Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

[Vitnir]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die by Gregory W. Lester (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html)

This is a realy good article. It gave me an insight into mechanisms of psychology and explained why people I know wouldn't change their mind once I explained to them the boring reality of the idiomotor phenomenon in dowsing. I just read it and even though I 'm pretty sure it's not news here it's too good not to bring back.

Essentially it says beliefs are integral to the brains attempt to form a picture of reality and is reluctant to give up even a small belief. It's like removing a card in the base of a house of cards, it threatens the integrity of everything.
skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don't change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient
A lesson to us all?

[athon]

If he didn't fall into the hole with any logic, you can't pull him out with it. Or something like that.

As I've said in another post, the best thing we can do in the world is simply change things with baby steps. Little victories, and while we will never conquer the fact that the human mind is a fallible machine and a poor way to interpret nature, anything we do will help.

Athon

[The Don]

One of the most endearing features of the human race (and the reason why we study you) is the fact that most humans are credulous quite a lot of the time.

Bad beliefs will never die out because there is a need for most people to believe in something which is beyond, better, outside normal life and simple explanations

[bozothedeathmachine]

The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Vitnir
Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die by Gregory W. Lester (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html)

This is a realy good article. It gave me an insight into mechanisms of psychology and explained why people I know wouldn't change their mind once I explained to them the boring reality of the idiomotor phenomenon in dowsing.

Two questions for you, Vitnir, asked just out of interest.

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by bozothedeathmachine
The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

Are you insinuating that people who are, in your opinion, "stupid, ingorant, deluded, etc." should not be allowed to reproduce?

[apoger]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


Two questions for you, Vitnir, asked just out of interest.

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?


I know you asked Vitnir these questions, but I'll take a poke at helping out. :)

For your answers to ideometer effects and dowsing check out;
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html


I'd love to see how you can show that skeptics are mistaken about the ideometer effect. How would you demonstrate that? If you could, I'd be delighted to change my mind. Are you suggesting that you can demostrate dowsing?

By all means, if you can do dowsing, and can show it to be a real and testable means of finding anything, make an application to the JREF and take their million. Help us come to a new and better understanding of the world around us while doing so. :)

[UserGoogol]

Originally posted by bozothedeathmachine
The most significant reason bad beliefs will never die is because the "stupid" (or ignorant, deluded, etc.) are allowed to breed and pass it on.

That's insanely troll-sounding, but I'll just say that ideas are not passed on genetically. The mild successfulness of the "celibacy" idea ought to make this clear. The only way to prevent an idea from spreading is to prevent people from talking (or writing or whatever) about it, and that's insanely hard, and also somewhat of a dangerous idea.

I will grant you that parent-child communication is a stronger way to pass ideas than most, but it's also not too common a method. People only have a couple kids, (less than 5, usually) while they can talk to literally millions of people in a lifetime.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
For your answers to ideometer effects and dowsing check out;
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html

I'd love to see how you can show that skeptics are mistaken about the ideometer effect. How would you demonstrate that? If you could, I'd be delighted to change my mind. Are you suggesting that you can demostrate dowsing? [/B]

Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect?

To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect? Nothing is proved by saying the idiomotor effect causes the effect of dowsing. But there are several double blind tests which show dowsers scoring no better than chance.


To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.So what you are saying, is that dowsing doesn't work, but the reason it appears to work is something other than the idiomotor effect?

[apoger]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


Just to clarify, I know what the ideometer effect is, Randi often mentions it, but my question is essentially "so what?" What difference does it make? What do you think you are proving by citing the ideomotor effect?



If you know what it is, and have looked at the link I provided, why would you even need to ask?

Just so there is absolutely no mistake, what we are explaining is that people who are given suggestions/information will often use that information to move their bodies even though they are not conscious of the act being willfull.

This is one thing that contributes to belief in dowsing. Hence the citation.




To answer your questions: Yes, I think I can demonstrate that you are wrong about the idiomotor effect - subject to you clarifying your point; no, I don't think I can demonstrate dowsing.


There is quite a bit of evidence backing up the ideometer response. If you can show evidence that past testing has come to false conclusions, then I am all ears.

[Vitnir]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

1) Please tell me, what exactly do you think the idiomotor effect demonstrates, WRT dowsing?

2) If I were able to show you that you were mistaken about the idiomotor effect, would you then change your mind?

1. The ideomotor effect demonstrates that small muscular motions can take place without a person is aware of it. The significant feature of a dowsing rod is that it can amplify small muscular motions. The ideomotor effect works independent of dowsing and is an integral part of how we understand the brain. (I'm not a neurologist). Sorry, the ideomotor effect doesn't just exist to tell dowsers they are wrong.

2. Depends what you mean by "show". Human senses can be very wrong. In principle YES I would change my mind if I were presented with convincing evidence.

If dowsing were to work independently of the ideomotor effect it would work if you had a robot walk with it. Unless of cause the human body somehow is the "antenna" for psi/earth rays and the ideomotor effect then makes sure an visible result is produced. The problem is then to explain how the human body can be so sensitive to something no other instrument can detect. (And we human can build realy sensitive ones)

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally posted by UserGoogol


That's insanely troll-sounding, but I'll just say that ideas are not passed on genetically. The mild successfulness of the "celibacy" idea ought to make this clear. The only way to prevent an idea from spreading is to prevent people from talking (or writing or whatever) about it, and that's insanely hard, and also somewhat of a dangerous idea.

I will grant you that parent-child communication is a stronger way to pass ideas than most, but it's also not too common a method. People only have a couple kids, (less than 5, usually) while they can talk to literally millions of people in a lifetime.

Ok, that was a little attempt at humor, but I guess everyone couldn't see me wink. I know that ideas and ideals are not passed genetically. And I am, by no means, suggesting compulsory sterilization. However, everyone must agree that most that a majority of beliefs, especially religious, are gained during a child’s formative years. Ask 10 religious people why they believe and I’ll bet that 9 say it’s because they were raised to believe. Sure, quite a few might say they choose to believe. However, whether they consciously choose or are just rationalizing their programming (for lack of a better word) is a matter for another thread.

