[Moderated] Dowsing By Edge - Page 10

GzuzKryzt · 29th January 2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

...
No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, [...]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.
(One particular dowser whose individual result was not explicitly mentioned in the video, had a significant better result than chance. But on another trial he could not reproduce his result. It may very likely have been a fluke. Couldn't find the link now, sorry.)

Interested parties, please chime in:
How many tests like the above have to yield no significant results before we can say "It is highly unlikely (as in 99,99%) that dowsing does work."?

[offtopic]
Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave?

[/offtopic]

BillyJoe · 29th January 2007, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl

I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions.

Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence.

And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible.

So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't).

Perhaps an oversimplification rather than a false dichotomy.

I agree that the depth of your belief in something needs to be in proportion to the strength of the evidence. If there is no evidence after an extended period of looking, the practical thing to do is to live as if that thing is false. But you always remain open to further evidence becoming available at some point that supports it. If the evidence for something is overwhelming, your default position is that it is true. Again, you remain open to the fact that evidence may become available at some point that refutes it completely. Most things lie somewhere in between and, as I said, the depth of your belief is in proportion to the strength of the evidence.

An open mind is good. But I think it is good to have a spring constantly trying to close it, otherwise a whole lot of nonsense might find it's way in. New ideas, of course, are another story. We should always be open to new ideas unless and until the evidence for it fails to materialise over a sufficient period of time.

In other words, I think we are largely in agreement.

BillyJoe · 29th January 2007, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found.

I was simply trying to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers and asking questions. Is a believer someone who believes unless and until it is disproven and an unbeliever someone who unbelieves unless and until it is proven? Anyway, I don't know that I was really expecting an answer.

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Dowsing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist.

Well, edge is a believer in dowsing because of his positive experiences with it, so he will continue to believe unless and until dowsing is disproved *to him*. He is not interested in how other dowsers may or may not have been disproved. We are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

This is what is meant by testing for what the person says they can do, not your interpretation or extrapolation of what he can do.

Jackalgirl · 29th January 2007, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

IWe are trying to set up a situation which will prove *to him* that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise *for him* dowsing will not be disproved.

As much as I'd hope that edge's faith in dowsing might be shaken up a bit by a test not passed, I'm not really in it to prove to him that dowsing is false. I'm in it to design a protocol that tests the question, and -- hopefully -- in the process teach edge about designing properly controlled tests. It will be up to edge to decide, if he ever decides this, that x number of failed controlled tests leads to a conclusion that dowsing probably doesn't work.

Dumb All Over · 29th January 2007, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034

You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over.

While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate.

Yes, Gzuz, I've watched that clip several times. And I've read the full account in Swift of one Mike Guska (edge). These types of tests only show that the dowsers were unable to substantiate their claims. For teck49, they are not evidence that support my statement, "dowsing doesn't work." Therefore, according to teck, I should not say it. But before further elaboration, I'll wait to see if ol' Mr. teck49 has anything else to say.

Originally Posted by GzuzKryst

[offtopic]
Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave?

[/offtopic]

(from South Park)
Kyle: Aren't they ever gonna wake up? Chef: Oh, they will. It's gonna be one uuuugly sight. Kyle: I thought you said the wonder of Mother Nature was a beautiful thing. Stan: Yeah, when does Mother Nature go from beautiful to ugly? Chef: Usually about 9:30 in the morning, children. [the elephant begins to wake up] Uh oh, here we go. [Elephant looks down at Fluffy with surprise and bellows] Yeahhh, there's nothing worse than getting all drunk and waking up the next morning next to a pig. [Fluffy looks up at elephant, begins crying] Or a big fat elephant.

BillyJoe · 29th January 2007, 12:47 PM

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

NoZed Avenger · 29th January 2007, 01:19 PM

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

Dumb All Over · 29th January 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him.

Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does.
He may just find it's all in his mind.

Of course, if he wins.....

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.

petre · 29th January 2007, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

BillyJoe · 29th January 2007, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.

I think you may have missed the point.

The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test.

Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.

BillyJoe · 29th January 2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.

When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.

It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known. Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?

