why..There is nothing for me to learn from the challenge....Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

Hey af1733....Why..There is nothing for me to learn from the challenge....Art

Who said anything about learning, not that you've ever bothered yourself overly much with that attribute. If you can do the hidden gold/egg shell test at home, and you perform this as you say you do, you should be able to do it in front on Carl, and make a quick $25,000.

You already know you can do it, right? So there's really nothing to learn, but rather to earn!

 

[Jean310]

Hey af1733....Why..There is nothing for me to learn from the challenge....Art

Who said anything about learning, not that you've ever bothered yourself overly much with that attribute. If you can do the hidden gold/egg shell test at home, and you perform this as you say you do, you should be able to do it in front on Carl, and make a quick $25,000.

You already know you can do it, right? So there's really nothing to learn, but rather to earn!

Let me just guess. Art's apprehension about trying for Carl's $25K stems from his fear (or knowing) that Carl's d-b protocol might be different than what he's been using as a d-b test procedure. Gosh.... ya think?