It was supposed to be a joke though. Maybe I should learn to use those emoticons.

P.S. ;) <- Oh, man, that one's perfect.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Vitnir


1. The ideomotor effect demonstrates that small muscular motions can take place without a person is aware of it. The significant feature of a dowsing rod is that it can amplify small muscular motions. The ideomotor effect works independent of dowsing and is an integral part of how we understand the brain. (I'm not a neurologist). Sorry, the ideomotor effect doesn't just exist to tell dowsers they are wrong.

2. Depends what you mean by "show". Human senses can be very wrong. In principle YES I would change my mind if I were presented with convincing evidence.


Thank you for your response.

Note: I'm not attempting to convince you that dowsing is real, I just wish to demonstrate the weakness of arguments based on the idiomotor effect.

Iam, in fact, a sceptic, but more open minded than many. I don't actually believe in dowsing, but I was interested enough in the subject to try it out for myself before I rejected it entirely. My own experiments were inconclusive - slightly above chance, but nothing spectacular.

Anyway, I found a couple of teach-yourself-dowsing type books in my local library and read them. They stated directly that the purpose of the rod or the pendulum is to magnify slight twitches in the hand. They talked about a conditioned reflex, how you could actually train your hand to twitch when you are over water, and advised on practising the movement before I tried to detect anything.

Since then, I have read quite a few pro-dowsing articles, many of them state directly that the rod or pendulum magnifies tiny muscle movements. I don't believe I have ever seen an article by a dowser that denies it.

see for example : http://damkar.org/mudra2.html

<< Proof of this may be found in the occult art of dowsing where the imperceptible movement of the hand as motored by nerve impulses causes a pendulum to sway under direction of an unseen subconscious intelligence--the pendulum merely acting as an amplifier for the conscious aspect of the psyche. >>

or see: http://tinyurl.com/9m3b

<< It is almost universally accepted that dowsing is a neurophysiological response and that the rods or pendulums are only present as a mechanical amplifier of otherwise unnoticeable small tilts and movements of the hand. The material and type of the rod doesn't matter.... The most common response is a subtle twitch of the wrist or arm, and learning to hold the rods with a particular extension and tension in various muscle groups is used to increase the magnitude of the response.>>

You can find lots of similar ones

If dowsing were to work independently of the ideomotor effect it would work if you had a robot walk with it. Unless of cause the human body somehow is the "antenna" for psi/earth rays and the ideomotor effect then makes sure an visible result is produced. The problem is then to explain how the human body can be so sensitive to something no other instrument can detect. (And we human can build realy sensitive ones)

consider this, from the same site as above:

["In 1556 a German metallurgical text commented on the common use of dowsing to detect metallic ores while the author, AGRICOLA, pointed out that the dowsing instrument did not move of its own accord, but only in the hands of sensitive persons."]

Does this show you why a robot wouldn't show the reaction, and in fact dowsers claim that the human body does act as an antenna? That is precisely what they claim.

I'm not trying to convince you that dowsing is "true", I don't accept that it is. I just hope that it demonstrates the falsity of your argument. This is why people don't change their minds when you explain the boring reality of the idiomotor effect. The argument only impresses people who are already skeptical of dowsing.

[SquishyDave]

So what your saying is, both skeptics and dowsers agree on exactly what moves the rod, it's just that they disagree on whether it works at all?

Obviously skeptics don't say "there is thing called called the idiomotor effect, and dowsing can't work, therefore the idiomotor effects causes it." That is the agument of a cynic, not a skeptic.

Skeptics say, "there have been several double blind tests, and all of them have failed, yet people still claim the rod moves above water, and they can feel it move, so maybe the idiomotor effect causes this." The idiomotor effect is the best theory to describe what we are seeing is all, if there is a better theory, present it, but considering it seems both sides of the debate agree on exactly the cause, it seems more likely.

And saying you are a openminded skeptic is a tautology.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by bozothedeathmachine


It was supposed to be a joke though. Maybe I should learn to use those emoticons.

P.S. ;) <- Oh, man, that one's perfect.

Ayup. Sorry to snap at you like that. :)

[Peter Morris]

So what your saying is, both skeptics and dowsers agree on exactly what moves the rod, it's just that they disagree on whether it works at all?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that dowsers say "the dowsing rod magnifies slight movements of my hand" while skeptics say "Oh, those crazy dowsers, they think the rod moves of its own accord, but we can prove that it actually magnifies slight movement of the hand, and that proves it doesn't work."

Essentially I am complaining about the dishonesty of Randi, who deliberately misrepresents the claims of dowsers.

Obviously skeptics don't say "there is thing called called the idiomotor effect, and dowsing can't work, therefore the idiomotor effects causes it." That is the agument of a cynic, not a skeptic.

I won't argue with that. However, it is pretty much the argument made by a lot of opponents of dowsing, who call themselves skeptics.

And saying you are a openminded skeptic is a tautology. No, not really. I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

No, not really. I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.

In the case of dowsing I don't rely on any weak "arguments" I rely on evidence, or rather lack of evidence.

Every report I've ever read in which a "dowser" is faced with a truely blinded situation their ability fades away.

An example can be found in a JREF preliminary test of a dowser who posted on the this forum aftr his failed. (I know you have a personal bias about Randi, however search on this forum for Edge and dowsing.)

However as far as I can remember he never claimed that Randi "cheated" him or fixed the test so he couldn't pass it and it is open for him to reapply to be re-tested at any time.

(Some of Edges's threads still exist so you can verify the actual dowser’s claims and his view of the JREF preliminary test.)