I admire edge's persistence and I admire his willingness to think and explore in whatever capacity he has to do so considering he is not a scientist.

edge · 30th January 2007, 12:56 AM

Last ten posts are pretty interesting with the exception of Paul’s.
But I nominated one of his.
He is funny!

petre I'm going to try something you said tomorrow with a scale.
Thursday I will test myself on that ground in Hayfork so we'll know something then.
I'm probably the only one on the planet that is doing so many experiments to be sure of what is true on this subject.
What ever my conclusion is in the end you can take as gospel.
I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.
petre says

Quote:

3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenomenon and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

For physics do you know what this would mean?
How about where it would lead?
I'm not saying it's true yet but if it was?

There is a reason why I wouldn't mine with out dowsing for gold.
This can be proved two ways at once, this I do know.

Everything that I have stated about it is other proof, now if I can prove it Jrefs way that will be all I need to go with all the rest of what I have told you, but there is even more that I haven’t told you.
The difference between water dowsing and gold is, water is everywhere gold is not, at least not in mineable placer deposits.

Dumb All Over · 30th January 2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise.

Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise?

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known.

Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this?

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong?

You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.

edge · 30th January 2007, 12:47 PM

http://setterfield.org/tworelativities.html
For you too.

Jackalgirl · 30th January 2007, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by edge

I am on the Edge of saying yes or no.

Edge, what do you think of my protocol? Would you be willing to submit this to JREF with an application? If not, what about it would you change?

edge · 30th January 2007, 02:47 PM

I have to wait.

SezMe · 30th January 2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by edge

I have to wait.

For what? For how long?

edge · 30th January 2007, 03:29 PM

A day maybe two.
I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.

edge · 30th January 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by petre

Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further.

Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further.

Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when:

1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results.
2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events.
3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics).

#1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing.

For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all!

Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology.

I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.

From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

Paulhoff · 30th January 2007, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by edge

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html

Oh this is tooooo much.

Paul

BillyJoe · 30th January 2007, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise?

He has failed only once that he knows of for sure. All the other times he feels he has succeeded.
Also, you're preempting the outcome of future tests and edge's response to them.
That's not really scientific.

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this?

Misdirection.

I was saying that, if a possible mechanism for dowsing is not known but you are convinced from a lifetimes experience of successful dowsing that dowsing works, and a test shows it doesn't work, then it would be reasonable to think that the peculiar setup might have introduced a variable which interferred with the outcome that you normally get in the field.

Can you parse all that?

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over

You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.

You seem to forget that we are talking about an individual called edge and his specific abilities and methods. That has been tried only once.

Jackalgirl · 30th January 2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by edge

A day maybe two.
I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.

Hi edge --

Well, I'm not so much interested in the spot (at this time) as I am in the protocol. So I have two questions for you:

1) Assuming that the spot is free of interference, are you okay with the protocol I suggested?

2) What tests, in particular, are you going to run? In other words, could you describe the protocol you'll be using, using a description comparable to the one I gave you here?

Paulhoff · 30th January 2007, 08:01 PM

Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test.

Paul

Jackalgirl · 31st January 2007, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test.

Paul

We've certainly seen that before! But that's the point of the "calibration test" of my protocol (and BillyJoe's most excellent suggestion to run the calibration test more than once). Not that having calibration runs built into the test has ever stopped anyone from suddenly finding some new objection after the test (see Randi's Australian test of dowsers), of course, but it's still important. : )

Paulhoff · 31st January 2007, 04:50 AM

Calibrate to your hearts content, the results will be the same for the test and the excuses will be forthcoming from the dower.

Dowers and audiophiles (that can hear differences in wire etc) come from the same boat. Before the test they know for a fact that they have the gift and know without a doubt that they will past the test. But after they fail it is always the test that is at fault, never is it them or their ideas on their alleged abilities.

Paul

petre · 31st January 2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by edge

From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force.
That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale.

You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.

Well, what'd I'd say isn't really going to matter in the end. If it can be setup where it can be demonstrated that the force doesn't come from increased/decreased pressure in your hand (ideomotor effect or otherwise), then it'd be a worthy demonstration. My suggestion earlier was supporting it from below (I had pictured just putting one knuckle beneath the near end), but I'm not sure of a good way to eliminate it offhand since I don't know more about it.

If it works through a rubber glove, perhaps it could work through a hard cast? Or without human contact at all? The cast could be attached to the rod and scale system in such a way that none of the components would ever move relative to one another, which I think would exclude the ideomotor effect from being a possible cause of measured force.

edge · 31st January 2007, 08:32 PM

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have.
The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones.
The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods.
Totally insulated from my body.
I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..
This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March.
It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling and mine.
We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.

