talkmagic.co.uk

I saw some dowsers using those L Rods on Ghost Hunters once. Thought it was kind of silly, sense the rest of the team had Infrared and other high tech gadgets. I mean that's pretty much what the technology is for.. You can't really have a TV show where they explain that they've had a feeling or something.

Craig Browning wrote:

mrgoat wrote:

Craig Browning wrote:Well into the 19th century Dowsing was very much a key part to Survey Work with aspects of it tied to other legitimate fields.

Why do you think they stopped using dowsers? Was there a smear campaign by a 19th century Randi-type?

And why are you back?

I never went anywhere, snook'ems.

Craig Browning wrote:
LEAVE! No one Wants you Here!

Lol. That's very funny.

I must have really put your nose out of joint for daring challenge the nonsense you post.

Sorry, but I'm not going anywhere darling.

xxx

Wishmaster wrote:Craig - Does the material used for the dowsing rods matter? I've seen them sold via retail outlets and suggestions on the web to make your own using nothing more than wire coat hangers and plastic tubing. If Barry is correct and dowsing's success is due to an ideomotor response to "something" we are picking up outside our conscious senses, I guess it doesn't make any difference.

You need to remove as much friction as possible. Same thing with ouija board and having the pointer with ball bearings on the bottom. Same as the wire inserted into hollow plastic tubes. Same as a wedding ring/bold on a string.

All the same utter balderdash. There is nothing that water emits that can be picked up by anyone. Otherewise, it would have been very simple to measure whatever this 'something' is.

Craig will be saying trepanning and blood letting is a good idea next!

Craig Browning wrote:
The so-called "Tests" by the Scientists always involve sitting water vs. naturally flowing springs which is one of the biggest reasons for the failure rate in the lab setting. There have been several explanations for this, even within Dowser's groups that refer to one's intuitive understanding of how the lay of the land, vegetation, and

"Most dowsers do not consider it important to doubt their dowsing powers or to wonder if they are self-deceived. They never consider doing a controlled scientific test of their powers. They think that the fact that they have been successful over the years at dowsing is proof enough. When dowsers are scientifically tested and fail, they generally react with genuine surprise. Typical is what happened when James Randi tested some dowsers using a protocol they all agreed upon. If they could locate water in underground pipes at an 80% success rate they would get $10,000 (now the prize is over $1,000,000). All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of non-scientific instruments, including a pendulum. Says Randi, "the sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it."

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

Believing in dowsing is like saying the earth is flat.

mrgoat wrote:All the same utter balderdash. There is nothing that water emits that can be picked up by anyone. Otherewise, it would have been very simple to measure whatever this 'something' is.

Not true. You can't measure consciousness yet you would not deny it exists. You can't measure love or joy, yet one can have an experience of it. You can't measure awareness but you can say people have differing levels of it.

Just because nothing has been discovered being emitted by water that humans can detect it doesn't mean it does not exist.

The thing is is science, while useful, is a flawed tool. It is reductionist and would have us believe we are automatons. When it can detect and measure love, hell, even just awareness, then I'll have a lot more time for it.

I have little time for 'scientific' experiments conducted by those who have a vested interest in them failing.

Gary Dickson wrote:

mrgoat wrote:All the same utter balderdash. There is nothing that water emits that can be picked up by anyone. Otherewise, it would have been very simple to measure whatever this 'something' is.

Not true. You can't measure consciousness yet you would not deny it exists. You can't measure love or joy, yet one can have an experience of it. You can't measure awareness but you can say people have differing levels of it.

Just because nothing has been discovered being emitted by water that humans can detect it doesn't mean it does not exist.

The thing is is science, while useful, is a flawed tool. It is reductionist and would have us believe we are automatons. When it can detect and measure love, hell, even just awareness, then I'll have a lot more time for it.

I have little time for 'scientific' experiments conducted by those who have a vested interest in them failing.

AMEN!

Gary Dickson wrote:Not true. You can't measure consciousness yet you would not deny it exists.

If an agreement could be reached on what consciousness is then it could be attempted to be measured however it is not rigidly defined so cannot be tested.

You can't measure love or joy, yet one can have an experience of it.

You can and it is done. fMRIs show what areas of the brain are active when people experience joy etc. There are also studies of hormone levels in the blood when people are in love.

You can't measure awareness but you can say people have differing levels of it.

I don't follow this one.

Just because nothing has been discovered being emitted by water that humans can detect it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Yes but the onus of proof is on those who claim it does emit something. There is also no current mechanism that would allow for it.