[Vitnir]

I'l admit that sceptics and believers can look strangely similar in that sceptics can be fanatics too, a "True Disbeliever" will never admit that there can be anything paranormal. However, when you read and hear about endless accounts of frauds and cheating and suddenly a true psychic or phenomenon is supposed to appear. How are you going to separate them?

I was a bit careless with my words when I said I explained the boring reality of the ideomotor effect in dowsing. I explained to this woman how it worked, demonstrated how you can seemingly control a pendulum with your thoughts. I suggested experiments and explained benefits of double-blind design.

In the end she felt demeaned, even though I was calm and polite she felt that I thought she was an idiot. Result? a total failure on my part and I didn't do anything to change her beliefs.

Regarding the idea that the body is an antenna and amplifier and the dowsing rod is simply what records the signal. I still find it strange that no other man-made instrument can detect the earth rays this woman said she could locate. Earth rays are also known as Curry or Hartman lines.

I claim that there is no room for these rays in theoretical physics and the logical conclusion is that they only exist in the mind of the dowser. Occams razor can be applied here I think. You have two equal theories that explains the phenomenon of dowsing. The first says that it works since the dowser in his mind knows that there is a Curry line or a vein of gold or water and the ideomotor effect makes sure there is a result. The other says that the Curry line or gold or water somehow influences the body.
The first theory can easily be explained by current knowledge, why would we go with the second?

As for the claim that earth rays have no room in theoretical physics, it's difficult to prove that unless you study theoretical physics for ten years full time and I took such a persons word for it.

[apoger]

Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideometer effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves.

An argument against dowsing would be "As of this time, no dowser has been able to verify their abilities when scientifically tested".


>Essentially I am complaining about the dishonesty of Randi, who deliberately misrepresents the claims of dowsers.

Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty?
As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.



>I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.


Such a person would not be a skeptic, they would be a cynic, as has been pointed out to you. Trying to redefine skepticism won't get you far.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Ayup. Sorry to snap at you like that. :)

No worries. Troll hunting is a respectable and necessary sport. Lest this board descend into quagmire of crap.

[sackett]

struggle in vain against stupidity. (Can't recall who said that, and I don't want to look stupid by guessing wrong.)

Some years back, I used to visit UFO believers' boards, trying to knock down their playhouse -- yes, I knew it was nearly hopeless, but it gave me a certain pleasure; it was like being back in fourth grade, beating up on second-graders at recess.

One time I tried the old objection to UFOs that, if ETs are visiting the earth, why don't we at least pick up their radio signals? A poster answered me with grave dignity: The Advanced Beings don't need to rely on such a primitive method of communications as -- ugh! -- radio.

In other words, even the -lack- of evidence can be further proof of whatever dingy belief is in question.

All the same, I'm not counselling despair here, I'm rather advocating patience, persistence, and, yes, compassion. The gods themselves etc., but sometimes they knock one in.

[Peter Morris]

DaratIn the case of dowsing I don't rely on any weak "arguments" I rely on evidence, or rather lack of evidence.

Every report I've ever read in which a "dowser" is faced with a truely blinded situation their ability fades away. Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.
I know you have a personal bias about Randi Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?

I find that his fans cannot accept that Randi is a liar, I point out lies he tells, they just kid themselves that I must be 'biased' to comment on them.

apoger: Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty? As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.

How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html
<< Randi said the basic premise of dowsing is a strong, subconscious, psychological phenomenon called an "ideomotor effect." He explained that the effect is "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process." Dowsers believe so strongly in what they do, Randi said, that they are actually moving their dowsing instruments themselves. "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement." >>

See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

[nick]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

Ummm... Randi is only shown to be lying here, if there are indeed a substantial number of real dowsers who did indeed react, when Randi told them that they were moving their wrists, by saying "yes, I knew that already".

However, we don't have any evidence for that. Other than, of course, the fact that you are "sure" that they [tend to] reply in that way. Which, if you'll excuse me, isn't quite the same thing.

You didn't even say "I have spoken to 100 dowsers and 95 of them said they knew they were moving their hands involuntarily", in which case Randi could be said to be accusing you of lying (except, of course, for the minor detail that he made his statement before you made yours, but that's another level of difficulty; let's get past the easy stuff first).

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.
Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?
How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html
<< Randi said the basic premise of dowsing is a strong, subconscious, psychological phenomenon called an "ideomotor effect." He explained that the effect is "an involuntary body movement evoked by an idea or thought process." Dowsers believe so strongly in what they do, Randi said, that they are actually moving their dowsing instruments themselves. "They are doing it themselves and don't know it," he said. "We have film showing they actually do twist their wrists, but they don't believe it. They don't see the movement." >>

See, Randi's claim that they don't know they are doing it, that they see the film and refuse to believe it.

Well, in my reading of dowsing, I have never seen a dowser deny that. I'm sure that when Randi shows his film to dowsers, the response is not denial, it's "yes, I knew that already" Bur Randi has chosen to lie about it, present them as denying the facts when they don't.

Ok, fine, so dowsers accept the fact that they move their hands. This still does not change the fact that dowsing has completely and utterly failed under conditions which control for self deception and cheating. You are merely assuming that dowsing literature is honest, well intended instructional information. Fine, Randi has offered one million dollars to any dowser, regardless of whatever they believe allows them to dowse. All they have to do is find the water/ore/gold under the containers of their choice. Whats the problem? Oh yeah, they know in their hearts its all a lie and they will fail. The only honest dowsers are those who have been tested. Their subsequent failure has not deterred them though. Just read any "Edge Dowsing" thread.

[Mr Manifesto]

People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient

I realise he's qualifying his statements, but I went from being a Ralph Blum rune-reader (even though Ralph basically 'made up' all the designations of the runes) to a skeptic after reading Randi's books. Just anecdotal evidence that data can change the credulous.