After the tests we can have a little party if the participants wish.
Edge

How’s that?

NoZed Avenger · 31st January 2007, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

I think you may have missed the point.

The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test.

Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.

I don't think I missed the point.

I understand the reason for the test and the set-up.

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general.

And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.

No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do.

edge · 31st January 2007, 08:36 PM

If this is good to go I'll send it tomorrow.
If accepted that buys me up to a year if I need that much time .
I think I only need a few more days to pin piont the exact day.
That will be stated on the application threads with Mr. Wagg.

edge · 31st January 2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I don't think I missed the point.

I understand the reason for the test and the set-up.

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general.

And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.

No, I haven't missed the point.

What ever I said before doesn't matter and now with silver as the target and steel antennas as the dowsing mecinism that might not be the only place on the planet.
I'm acually thinking there may be a chance in at least two other states that I know of.
I have done many more expeiments since then on and off.
It works when you mine I know now how it will work for a simple test.

edge · 31st January 2007, 08:54 PM

What happens when I mine is this that tiny little chatter is usually gold and other small metals that are scattered then somewhere near that chatter is a bigger hit.
As a miner we get all of it in that location if it's with in a fairly close proximity.
So I see what all that chatter is as well as the bigger hits.
I have done this many many times, to see what it is and bring it up, with a dredge, a pan, or a sluice box and buckets.

What I know in the creek while mining is that I’m feeling every little piece of metal that’s there.

BillyJoe · 1st February 2007, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general....And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land.

I am wondering why you don't see this as a great achievement by all of us. Edge, by constant test and trial, has narrowed his claim down to a very specific ability which is suitable for testing for the prize; and we have all helped him to that end by our constant helpful and positive advice and analysis (yes, well, I'm overstating that a bit

).

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do.

I don't remember saying or implying you were rude to edge. That is difficult to do because he has been trying so hard to narrow down exactly what he can do, side stepping all the insults and preconceived conclusions with good humour along the way. I also wish him luck. Hell, I hope he wins the prize (well, maybe I'm going a bit far here

)

regards,
BillyJoe

CynicalSkeptic · 1st February 2007, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by edge

I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct.
Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process.
I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test..

How’s that?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to do the formal immediately following the preliminary. My understanding is that you must first pass the preliminary, which will make you eligible for the formal, and that may require some additional preparation by JREF.

Paulhoff · 1st February 2007, 09:43 AM

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

GzuzKryzt · 1st February 2007, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

What exactly did you two talk about, Paulhoff?

edge · 1st February 2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head.

Paul

This reminds me of sibling rivalry

L.M.A.O.

Why not say, on here, what you had to say, sum it up for us you big baby.
For the first time in any of your posts you have us all in suspense.
Don’t worry I won’t get mad and tell daddy James!

Snicker snicker!!

Edge crawls off to wipe off the tears……….From laughter!!!!!!!!

Tell me Paula what’s up with you? You mad cause I took your candy?

GzuzKryzt · 1st February 2007, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by edge

This reminds me of sibling rivalry

L.M.A.O.

Why not say, on here, what you had to say, sum it up for us you big baby.
For the first time in any of your posts you have us all in suspense.
Don’t worry I won’t get mad and tell daddy James!

Snicker snicker!!

Edge crawls off to wipe off the tears……….From laughter!!!!!!!!

Tell me Paula what’s up with you? You mad cause I took your candy?

Touched a nerve, didn't he? (Told you, Paul.)

Edge, please prove your claim that you can "dowse".

NoZed Avenger · 1st February 2007, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

I don't remember saying or implying you were rude to edge.

Ah. Well, I'll chalk it down to my misreading and the awkwardness of the internet format then. I had read your reply as you feeling the need to run a bit of interference (acting as a "niceness buffer") in case I was being too harsh. Sorry; I'll plead a long work-week and lack of sleep.

Jackalgirl · 1st February 2007, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by edge

So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek.
...

We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area.

Sorry not to refer back to the office test, but what I'm looking for is a precise description of what you're planning to do. Could you link to the office test (I can't find it right off the bat) and then describe what you're doing that's different? I already know you're doing the test on a river back instead of in an office, but what other changes have you made? Obviously, phrases like "the applicant will leave the room" don't apply outside, so please let us know what you're doing instead. Some questions/comments:

1) I'm assuming that when you mention volunteers, they'll be along for the whole ride. Is that correct? How many volunteers do you have, and exactly what will they be doing? I only ask because your basic description doesn't mention the volunteers until the end, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly.