The thing is is science, while useful, is a flawed tool.

Sorry? What would you suggest? Blind faith? Random guessing? Just making Bullsh*t up and claiming it's true?

It is reductionist and would have us believe we are automatons.

Gonna go with straw man on that one. Also, reductionism is in almost all cases the best way to study them.

When it can detect and measure love, hell, even just awareness, then I'll have a lot more time for it.

See above

I have little time for 'scientific' experiments conducted by those who have a vested interest in them failing.

Do you undestand the reason for double blinding and peer reviewing? it eliminates as much bias as is possible. By getting both parties to agree it is a fair test, it further removes the abilities of testers to influence the results.

That is also a slightly veiled ad hominim, attack the validity of the tests and not the testers.

I'm more than willing to believe that dowsing works for some people on the basis of subconscious recognition of signs of water, oil, ore, or whatever the dowser is seeking. If a geologist can examine a landscape or even a map and say "this looks like oil country", there's no reason why a dowser can't come to the same conclusion on a subconscious level.

This theory is testable. If it's all subconcious gathering of clues from the environment, then the dowser depends on whatever he's learned about that environment. His skill should improve with time and practice. He should do better on familiar types of landscape than somewhere with a completely different geology. He should fail when seeking something he's never worked with before (e.g. sending a water dowser in search of diamonds).

This would also explain why Randi's tests, and similar tests, fail. Finding a container of water buried at some random spot in a field is hardly the same thing as interpreting geological cues.

A hypothetical question: Suppose someday it's proven beyond doubt that dowsing is entirely based on this sort of subconscious geological interpretation. Would you call it real or bogus?

Harry Guinness wrote:

You can't measure awareness but you can say people have differing levels of it.

I don't follow this one.

That says sooo much... I shouldn't even try.

Just because nothing has been discovered being emitted by water that humans can detect it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Yes but the onus of proof is on those who claim it does emit something. There is also no current mechanism that would allow for it.

This one line has to be the mantra of cynics the world over not to mention the fact that it's one of their biggest cop-outs. They are all for bashing things and believe it their divine right to do so but just like the Grand Inquisition, it is up to the accused to prove their innocence or, as it were, the validity of what the aggressor is presenting as a falsehood.

It is the cynic that is making the claim that views and understanding (experiences) not only known of but believed by hundreds of millions of people for eons, is false. Where is their UNBIASED proof to their claims; their own "onus of proof" as it were, to what they espouse?

The double-speak tactics of the cynic is possibly the biggest chink in their armor in that no matter what "proofs" their victims might offer up, they will strive to taint such evidence and for the sake of personal ego, justify it away as being what it isn't... experiencing showing me at least, that NOTHING will ever satisfy such arrogance of mind and delusions of self-import.

The thing is is science, while useful, is a flawed tool.

Sorry? What would you suggest? Blind faith? Random guessing? Just making bullsh*t up and claiming it's true?

Wow... double-speak! Color me purple and call me Barney (please don't)

This is a classic smoke-screen based on supposed logic. It's intent is to confuse and disarm the claimant. Rather than recognizing the fact that the cynic's movement will do all it can to discredit any scientific research that may support any kind of psychic or paranormal reality (and need I remind you of how CSICOPS deliberately tampered with data some years back and got caught doing so), they use ploys of this kind to throw the heat off themselves and back into the lap of those they wish to harass and torment.

It is reductionist and would have us believe we are automatons.

Gonna go with straw man on that one. Also, reductionism is in almost all cases the best way to study them.

Another classic of the cynically inclined. They can't give you a counter position based on both, logic and common understanding so they have to belittle the position by making it mythical and parody.

I have little time for 'scientific' experiments conducted by those who have a vested interest in them failing.

Do you undestand the reason for double blinding and peer reviewing? it eliminates as much bias as is possible. By getting both parties to agree it is a fair test, it further removes the abilities of testers to influence the results.

That is also a slightly veiled ad hominim, attack the validity of the tests and not the testers.

How many times has I shown, just in your responses, this same supposed course of action?

The "Validity" of tests isn't just based around the theory of double-blind testing but likewise the integrity of those joined together in doing the research. The problem being that few self-proclaimed skeptics will allow for the creation of a balanced research team composed of rationalists as well as optimists.

Getting both parties to agree is a wonderful loop-hole St. Randi invented (along side a couple of crooked lawyer chums) in that it offers the illusion of fairness, even detouring the idea of underhandedness on the part of the testers in a way that allows them to look the victim when charges are brought on the grounds of deception and even (another of Randi's favorite ploys) demanding outrageous levels of qualification that typically go way outside normal (legitimate) scientific studies.