[Peter Morris]

You didn't even say "I have spoken to 100 dowsers and 95 of them said they knew they were moving their hands involuntarily", in which case Randi could be said to be accusing you of lying I've read maybe 30 books or articles by dowsers, and around 20 of them state openly that it's their own hand causing the rod to move. In the rest, I don't recall seeing anything that would deny it.

Ok, fine, so dowsers accept the fact that they move their hands. This still does not change the fact that dowsing has completely and utterly failed under conditions which control for self deception and cheating.

I repeat, I'm not advocating dowsing as true, I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiomotor argument as wrong.

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.
Why do you think that? Why would I be biased against him? What reason would I have to be biased?...snip...

I have no idea why you should be biased but your very reply supports my claim of your bias about Randi.

After all I didn't say "Every report I've read by Randi" yet you seem to read that into my statement....

Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?



(Edited for not being bold.)

[apoger]

>Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.

Sorry. Dowsing has been tested up and down, and it has never shown any validity in well supervised tests. It is not just Randi that dismisses dowsing, but all skeptics, and the scientific community. All of us await any credible tests that show that dowsing is anything but a dream. If demonstrations can show it to be real, it would be thoroughly tested and put to good use. However since tests have shown no effect, we are not following up, nor are we putting it into practical application.

If you have access to some previously unknown tests that show valid dowsing, I suggest you contact those involved. Have them come in for some solid scientific testing, and change our perception of reality!

Until then, no confusion about the ideometer effect, nor any vague references to anecdotal tests means squat.





>I find that his fans cannot accept that Randi is a liar, I point out lies he tells, they just kid themselves that I must be 'biased' to comment on them.

We would just as greedily rip down Randi for lies as anyone else. By all means point out "the lies he tells". So far you are you haven't presented any evidence of value.




>apoger: Can you cite a specific instance of his dishonesty? As far as I know, Randi has not "misrepresented" any dowsers claims.

>>How about this: http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html

This is not an example of Randi telling a lie.
This is an example of someone describing what Randi said. Note the lack of quotes around the part you harped on.

Randi has writen volumes on this subject. By all means cite something that he actually wrote or said. Anecdotes that paraphrase what he said are not acceptable.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I've read maybe 30 books or articles by dowsers, and around 20 of them state openly that it's their own hand causing the rod to move. In the rest, I don't recall seeing anything that would deny it.



I repeat, I'm not advocating dowsing as true, I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiomotor argument as wrong.

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion.

Can you please indicate how this test of dowsing is deeply flawed: http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

[apoger]

>I'm just trying to demonstrate the idiometer argument as wrong.


#1 This thread has gone on long enough for all of us to spell ideomotor correctly.

#2 Sorry to quote myself but it seems appropriate:

"Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideomotor effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves."

[Peter Morris]

Peter Morris, you seem to be missing a key point.
Nobody here (nor skeptics) are using the ideomotor effect as an "argument" against dowsing. It is an "explanation" of how some people may deceive themselves.

I'm sure you think you have a point here, please explain what the difference is.

In many essays, Randi uses the ideomotor effect as an argument against dowsing. The OP uses the "boring reality of the ideomotor phenomenon " as an argument against dowsing.

If skeptics aren't using the ideomotor effect as an argument against dowsing, why do they mention it so often?

[Jeff Corey]

I think the difference between "arguement against dowsing" and "explanation of dowsing" is either extremely suble or merely semantic.
The argument against dowsing is that it doesn't work under controlled testing conditions. Thus, it's a silly practice and of no utility.
The explanation of why those witch hazel or willow forks or bits of coathanger actually move is most pasimoniously explained by the ideomotor effect.
If you disagree with this distinction, I will consider you to be antisemantic.

[apoger]

>I'm sure you think you have a point here, please explain what the difference is.

Are you really telling me that you cannot tell the difference between "an argument against " as opposed to "an explanation of "?

For some dictionary definitions of 'argument' that are appropriate:
: a reason given in proof or rebuttal
: discourse intended to persuade
: the act or process of arguing
: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion


For example:

When asked about dowsing most skeptics will argue that dowsing has undergone extensive testing and has not shown any fruitful results. Even though dowsers continue to persist that they can dowse, skeptics will not offer acceptance of such claims until testing shows results that would validate such a belief.



For some dictionary definitions of 'explanation ' that are appropriate:
: the act or process of explaining
: to make known
: to make plain or understandable
: to give the reason for or cause of
: to show the logical development or relationships of


For example:

When asked how dowsers could persist in such beliefs even though testing has shown no validity, skeptics sometimes explain that the ideomotor effect can convincingly fool many dowsers into attributing small muscular movements to something supernatural. Many do not seem to understand that it is unconscious muscle movement that moves the instruments and not a mystical force.



I hope this makes things clear for you. :)

[Darat]

When you posted:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own

....snip...

I asked you:

"Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?"

You have not responded with any attempt to provide any evidence for your claim.


You also posted:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion. [/B]

So I asked if you would you point out the flaws in this test http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

And again you have not responded with any attempt to support your claim.


Of course it is your right not to respond however since you will not provide any support for your claims I will have to discount them and assume they were mere hyperbole without any substance or merit.


(Edited for a could to a would and an if)

[Peter Morris]

Are you really telling me that you cannot tell the difference between "an argument against " as opposed to "an explanation of "?

Frankly, you haven't demonstrated any difference. Randi was using the ideomotor effect as an explaination of how people deceive themselves into thinking dowsing works when it doesn't, or Randi was using it as an argument against dowsing. Same difference. Its a lie either way.

"Can you please provide links to "truly blinded" tests that verify dowsing?"

You have not responded with any attempt to provide any evidence for your claim.

here's a review of various scientific research.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
Some tests find in favour, some find against. The claim that no test ever shows dowsing is false. The author is critical of many tests, both for and against dowsing, including Randi's.

So I asked if you would you point out the flaws in this test http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html

Darat, that is completely absurd. I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed. I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

Of course it is your right not to respond however since you will not provide any support for your claims I will have to discount them and assume they were mere hyperbole without any substance or merit.