2) Cellphones: not a bad idea, but make sure that you control for trickery. For example, make sure that no one actually speaks (conceivably, people could set up a code phrase to pass along where the coin is. It'd be complicated, but it could be done). I'd recommend just checking the phone to make sure it's coming from the other team, while the other team lets the phone ring, say, four times (/each time/ -- no number codes!) before they hang up.

3) Are you either following my suggestion re: the two areas, one for each team, that are both out of the sight & hearing of each other and the test area?

4) Will the team that is setting up the test containers and target be making absolutely sure that they are picking up all of the containers in between each test, so that each attempt is made against a completely freshly made-up setup?

5) What are the shapes of your containers? I recommend round. Someone could conceivably set up all square containers, for example, so that they're lined up with one another, then subtly shift the one the coin's under. Watch out for that. When you do the blinded test, you absolutely want to make sure that there is NO CLUE as to where the target is. This will strengthen the claim that you are not unconsciously cueing.

When you write your protocol up and send it in to Jeff, please please please make sure that you use the level of detail I used in my initial protocol description to you. If you would like some help getting it typed up and formatted, please let me know. I'd be happy to help.

edge · 1st February 2007, 07:16 PM

The envelope is mailed.

Paul don't be angry I'm not. I know when you post binary code your angry.
Jackalgirl
Each of the jref team members can hold the phones.
It's the same test but in a different place and different dowsing rods silver is the target. The target may change.

The containers once I place them stay there through the whole test.

Thanks for offering but it's done besides when it shows up if accepted they will post it and we will still be hashing out the fine details on the application thread.
You'll be able to participate there.

29th January 2007, 12:20 AM	#361
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over ... No, there's probably not a definitive double-blind experiment that demonstrates dowsing doesn't work, [...] http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034 You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over. While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate. (One particular dowser whose individual result was not explicitly mentioned in the video, had a significant better result than chance. But on another trial he could not reproduce his result. It may very likely have been a fluke. Couldn't find the link now, sorry.) Interested parties, please chime in: How many tests like the above have to yield no significant results before we can say "It is highly unlikely (as in 99,99%) that dowsing does work."? [offtopic] Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave? [/offtopic]
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367

29th January 2007, 01:01 AM	#362
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Jackalgirl I think that might be a false dichotomy, though I am no expert at logical debate. I don't think that you have to live in either of the alternative positions. Personally, I try not to accept something as fact until I have some kind of believable evidence for it. But I'm willing to say "maybe" for the time being. I /won't/ be willing to bet my life on it (or someone else's life on it), though, without some kind of evidence. And I try to keep an open mind, even about stuff I think is total nonsense, so that I don't dismiss any so-called evidence out of hand (though I find this extremely difficult). In other words, I will try to believe that things are wildly improbable, but not impossible. So, in other words, I think of things as possible until I have evidence for them, and am likely to think of certain long-untested things (like mediums) as improbable (only because they've had so long to pony up some evidence, and haven't). Perhaps an oversimplification rather than a false dichotomy. I agree that the depth of your belief in something needs to be in proportion to the strength of the evidence. If there is no evidence after an extended period of looking, the practical thing to do is to live as if that thing is false. But you always remain open to further evidence becoming available at some point that supports it. If the evidence for something is overwhelming, your default position is that it is true. Again, you remain open to the fact that evidence may become available at some point that refutes it completely. Most things lie somewhere in between and, as I said, the depth of your belief is in proportion to the strength of the evidence. An open mind is good. But I think it is good to have a spring constantly trying to close it, otherwise a whole lot of nonsense might find it's way in. New ideas, of course, are another story. We should always be open to new ideas unless and until the evidence for it fails to materialise over a sufficient period of time. In other words, I think we are largely in agreement.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