Integrity is the key here and so long as we continue with two heavily divided groups holding to their personal points of view, we will never know "agreement" or, to phrase things a bit more clearly, where either school of thought comes together in a way that manifests cohesion and PRODUCTIVITY.

Since the mid Industrial age there has been a very deliberate, albeit semi-covert, agenda to do away with what the rationalists refer to as being little other than habit of superstition in place of the arrogant idea that intellect, science and logic are the superior course to all things. It is such a key instrument for the Atheist agenda that some call it their version of evangelism; the parallels of attitude and action being amazingly aligned to those of the religious right (regardless of the theological foundation). Researchers from outside that element, especially students of sociology and human behavior, theorize that this aggressive expression as it has come to be seen today, is but the natural outcropping of reaction to how theological elements condemned and suppressed science prior to the Renaissance era (and even since, though at a seriously limited degree).

Now society will always find its detractors on whatever issue you may wish to table, that's just how human beings learn and grow. But when such perspective becomes dogmatic, it no longer serves the greater whole nor the greater good. It will create division and unrest, which will never result in human advancement on any level. For no other reason this is why the truly intelligent embrace the ancient ideas of balance and how seeming conflicts in perspective can agree. Which, interesting enough, is what most classify as AWARENESS or ENLIGHTENMENT.

The True Mystics of antiquity were not gullible fools; they were very much the scientists of their time but unlike what we have today, they weighed things in ways that allowed for the power of faith and how it serves humanity at far higher levels than the coldness of pure logic. Then as now, the truly learned within the psychic and paranormal side of life, are realists and will even point out that most all the great mysteries will be defined and ultimately understood by those seeking higher intellect as well as the higher sense of spiritual calling, for they are both the same thing... at least according to most of the known mystic philosophies akin to Buddhism and Gnosticism.

Enough has been expressed on this issue; either side is just as wrong as they are right and to continue this saga only serves to create loss. So let it end and move on... move forward.

Robbie wrote:A hypothetical question: Suppose someday it's proven beyond doubt that dowsing is entirely based on this sort of subconscious geological interpretation. Would you call it real or bogus?

The funny thing is, magnetism and electricity weren't just seen as mystical rubbish for centuries but the church labeled them as proof to the devil's evil influence on the world.

So if we were to go back in time to those days when the rationalists viewed such etheric energies with strong skepticism... hmmm


Makes one wonder a bit...

Some interesting points raised.

If an agreement could be reached on what consciousness is then it could be attempted to be measured however it is not rigidly defined so cannot be tested.

But nevertheless we agree it exists. You do agree it exists, don't you? Assuming you do I think this raises a really interesting point. There is a 'thing' that cannot be measured, that cannot even be defined, but that we all know exists! How great is that!?!

You can and it is done. fMRIs show what areas of the brain are active when people experience joy etc. There are also studies of hormone levels in the blood when people are in love.

What they measure is the effects of those states, not the states themselves. They do not measure the experience. Also I would differentiate love (which is altruistic) from romantic attachment (being 'in love', which is largely selfish).

Gary Dickson wrote:Just because nothing has been discovered being emitted by water that humans can detect it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Yes but the onus of proof is on those who claim it does emit something. There is also no current mechanism that would allow for it.

Well, yes. My point precisely. There is no mechanism to detect that. But just because the ability to detect a thing is not there does not mean it does not exist. After all, one cannot detect awareness but you cannot deny it exists.

Gary Dickson wrote:The thing is is science, while useful, is a flawed tool.

Sorry? What would you suggest? Blind faith? Random guessing? Just making bullsh*t up and claiming it's true?

I think it is bad form to ask a question and supply derogatory answers. It leads me to think you are not interested in what I might have to say on the subject, that your mind is already closed.

I do not advocate blind faith. Blind faith is a ploy used by those who do not want to take responsibility for themselves, whether that faith is vested in God or science. I advocate faith that is tested against one's own experience.

I am not saying science is without merits, just that it is limited and that there are certain areas where science just cannot go. I suppose the prime area being spiritual experience. Any attempt to reduce human experience down to just electro-chemical reactions, and those alone, is laughable.

We are so much more than the firing of synapses. We are all divine beings, inherently pure and perfect in every way. Each and every one of us.

Do you undestand the reason for double blinding and peer reviewing? it eliminates as much bias as is possible. By getting both parties to agree it is a fair test, it further removes the abilities of testers to influence the results.