I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.

[apoger]

>Frankly, you haven't demonstrated any difference.

I certainly have. What part do you not understand? I'm asking this in all seriousness. My gut feeling is that you are being purposely obtuse, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you really not discern the difference between;

A> An agrument against the validity of dowsing
and
B> Using the ideomotor effect as a potential explanation of how some dowsers can delude themselves?


Are you in fact making the implicit claim that argument and explanation are the same? Also are you making the implicit claim that the ideomotor effect and dowsing are the same? This seems to be what you are saying. I would like you to clarify exactly what you're saying... please.



>Randi was using the ideomotor effect as an explaination of how people deceive themselves into thinking dowsing works when it doesn't, or Randi was using it as an argument against dowsing. Same difference. Its a lie either way.

I deny that Randi uses it as "an argument" against dowsing. I submit that he rightfully uses it as an explanation of how some people are deceived by the effect.

I will gladly withdraw my claim, and apologize, if you can provide evidence from Mr. Randi that he has made the claim that the ideomotor effect is why dowsing is invalid. If you can't then you should retract your claim that he has used such as a lie.

As for Randi using the ideomotor effect as an explanation of how people deceive themselves... in what way is this a lie? Are you saying that no dowsers are ever self deluded? Further are you saying that the ideomotor effect is never responsible for such delusion?




>Some tests find in favour, some find against.

This is the garbage claim of many on these forums. It is also why Randi's challenge is so important.

You can take all the anecdotes in the world and stuff them. Sorry, but that's the way it is, straight up.

You know when dowsing will be accepted? When someone steps forward and shows that it can be done. Not one second sooner. This is the same standard that we apply to everyone.

You claim some tests are in favor? Good! Such claimants should step up and ROCK THE WORLD with their discovery. Until they do, skeptics will withold judgement.




>I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed. I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

The tests protocols are created/agreed upon by the applicants themselves.

Both applicants and Randi feel that every test is sufficent to demonstrate the issue at hand. What more do you want?

[apoger]

>I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.


Wow, I just read through that thread.
I'm stunned that you would point people to that thread as I think it shows your lack of critical thinking and inability to deal with the subject of Randi and testing. I wish I had checked it out sooner as it would have saved me the time of trying to have a rational discussion with you... rather than repeat the same discussions that you have had with others before.

Effectively you are a troll.

Unless you come up with a rational argument, I am done with you. If anyone needs to know what's on Peter's mind, just check out the threads on Straightdope.com.

[nick]

Originally posted by apoger
You claim some tests are in favor? Good! Such claimants should step up and ROCK THE WORLD with their discovery. Until they do, skeptics will withold judgement.


If dowsing really worked, how long would it take Exxon to develop a version for finding oil ? Or does anyone think they drill test bores deep into the ground for the hell of it, when they could find oil in twenty minutes with a guy and a stick ?

I find that applying this test to most "paranormal" phenomena is at least as good as Occam's razor (which, in some hands, would probably have swept special relativity out of the window in 1905). If that guy can really run his car on water, why haven't GM come knocking ? Oh, I forgot, it's a conspiracy...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...



here's a review of various scientific research.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/Dowsing.htm
Some tests find in favour, some find against. The claim that no test ever shows dowsing is false. The author is critical of many tests, both for and against dowsing, including Randi's.


Thank you for your response and link. This is a review piece - do you have any links to the successful “truly blinded” tests?

Originally posted by Peter Morris



Darat, that is completely absurd. I said Randi's tests are flawed, that doesn't neccesarily mean that every single one of them is flawed.

...snip...


I try to read as little "between" the lines as possible in other people posts so please excuse the fact that because you didn't limit your claim I assumed you meant "all".

Just to be certain I'm not misunderstanding you are now retracting your original claim of

"Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion."

And substituting a claim of:

"Some of Randi's tests are flawed. "

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

I think a great many of them are flawed, and there are a number of general flaws, that doesn't mean that I can identify a flaw in every single test he's ever done. That is simply ridiculous.

...snip...


I agree that this would be ridiculous however I have no idea why you are making this point, since it is has nothing to do with what I asked you, which was to explain the flaw in a test of a dowser that Randi carried out in which the dowser failed.



Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.

Again I don't know what point you are trying to make as this does not address the question I asked.

So in summary, you have agreed that your claim that "... I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too...." cannot not be substantiated and you still have not provided links to tests that support your claim that under the conditions I stated i.e. "truly blinded" dowsing has been proven to work.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests. Thanks for the link, which included a point-by-point refutation of your weaK arguments by the very next poster.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
>Frankly, you haven't demonstrated any difference.

I certainly have. What part do you not understand? I'm asking this in all seriousness. My gut feeling is that you are being purposely obtuse, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you really not discern the difference between;

A> An agrument against the validity of dowsing
and
B> Using the ideomotor effect as a potential explanation of how some dowsers can delude themselves?

Ranedi is claiming falsely that dowsers delude themselves with the ideomotor effect. The claim they delude themselves is a lie, because they admit it their own hand moving the rod.

And, look at it, the reason he is claiming that they are deluding themselves is because he is using the claim as an argument against dowswing. He is saying : look they are deluding themselves, therefore dowsing cannot work.

So, you are unable to demonstrate any difference.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
>I have given examples of flawed Randi tests in other threads. see for example http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=181436 where I list some of my thoughts about him. I give some criticisms that apply to his test methodology in general, some specific criticism of individual tests.


Wow, I just read through that thread.
I'm stunned that you would point people to that thread as I think it shows your lack of critical thinking and inability to deal with the subject of Randi and testing. I wish I had checked it out sooner as it would have saved me the time of trying to have a rational discussion with you... rather than repeat the same discussions that you have had with others before.

Effectively you are a troll.