29th January 2007, 01:20 AM	#363
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Paulhoff Why do we have to start at the extremes, all or nothing? When I walk outside on a clear sunlit day and see a blue sky, I don’t question the color, but I will in time ask the questions and find the answers to why it is blue and these answers have been found. I was simply trying to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers and asking questions. Is a believer someone who believes unless and until it is disproven and an unbeliever someone who unbelieves unless and until it is proven? Anyway, I don't know that I was really expecting an answer. Originally Posted by Paulhoff Dowsing has been around more than long enough for the questions to be asked, so it does make one wonder why the proof has not been found, until one sees that all the testing does lead to a proof, that it does not exist. Well, edge is a believer in dowsing because of his positive experiences with it, so he will continue to believe unless and until dowsing is disproved to him. He is not interested in how other dowsers may or may not have been disproved. We are trying to set up a situation which will prove to him that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise for him dowsing will not be disproved. This is what is meant by testing for what the person says they can do, not your interpretation or extrapolation of what he can do.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

29th January 2007, 04:55 AM	#364
Jackalgirl Ping Jockey Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Honshu, Japan Posts: 1,787	Originally Posted by BillyJoe IWe are trying to set up a situation which will prove to him that dowsing is false. He must be completely happy with the setup and we must make sure that he is completely happy, even when he says he is, otherwise for him dowsing will not be disproved. As much as I'd hope that edge's faith in dowsing might be shaken up a bit by a test not passed, I'm not really in it to prove to him that dowsing is false. I'm in it to design a protocol that tests the question, and -- hopefully -- in the process teach edge about designing properly controlled tests. It will be up to edge to decide, if he ever decides this, that x number of failed controlled tests leads to a conclusion that dowsing probably doesn't work.
	__________________ >> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo I don't like Sylvia Browne

29th January 2007, 06:22 AM	#365
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by GzuzKryzt http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12885649996034 You probably know the above link already, Dumb All Over. While it might not definitely prove that dowsing does work, it shows that in this test it did not. The dowsers performed as well as chance would indicate. Yes, Gzuz, I've watched that clip several times. And I've read the full account in Swift of one Mike Guska (edge). These types of tests only show that the dowsers were unable to substantiate their claims. For teck49, they are not evidence that support my statement, "dowsing doesn't work." Therefore, according to teck, I should not say it. But before further elaboration, I'll wait to see if ol' Mr. teck49 has anything else to say. Originally Posted by GzuzKryst [offtopic] Dumb All Over, where'd you get that pic of Silvia before her morning shave? [/offtopic] (from South Park) Kyle: Aren't they ever gonna wake up? Chef: Oh, they will. It's gonna be one uuuugly sight. Kyle: I thought you said the wonder of Mother Nature was a beautiful thing. Stan: Yeah, when does Mother Nature go from beautiful to ugly? Chef: Usually about 9:30 in the morning, children. [the elephant begins to wake up] Uh oh, here we go. [Elephant looks down at Fluffy with surprise and bellows] Yeahhh, there's nothing worse than getting all drunk and waking up the next morning next to a pig. [Fluffy looks up at elephant, begins crying] Or a big fat elephant.
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin Last edited by Dumb All Over; 29th January 2007 at 06:27 AM.

29th January 2007, 12:47 PM	#366
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him. Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does. He may just find it's all in his mind. Of course, if he wins.....
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it. Last edited by BillyJoe; 29th January 2007 at 12:52 PM.

29th January 2007, 01:19 PM	#367
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

29th January 2007, 01:28 PM	#368
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by BillyJoe I'm not talking about dowsing in general or faith in general, I'm talking about edge and his faith in dowsing. I think he can be persuaded with the proper setup. At the very least, if he fails a test in which we make absolutely sure he agrees with every aspect, it will create a great deal of cognitive dissonance for him. Most dowsers just go with the feel and never really think about why, edge is at least thinking about why and how it works for him and why it fails when it does. He may just find it's all in his mind. Of course, if he wins..... Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't.
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

29th January 2007, 01:43 PM	#369
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land. Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further. Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further. Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when: 1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results. 2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events. 3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics). #1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing. For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all! Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology. I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be.
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

29th January 2007, 07:03 PM	#370
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I cannot get my mind around the fact that this incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability can apparently only work -- out of the entire country -- in a 10 x 10 plot of land. I think you may have missed the point. The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test. Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it. Last edited by BillyJoe; 29th January 2007 at 07:05 PM.