That is also a slightly veiled ad hominim, attack the validity of the tests and not the testers.

Of course I do, I'm not an idiot. However I do not believe that Mr Randi is unbiased. Let's not forget that scientists have agendas too. The testers can influence the results psychically, even if this is an entirely unconscious action.

People with higher levels of awareness can perceive more things. Practitioners of meditation are more aware than those who do not, as well as being happier and emotionally more mature. Advanced practitioners of meditation are said to be able to read thoughts, fly, foretell the future and recall previous lives, amongst other things. There have been times, particularly after being on retreat, where I have known exactly what types of thoughts have been passing through people's minds. Can I prove that? No, but then I don't feel the need to. If you don't believe that such things are possible nothing I can say will change that.

In certain areas, physics and psychology spring to mind, science is only just cottoning on to what spiritual teachers have been teaching for thousands of years.

I'm not denying the usefulness of science but having blind faith in an all powerful science is just as bad as having blind faith in an all powerful god.

Gary, I'm stealing that last line

i would say though, that if dowsing is a real learnable skill - then any scientific test would only help back that up...if it fails, it fails for a reason...

it may have been mentioned before the squabble, but i read somewhere i think, that dowsers who become good at 'dowsing' are really just good at picking up on the clues left by nature in the enviroment, subconciously...

so, though you may think that because you somehow mysteriously know what mood someone is in without them saying anything, you could class that as psychic...

however, it could mean that you are naturally good at picking up on micro-facial muscle movements that we all give off subconciously...but its just because you're not aware of paul ekman's work that "psychic" is the only term you can come up with...

Gary Dickson wrote:There is a 'thing' that cannot be measured, that cannot even be defined, but that we all know exists! How great is that!?!

It's great because it just illustrates the point that science is far from being the be all and end all. There are many things science cannot explain or measure and yet we experience some of them every day. Only the closed mind can't accept this and it's often a waste of breath trying to convince that person otherwise.

Gary Dickson wrote:I think it is bad form to ask a question and supply derogatory answers.

AGAIN!

Gary Dickson wrote:I am not saying science is without merits, just that it is limited and that there are certain areas where science just cannot go. I suppose the prime area being spiritual experience. Any attempt to reduce human experience down to just electro-chemical reactions, and those alone, is laughable.

I'd imagine anyone who has had what could be described as a "spiritual experience" will have far more tolerance for accepting those things science either ignores or denies, just because they cannot be measured or studied in a lab.

Humans have been using hypothesese from day one to explain those things they could not fully understand. We thought thunderstorms were the wrath of the Gods until science came along with a different hypothesis and ultimately a theory. We still do this. The mistake some seem to make is they take the hypothesis as being written on tablets of stone because a respected scientist said it. Until that hypothesis is proven, it remains ONE possibility, and is NOT yet a fact.

The other thing to consider is simple peer pressure. No scientist would dare suggest ghosts exist, because their reputation would be ruined and they'd become a laughing stock. Yet, can anyone prove they don't exist? Of course not. It's arrogant to suggest something cannot exist purely because science hasn't "discovered" it yet.

Spirit mediums are widely accepted by scientists as being frauds or cold readers. Fair enough, there have been many who fit that bill. But, does that mean spirits or ghosts don't exist?? It's always struck me as an ad hominem argument by science. They attack the medium or spiritualist and assert that because they fail to prove anything is there, it cannot therefore exist. That's just ridiculous.

Gary Dickson wrote:I'm not denying the usefulness of science but having blind faith in an all powerful science is just as bad as having blind faith in an all powerful god.

Very good point! I often wonder how many of these people who mock those who believe in ghosts or unicorns or spirits or fairies or whatever, go to church and pray each Sunday to this theoretical spirit creature they call god? How many scientists can resolve the internal conflict of interest between the scientific method and their faith in a religion or spiritual path? I wonder how many of them visit the local church, synagogue, temple or mosque each week and don't consider the implications of their insistance on using the scientific method for everything else! Is that hypocrisy or something else?

Wishmaster wrote:Very good point! I often wonder how many of these people who mock those who believe in ghosts or unicorns or spirits or fairies or whatever, go to church and pray each Sunday to this theoretical spirit creature they call god?

I would guess none.

Most rational adults realise that fairytales are great fun, but they don't believe they are real. If one doesn't believe in ghosts and unicorns and spirits, I would suggest they wouldn't believe in god either. After all, it's just another fairytale.

Atheism and skepticism go hand in hand.