Unless you come up with a rational argument, I am done with you. If anyone needs to know what's on Peter's mind, just check out the threads on Straightdope.com.

Yeah, I notice you don't actually have any answer beyond rude name calling, which is the same answer I got from Randi fanatics on Straight dope. They couldn't find an answer either.

I have listed numerous reasons why in my opinion Randi's tests are not resonable or fair. You are entitled to disagree if you wish. By all means supply answers to my points, if you can.

"shows my lack of critical thinking" How so? I think critically about everything, I question Randi just as much as dowsers. Most people on these forums just accept blindly whatever Randi tells them, without questioning.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Thanks for the link, which included a point-by-point refutation of your weaK arguments by the very next poster.

My arguments were strong, the next poster had no refutation beyond spewing forth a stream of vitriol. I have still not seen a sensible answer. All I have received in response is hatred.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My arguments were strong, the next poster had no refutation beyond spewing forth a stream of vitriol. I have still not seen a sensible answer. All I have received in response is hatred.
Did you ever consider that you might have a vastly overinflated opinion as to the strength of your arguments?










No, I didn't think so.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


...snip...

I have listed numerous reasons why in my opinion Randi's tests are not resonable or fair. You are entitled to disagree if you wish.

...snip...

I should point out Peter that you still have not supplied evidence for the claim you keep repeatedly making.

Perhaps if you can't provide the evidence to support your claim you should re-consider stating that claim?

A suggestion I have is that you re-state it as "I have listed numerous reasons why in my opinion some of Randi's test are not reasonable or fair.

To summarise:

I must assume that your claim that "... I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too...." cannot not be substantiated and was an incorrect and misleading statement.

And you cannot support your claim that under the conditions I stated i.e. "truly blinded" dowsing has been proven to work.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat


Thank you for your response and link. This is a review piece - do you have any links to the successful “truly blinded” tests? I'll leave you to seek them out for yourself.

My point in this thread has been to show that the 'ideomotor' argument is flawed, I have repeatedly stated that I'm not advocating dowsing.

I try to read as little "between" the lines as possible in other people posts so please excuse the fact that because you didn't limit your claim I assumed you meant "all".

and do you know what happens when you assume?

Just to be certain I'm not misunderstanding you are now retracting your original claim of

"Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion."

And substituting a claim of:

"Some of Randi's tests are flawed. "
I'm not "retracting" anything, I stand by what I said, but to make it clearer:

There are flaws that Randi repeats time after time in many of his tests. These include the following, among others:

1) The test offered by Randi is frequently different from the claim that was made.

2) Most paranormal claims say that someone can score a little better than chance, but do so every time. For example, given a randon 1 in 10 chance, someone may claim to score 20% consistently over a long series of tests. Randi, however, requires a near-perfect score in a very short series, usually 8 hits out of 10 tries.

3) There is an adage that "nobody can be a judge in their own cause" What that means is that nobody can be trusted to conduct a test fairly when they have a personal stake in the results. Randi has an enormous stake in the tests,the JREF would be dead if he ever validated a paranormal effect. In order to be fair, the test would have to be designed and carried out by a third party without a personal interest.

I agree that this would be ridiculous however I have no idea why you are making this point, since it is has nothing to do with what I asked you, which was to explain the flaw in a test of a dowser that Randi carried out in which the dowser failed. You agree its ridiculous, then do it anyway?

Look, I have cited specific examples of flawed Randi tests and stated why I think they were wrong.

But the example I select aren't good enough, you feel entitled to select examples for me. You chose one specific test, you challenge me to show flaw with that specific test, and if I'm unable to show error in that one test, well then you are going to ignore all the example that I chose.

I have seen flaws in a number of Randi tests, and I have given examples of such. That doesn't mean I can show a flaw in any test you choose.

That is the same type of flawed logic that Randi displays.

The claim : I can show faults in a number of Randi's tests, here's a list of specific examples.

The challenge: You have to show flaw in this particular test that wasn't on your list.

Your challenge isn't a fair test of my claim, and that's the same trick that Randi pulls frequently.

Do you see?

Again I don't know what point you are trying to make as this does not address the question I asked.

So in summary, you have agreed that your claim that "... I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too...." cannot not be substantiated No, I agree no such thing
and you still have not provided links to tests that support your claim that under the conditions I stated i.e. "truly blinded" dowsing has been proven to work.

I never made that claim.You have misremembered what I said. My exact words were : "Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own."

I have shown you the existence of some tests that seem to verify dowsing. I never made the claim that it had been "proved" and the "truely blinded" part is your own addition.

I chose my words carefully, and I have shown what I said to be correct.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
2) Most paranormal claims say that someone can score a little better than chance, but do so every time. For example, given a randon 1 in 10 chance, someone may claim to score 20% consistently over a long series of tests. Randi, however, requires a near-perfect score in a very short series, usually 8 hits out of 10 tries.
If the probability of getting it right was .01 and someone got 8 out of 10 correct, that would be quite impressive. The probability(p value) of that occurring by chance would be about .0000004.
So I think that would be a fair test.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Did you ever consider that you might have a vastly overinflated opinion as to the strength of your arguments?

I judge it by the lack of coherrent counter-argument.
If you have an answer to my comments, please state it.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

If the probability of getting it right was .01 and someone got 8 out of 10 correct, that would be quite impressive. The probability(p value) of that occurring by chance would be about .0000004.
So I think that would be a fair test.

But suppose someone claimed that they could get 2 out of 10, and maintain that score over a long series.

Asking them to get 8 out of 10 on a single test would be an unfair test.

That is the problem.

[Mr Manifesto]

Say, speaking of bad beliefs which don't die...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


But suppose someone claimed that they could get 2 out of 10, and maintain that score over a long series.

Asking them to get 8 out of 10 on a single test would be an unfair test.

That is the problem.

It is quite appropriate if the dowser claimed an 80% success rate. It's not fair to go back afterwards and say, "Well I didn't make 80% but I did better than chance..."