29th January 2007, 07:22 PM	#371
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Respectfully, BillyJoe, I couldn't disagree more. This new test will no more convince edge than the last one did. edge has been through this before. He was presented with a right and proper setup. He performed no better than chance. After the testing, all he could offer were excuses, none of which included the possibility that dowsing doesn't work. What makes you think this test will be any different? In my opinion, it won't. When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise. It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known. Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong? I admire edge's persistence and I admire his willingness to think and explore in whatever capacity he has to do so considering he is not a scientist.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it. Last edited by BillyJoe; 29th January 2007 at 07:24 PM.

30th January 2007, 12:56 AM	#372
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	Last ten posts are pretty interesting with the exception of Paul’s. But I nominated one of his. He is funny! petre I'm going to try something you said tomorrow with a scale. Thursday I will test myself on that ground in Hayfork so we'll know something then. I'm probably the only one on the planet that is doing so many experiments to be sure of what is true on this subject. What ever my conclusion is in the end you can take as gospel. I am on the Edge of saying yes or no. petre says Quote: 3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenomenon and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics). For physics do you know what this would mean? How about where it would lead? I'm not saying it's true yet but if it was? There is a reason why I wouldn't mine with out dowsing for gold. This can be proved two ways at once, this I do know. Everything that I have stated about it is other proof, now if I can prove it Jrefs way that will be all I need to go with all the rest of what I have told you, but there is even more that I haven’t told you. The difference between water dowsing and gold is, water is everywhere gold is not, at least not in mineable placer deposits.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

30th January 2007, 10:04 AM	#373
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by BillyJoe When someone has been convinced through a lifetime's worth of experiences that something works, why would a single failure persuade him otherwise. Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise? Originally Posted by BillyJoe It's natural to think that something went wrong. Edge dowses in the field. This was done in an office. All sorts of things could have interfered in this situation. Especially if the mechanism of dowsing is not known. Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this? Originally Posted by BillyJoe Would you give up your belief in science if a single test result seemed to blow that belief out of the water. Or would you look for a reason why the test might have gone wrong? You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted.
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

30th January 2007, 12:47 PM	#374
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	http://setterfield.org/tworelativities.html For you too.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

30th January 2007, 01:27 PM	#375
Jackalgirl Ping Jockey Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Honshu, Japan Posts: 1,787	Originally Posted by edge I am on the Edge of saying yes or no. Edge, what do you think of my protocol? Would you be willing to submit this to JREF with an application? If not, what about it would you change?
	__________________ >> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo I don't like Sylvia Browne

30th January 2007, 02:47 PM	#376
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	I have to wait.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

30th January 2007, 03:14 PM	#377
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Originally Posted by edge I have to wait. For what? For how long?

30th January 2007, 03:29 PM	#378
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	A day maybe two. I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

30th January 2007, 03:34 PM	#379
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	Originally Posted by petre Not so much that, just that "consistency" seems to fade as one fiddles with it (or attempts to do it the same way twice it seems). Many people, upon discovering that repeated attempts yeild different results and demonstrate erratic and incosistant behavior, conclude the effect does not exist at all and cease to examine it further. Others insist the effect is "untestable, but somehow they just KNOW it's true" and then cease to examine it further. Edge is different in that he continues to examine it long after many would have gone one way or the other. It will be interesting to see if there will come a time when: 1. Edge will decide to continue to believe that it works, but feel it is far too complicated to elicit reproducable results. 2. sufficient failure under intense examination will eventally lead him to conclude that "dowsing" is indeed comprised solely of known probabalistic, physiological and psychological events. 3. he will find sufficient conditions to create repeatable events beyond explanation of known phenemonena and apply for the challenge (or win a Nobel prize for physics). #1 would be a rather boring end, and he seems determined to find his way through to 3, even at the risk of one day falling into 2. To that end I've attempted to direct him into more simplistic tests of dowsing. For example, I've suggested there might be a difference in different dowsing rods. If he could demonstrate a difference between two rods that would be otherwise indistinguishable, that would be worthy of the challenge. If there is absolutely no discernable difference between dowsing with an oak stick, an iron bar, a glass tube, or a blade of grass, that might lead an experimenter to wonder exactly what it is the stick does, or if it is even required at all! Or, he could test the force of the pull during dowsing. If such a force is detectable, that would be worthy of the challenge (being a previously-unknown force). If absolutely no actual measurable force is present, it might lead an experimenter to wonder whether the action of the rod during dowsing is indeed explained by other phenomona in the dowsers physiology. I think examination of the fundamental elements like composition and force will prove the most enlightening, whatever those results may be. From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force. That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale. You will still say it's the ideomotor effect.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

30th January 2007, 07:27 PM	#380
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by edge You will still say it's the ideomotor effect. http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html Oh this is tooooo much. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

30th January 2007, 07:28 PM	#381
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Or for that matter, why would a thousand failures persuade him otherwise? He has failed only once that he knows of for sure. All the other times he feels he has succeeded. Also, you're preempting the outcome of future tests and edge's response to them. That's not really scientific. Originally Posted by Dumb All Over Especially if the mechanism is not known?!! If dowsing has never been shown to work in the first place, talking of an unknown mechanism is like putting the cart before the horse. What gibberish is this? Misdirection. I was saying that, if a possible mechanism for dowsing is not known but you are convinced from a lifetimes experience of successful dowsing that dowsing works, and a test shows it doesn't work, then it would be reasonable to think that the peculiar setup might have introduced a variable which interferred with the outcome that you normally get in the field. Can you parse all that? Originally Posted by Dumb All Over You seem to imply that within the annals of scientific history, only one dowsing test has ever been conducted. You seem to forget that we are talking about an individual called edge and his specific abilities and methods. That has been tried only once.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th January 2007, 07:49 PM	#382
Jackalgirl Ping Jockey Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Honshu, Japan Posts: 1,787	Originally Posted by edge A day maybe two. I have to go up there from here and run the tests and then I will know if the spot is good to go. Hi edge -- Well, I'm not so much interested in the spot (at this time) as I am in the protocol. So I have two questions for you: 1) Assuming that the spot is free of interference, are you okay with the protocol I suggested? 2) What tests, in particular, are you going to run? In other words, could you describe the protocol you'll be using, using a description comparable to the one I gave you here?
	__________________ >> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo I don't like Sylvia Browne

30th January 2007, 08:01 PM	#383
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

31st January 2007, 01:10 AM	#384
Jackalgirl Ping Jockey Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Honshu, Japan Posts: 1,787	Originally Posted by Paulhoff Before the test they all agree that everything with the test is OK and after they fail the test they then point out what is wrong with the test. Paul We've certainly seen that before! But that's the point of the "calibration test" of my protocol (and BillyJoe's most excellent suggestion to run the calibration test more than once). Not that having calibration runs built into the test has ever stopped anyone from suddenly finding some new objection after the test (see Randi's Australian test of dowsers), of course, but it's still important. : )
	__________________ >> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo I don't like Sylvia Browne

31st January 2007, 04:50 AM	#385
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Calibrate to your hearts content, the results will be the same for the test and the excuses will be forthcoming from the dower. Dowers and audiophiles (that can hear differences in wire etc) come from the same boat. Before the test they know for a fact that they have the gift and know without a doubt that they will past the test. But after they fail it is always the test that is at fault, never is it them or their ideas on their alleged abilities. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing Last edited by Paulhoff; 31st January 2007 at 04:53 AM.

31st January 2007, 03:07 PM	#386
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887	Originally Posted by edge From what I can see for 12 watts going in,"as I believe is powering the dowsing rod" I get at least a quarter pound of force. That's with a counter weight on a hanging scale. You will still say it's the ideomotor effect. Well, what'd I'd say isn't really going to matter in the end. If it can be setup where it can be demonstrated that the force doesn't come from increased/decreased pressure in your hand (ideomotor effect or otherwise), then it'd be a worthy demonstration. My suggestion earlier was supporting it from below (I had pictured just putting one knuckle beneath the near end), but I'm not sure of a good way to eliminate it offhand since I don't know more about it. If it works through a rubber glove, perhaps it could work through a hard cast? Or without human contact at all? The cast could be attached to the rod and scale system in such a way that none of the components would ever move relative to one another, which I think would exclude the ideomotor effect from being a possible cause of measured force.
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 887

31st January 2007, 08:32 PM	#387
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	So I will do a hidden container test like at the office except on the bank on the creek. The difference is the target will be on the ground hidden by the container but most likely the lids of the containers that I already have. The target will be a 1885 silver dollar you know the large ones. The dowsing rods or the attractors are radio antennas that are L rods. Totally insulated from my body. I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct. Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process. I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test.. This test will occur when I think it is reasonably warm enough to stay on the bank of the creek long enough to get one set of testing done. That could be as soon as Feb. or March. It also depends on the volunteers’ scheduling and mine. We can use cell phones to communicate when one team is ready to leave the test area and one team with myself is ready to go to the testing area. After the tests we can have a little party if the participants wish. Edge How’s that?
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