If your claim is to do better than chance consistently, then make that your claim in the first place. There are plenty of ways to test that.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by gnome


It is quite appropriate if the dowser claimed an 80% success rate. It's not fair to go back afterwards and say, "Well I didn't make 80% but I did better than chance..."

If your claim is to do better than chance consistently, then make that your claim in the first place. There are plenty of ways to test that.
True, there are many ways to test that. I think that the test should be " better than chance, and do it every time"

Unfortunately, Randi doesn't accept that. You have to agree a specific score in advance, and if you miss that score, you fail. (I've never seen Randi agree a target score of less than 80%)

Getting better than chance isn't an issue in Randi's tests. There was a dowsing test run by Randi with expected chance result 10%, actual result 22%, target score 80%. Randi's comment was to draw attention to it being well below the target, and ignore it being well above chance.

That is, in my mind a bad test. When somethin like that happens, Randi should extend the test to see if they can maintain the 22%, or whether it was a fluke.

The odds against it happening by chance are about 107-1, so a fluke is quite likely. I'm not advancing this as evidence of dowsing, just as evidence of Randi's flawed testing methods.

I think the tests ought to be "can the claimant do consistantly better than chance" rather than "can he reach a specific target"

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Getting better than chance isn't an issue in Randi's tests. There was a dowsing test run by Randi with expected chance result 10%, actual result 22%, target score 80%. Randi's comment was to draw attention to it being well below the target, and ignore it being well above chance.

Cite the source for that or I'll be forced to conclude you are just making it all up.

[Peter Morris]

Cite the source for that or I'll be forced to conclude you are just making it all up.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm

Three seperate tests for three different claims:

Water - expected chance result 10%, actual result 22%
Brass -- expected chance result 10%, actual result 0%
Gold ---- expected chance result 10%, actual result 11%

The 22% result would occur by chance once every 107 times he runs similar tests.

In a well run test, given a similar result, the tester should make further tests to see if the subjects can maintain the score.

Finding a result far above chance expectation, Randi does two things. First, he crows about it being much less than the agreed target. Secondly, he massages the data, by adding the three results together, thus making it sound less impressive. You have to read the report very carefully to see the actual result was 22%.

This was three seperate tests for three seperate claims. Adding the results together is meaningless. The three results stand on their own.

Rather shabby of Randi, IMHO.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I'll leave you to seek them out for yourself.

My point in this thread has been to show that the 'ideomotor' argument is flawed, I have repeatedly stated that I'm not advocating dowsing.


That may have been your point but you also made the claim:

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.

...snip...


All I am doing asking you to support your claims, and since once again you are unable to then I have to conclude there is still no substance to the claim above.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

and do you know what happens when you assume?

....snip....


If you read what I wrote you will see I made the minimum of assumptions in my interpretation of your words, you had said:

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

Actually, I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too, but that's a seperate discussion.

...snip...


What you are now saying is that I should have assumed that you only meant to say "many of" or "some of"! And as I said I try not to make these types of assumptions.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...

I'm not "retracting" anything, I stand by what I said, but to make it clearer:

There are flaws that Randi repeats time after time in many of his tests. These include the following, among others:

...snip...


I am glad you have understood my points and decided to change your claim.

You are no longer claiming "I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too" you are now limiting your claim to not include all of Randi's test (which of course could all be flawed but you haven’t supplied evidence to support your claim).

Originally posted by Peter Morris

...snip...
I never made that claim.You have misremembered what I said. My exact words were : "Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own."

I have shown you the existence of some tests that seem to verify dowsing. I never made the claim that it had been "proved" and the "truely blinded" part is your own addition.

...snip...


I did not "misremember" what you said. I have several times quoted your exact words back to you.

The sequence of claims and questions was as follows:


Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

No, not really. I find many skeptics to be totally closed-minded. They just know that dowsing doesn't work, and accept any old argument that reinforces their belief, they often get very angry when I question the weak arguments they rely on.

...snip...


To which I replied:

Originally posted by Darat


...snip...

In the case of dowsing I don't rely on any weak "arguments" I rely on evidence, or rather lack of evidence.

Every report I've ever read in which a "dowser" is faced with a truely blinded situation their ability fades away.

...snip...


To which you replied:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

Actually, there are plenty of tests that seem to verify dowsing, but Randi dismisses all of them bar his own.

...snip...


How else could I interpret your response but that the tests you were referring to “truly blinded”? Otherwise your response would be sheer nonsense as it didn’t refer to my claim that you quoted when you stated the above.

Again in summary you still have not provided any evidence for your original claims therefore I still have to discount them. I do note however that you have retracted one claim and substituted another.

[Peter Morris]

All I am doing asking you to support your claims, and since once again you are unable to then I have to conclude there is still no substance to the claim above.support given over and over. You have been unable to answer it.
If you read what I wrote you will see I made the minimum of assumptions in my interpretation of your words
No. You made the maximum.
I am glad you have understood my points and decided to change your claim.
No.
You are no longer claiming "I consider Randi's tests to be deeply flawed too" Yes I am.
you are now limiting your claim to not include all of Randi's test If you didn't make assumptions I wouldn't have needed to clarify this point. It's the same its always been.
which of course could all be flawed but you haven’t supplied evidence to support your claim).
I've statefd several times a lot of flaws in Randi's tests. You can disagree if you want, but to say that I haven't supplied evidence is a sheer lie. You have given no answer to my list, other than to deny it exists.
Just to tremind you, I have referred you to a long essay here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...threadid=181436
I have stated three flaws in Randi's tests as follows:

1) The test offered by Randi is frequently different from the claim that was made.

2) Most paranormal claims say that someone can score a little better than chance, but do so every time. For example, given a randon 1 in 10 chance, someone may claim to score 20% consistently over a long series of tests. Randi, however, requires a near-perfect score in a very short series, usually 8 hits out of 10 tries.