31st January 2007, 08:34 PM	#388
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by BillyJoe I think you may have missed the point. The idea is to test in such a way as to eliminate all known confounding variables as far as possible. That's what a scientific test aims to do. It seems edge has found a plot of land free of any response to dowsing - which, to him, means there is no gold there. So, no geographical clues to a gold deposit. Perfect for an in-the-field test. If we keep out any other possible sources of artificial interference to the complete satisfaction of edge, we'll be ready for the actual test. Also, it is not edge's claim that his dowsing is an "incredibly powerful, useful, and consistently correct ability". He gets 6 out of 10. He is not a rich man. All he claims is that he finds more gold with dowsing than without. I don't think I missed the point. I understand the reason for the test and the set-up. His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general. And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land. No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.] Last edited by NoZed Avenger; 31st January 2007 at 08:38 PM.

31st January 2007, 08:36 PM	#389
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	If this is good to go I'll send it tomorrow. If accepted that buys me up to a year if I need that much time . I think I only need a few more days to pin piont the exact day. That will be stated on the application threads with Mr. Wagg.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo

31st January 2007, 08:41 PM	#390
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I don't think I missed the point. I understand the reason for the test and the set-up. His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general. And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land. No, I haven't missed the point. What ever I said before doesn't matter and now with silver as the target and steel antennas as the dowsing mecinism that might not be the only place on the planet. I'm acually thinking there may be a chance in at least two other states that I know of. I have done many more expeiments since then on and off. It works when you mine I know now how it will work for a simple test.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo Last edited by edge; 31st January 2007 at 08:43 PM.

31st January 2007, 08:54 PM	#391
edge Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Where my two best friends are, in here now. Posts: 5,248	What happens when I mine is this that tiny little chatter is usually gold and other small metals that are scattered then somewhere near that chatter is a bigger hit. As a miner we get all of it in that location if it's with in a fairly close proximity. So I see what all that chatter is as well as the bigger hits. I have done this many many times, to see what it is and bring it up, with a dredge, a pan, or a sluice box and buckets. What I know in the creek while mining is that I’m feeling every little piece of metal that’s there.
	__________________ My two best friends in here! Upper left. Laus Deo Last edited by edge; 31st January 2007 at 08:56 PM.

1st February 2007, 01:54 AM	#392
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger His reliability claims have also dwindled somewhat from the time of the initial testing; see also his many, many posts early in this very thread talking about the usefulness of dowsing in general....And yet this ability can be completely negated by background chatter in practically every spot on the entire planet, apparently, except maybe one small plot of land. I am wondering why you don't see this as a great achievement by all of us. Edge, by constant test and trial, has narrowed his claim down to a very specific ability which is suitable for testing for the prize; and we have all helped him to that end by our constant helpful and positive advice and analysis (yes, well, I'm overstating that a bit ). Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger No, I haven't missed the point. Nor do I think I was particularly rude; I did not aim anything at edge specifically and have wished him luck inthe past. I still do. I don't remember saying or implying you were rude to edge. That is difficult to do because he has been trying so hard to narrow down exactly what he can do, side stepping all the insults and preconceived conclusions with good humour along the way. I also wish him luck. Hell, I hope he wins the prize (well, maybe I'm going a bit far here ) regards, BillyJoe
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

1st February 2007, 08:04 AM	#393
CynicalSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: state of denial Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by edge I will dowse ten containers ten times in each category open and close and I will say that I will get 60% correct. Then the next test that will be the formal I will repeat the process. I will be allowed two days for those test so that I may be able to stop and rest when I feel the need to or continue the next day for the formal test.. How’s that? I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing that you won't be able to do the formal immediately following the preliminary. My understanding is that you must first pass the preliminary, which will make you eligible for the formal, and that may require some additional preparation by JREF.

1st February 2007, 09:43 AM	#394
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

1st February 2007, 10:49 AM	#395
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367	Originally Posted by Paulhoff I was talking to Jeff at Randi's meeting last night about edge, mostly all he did was shake his head. Paul What exactly did you two talk about, Paulhoff?
GzuzKryzt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,367