3) There is an adage that "nobody can be a judge in their own cause" What that means is that nobody can be trusted to conduct a test fairly when they have a personal stake in the results. Randi has an enormous stake in the tests,the JREF would be dead if he ever validated a paranormal effect. In order to be fair, the test would have to be designed and carried out by a third party without a personal interest.

These just scratch at the surface.

If you claim I have no evidence, then you must be able to refute these points, but you have no answer, other than to deny they exist.

I do note however that you have retracted one claim and substituted another.
No.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

1) The test offered by Randi is frequently different from the claim that was made.


This is necessary, as the original claim made is usually not testable as is. The claim is refined to fit the constraints of a test where success by cheating or chance (or, indeed, anything but the use of the claimed power itself) is minimized or eliminated. This is a joint process with the final result agreed to by the applicant.

2) Most paranormal claims say that someone can score a little better than chance, but do so every time. For example, given a randon 1 in 10 chance, someone may claim to score 20% consistently over a long series of tests. Randi, however, requires a near-perfect score in a very short series, usually 8 hits out of 10 tries.

From JREF's library entry on dowsing:

Most dowsers claim 100% accuracy. Very few claim anything less than 90%.

To continue to test when a person does not meet the conditions of the test, just because they performed better than chance on that occasion, amounts to allowing the applicant to move the goalposts after the fact. This seems foolish with a million dollars on the line. If their claim is to perform marginally better than chance, but consistently, that is testable and there is no reason to believe Randi would not devise a test designed to demonstrate that to satisfaction. If you can find me an applicant who claimed this, and Randi insisted on superb accuracy, please cite it.


3) There is an adage that "nobody can be a judge in their own cause" What that means is that nobody can be trusted to conduct a test fairly when they have a personal stake in the results. Randi has an enormous stake in the tests,the JREF would be dead if he ever validated a paranormal effect. In order to be fair, the test would have to be designed and carried out by a third party without a personal interest.

The test is designed by both parties--and is designed so that no judging is involved. Why this is possible is the subject of many other threads, but if you really want to press that we can get into it.

[crocodile deathroll]

Simple, people fight harder and are less afraid of there mortality if they believe they will be rewarded for their military action in the after life. In Norse mythology if they do no die in battle and die of disease they believe they are doomed to live an eternity in a horrible cold world of Niflheim (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/norse-mythology.php?deity=NIFLHEIM)
All the couragous warriers believe they go to this place (http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/norse-mythology.php?deity=VALHALLA) even if it means acting upon on what on today's terms we call "ethnic cleansing", by slaughtering all those who do not share their bellicose culture by doubting the existence of Valhalla. Hence they also have the survival advantage for their bad beliefs as those that are not willing to fight are all going to be killed anyway.

CDR

[Vitnir]

Why don't you take this discussion to the forum "The Million Dollar Challenge"?

So far I have seen one reply on the article on www.csicop.org

Noone else have an opinion on what the article was about?

[TechHead]

Sorry, late jumping in...

Background: I've studied dowsing, as applied to treasure hunting, for about 5 years. Have met, both personally and virtually (forums), many treasure dowsers. Have read several books on the subject of dowsing, and many articles. Have purchased a number of treasure dowsing devices (called long-range locators (LRLs)), and found them to be bogus. Currently offer a $10,000 prize to any LRL manufacturer who can demonstrate that their device can really detect gold.

Three comments to Peter:

In my experience with treasure dowsers, most do not recognize ideomotor action as a cause of the dowsing response. In fact, many of them vehemently deny it, when it is brought up. Why? As far as I can tell, admitting ideomotor as a cause of movement, implies that the trigger would have to be psychic in nature. I guess they don't want to believe that their dowsing abilities are psychic.

This is supported by the many attempts to assign physical explanations to the response, through all sorts of bogus science. LRL manufacturers take advantage of this, by supplying chemically-enhanced and electronically enhanced dowsing devices, complete with nonsensical "scientific" theories of operation, for thousands of dollars each. See http://www.treasurenow.com for some examples of what you can buy, and http://www.thunting.com/geotech/pages/lrl (click Reports) for some examples of what you really get.

From what I've read about water dowsers, many of them also assign physical explanations to their abilities. Such as electromagnetic fields, electrostatic potentials, etc. I suspect that quite a few believe that the dowsing device responds directly to these forces, not to their own hand movement.

Regarding proper testing and odds, I agree that dowsing tests are not always optimal. I've posted before, that testing groundwater dowsing is phenomenally difficult, and phenomenally expensive. Therefore, I suspect that Randi seeks a cheaper alternative, such as water-pipe dowsing, as long as the claimant agrees that such a method is a valid test of his ability. If he fails the test, then he has the option of saying, "That test was not a valid method after all," or "I could not dowse today, maybe tomorrow," or "I cannot dowse at all."

Any dowser who claims to dowse groundwater, is certainly free to say that he cannot dowse water pipes, and insist on a true groundwater test protocol. Randi would be obliged to provide for such a test, at his expense, or to decline entirely. Don't know if that scenario has ever come up.

In the odds department, I also agree that sometimes dowsers score a bit above chance (and sometimes a bit below), and the test should be extended to check for a real ability, if that knowledge is desired. But again, from my 5 years of treasure-dowser experience, dowsers don't tend to claim a slightly-better-than-chance ability... most believe that they are 100% accurate, or close to it. Thus, if they readily agree to a high-success threshold, a slightly-better-than-chance result is a failure per their claim.

One of the better dowsing tests that I've read about, is the "Scheunen" test done in Germany, that involved a few hundred dowsers. Those that scored significantly above chance, were re-tested, and their second attempts were unimpressive. Again, with Randi's challenge, any dowser is free to claim a slightly-better-than-chance ability, and Randi would have to design a test that accomodates that claim. It just means that the test takes a lot longer.