Is James Randi really looking for truth

[tiger]

I understand James Randi's philosophy to a point,and I am a skeptic too! But I disagree with alot of his thoughts that involve nature. Were not talking about paranomal,psychics, so forth. I am talking about things like water dowsing which is kind of a screwball thing given people are claiming psychic abilities
doing this, and I believe there maybe something to water dowsing to a scientific point. I see it has nature
where you have the basics Metal,water,soil,wood. Where I disagree with James Randi is that he considers
this paranormal and whether it turns to be possible thru science or not it still falls under nature and not the paranormal. I have a problem discarding nature and all we don't know about it just because someones
claiming supernatural powers while doing it. Were dealing with something people do use that don't claim supernatural powers while doing it, well diggers for example use it in conjunction with modern tech. I have seen maps that James Randi has used showing area's where water covers these vast area's. Yet even
with modern tech finding water hit or miss so how can you trust the maps are right. In short how can
you claim that map showing area's of water is true. Maybe you can't dowse for water but that doesn't
make it paranormal and we are dealing with metal,water,soil,wood, and possible magnatism all sciences
and all proven to coexist and take on each others properties.

[Admin]

Hi tiger, and welcome. O0

I think the claim that dowsing is paranormal is because if it worked then it would have to be by some mechanism other than we currently understand.

Of course, if it worked then, by definition, it would no longer be a paranormal claim but a mystery to be solved by science.

Dowsing appears to work but the explanation can be found in the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

Where properly controlled trials are done the apparent success of dowsing disappears.

In fact, we have a dowsing protocol designed to test the phenomenon under controlled conditions (designed by Jocky) which was for dowsing jewellery (some people believe that lost items can be found this way) but it could easily be adapted for water dowsing, for example.

We would like to run these tests - if you're interested in participating?

[tiger]

Hi tiger, and welcome. O0

I think the claim that dowsing is paranormal is because if it worked then it would have to be by some mechanism other than we currently understand.

Of course, if it worked then, by definition, it would no longer be a paranormal claim but a mystery to be solved by science.

Dowsing appears to work but the explanation can be found in the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

Where properly controlled trials are done the apparent success of dowsing disappears.

In fact, we have a dowsing protocol designed to test the phenomenon under controlled conditions (designed by Jocky) which was for dowsing jewellery (some people believe that lost items can be found this way) but it could easily be adapted for water dowsing, for example.

We would like to run these tests - if you're interested in participating?


Sure I understand this but I have a problem with ideomotor effect concept that tends to give someone like Randi
a reason to claim it didn't work. And the trouble is James Randi doesn't try to see if the concept works he jsut say's
yes the rods moved but it was because of the Ideomotor effect. And James Randi just dismisses the concept because he thinks it's paranormal mumbo jumbo, and this is where I have the problem. Whether it can be done or not dosen't
make a claim that it's not real science. I realize we have idiots claiming they can use dowsing rods to find ghost's
and me and Randi agree this is lunacy. But with this we are going out of the realm of nature to find the sources.
With water dowsing the sources trying to be disputed are natural proven sciences, and it may not be something that can be done, but it is science.

[tiger]

Hi tiger, and welcome. O0

I think the claim that dowsing is paranormal is because if it worked then it would have to be by some mechanism other than we currently understand.

Of course, if it worked then, by definition, it would no longer be a paranormal claim but a mystery to be solved by science.

Dowsing appears to work but the explanation can be found in the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

Where properly controlled trials are done the apparent success of dowsing disappears.

In fact, we have a dowsing protocol designed to test the phenomenon under controlled conditions (designed by Jocky) which was for dowsing jewellery (some people believe that lost items can be found this way) but it could easily be adapted for water dowsing, for example.

We would like to run these tests - if you're interested in participating?


And thank you for the welcome it's good to be here.

[Jocky]

Hi Tiger, allow me to add my welcome to John's :)


In fact, we have a dowsing protocol designed to test the phenomenon under controlled conditions (designed by Jocky) which ... could easily be adapted for water dowsing ... We would like to run these tests - if you're interested in participating?

Seconded! O0


the trouble is James Randi doesn't try to see if the concept works he jsut say's yes the rods moved but it was because of the Ideomotor effect

Randi has conducted many dowsing tests. The crux of the matter is that in all those tests, the rods do not move any more often when passing over water than they do over emptiness. Therefore, the Ideomotor Effect is the explanation which is the best fit to the available facts.


it may not be something that can be done, but it is science

Can dowsing actually be done? The evidence currently available suggests that it cannot. As yet, no dowser has proved to be consistently capable of making the rods move significantly more often over water than they do over nothing.

However, if somebody could do it under controlled conditions, then all bets are off - and the person who did it could be $1 million richer at Randi's expense!

Do you know of anybody who can do it? If so, we stand ready to run honest, properly conducted trials to test the claim.

[Admin]

Just a quick point (I have to rush out now).

The UK-Skeptics testing that we're referring to is not a confrontational test like the JREF challenge - we're doing this from a scientific point of view. i.e. hypothesis testing.

It's not a pass or fail challenge, more of a data gathering exercise.

[Araneus]

Randi has conducted many dowsing tests. The crux of the matter is that in all those tests, the rods do not move any more often when passing over water than they do over emptiness. Therefore, the Ideomotor Effect is the explanation which is the best fit to the available facts.

Precisely. The claim that dowsers make is that they can, via the use of the rods, determine the location of hidden water or objects, which is a claim that has repeatedly failed scientific testing. Whether the rods move, and why, is not relevant when the claimed ability -- to detect objects via dowsing -- has not been shown to exist in the first place.

Until such time as the claims made by dowsers are demonstrated scientifically, they remain firmly in the realm of the paranormal. If they are ever demonstrated, they will then become a new scientific effect requiring explanation, as others have said.

[Jocky]

Until such time as the claims made by dowsers are demonstrated scientifically, they remain firmly in the realm of the paranormal. If they are ever demonstrated, they will then become a new scientific effect requiring explanation

Quite. And as John says, we are willing to investigate these claims in the manner which would (after sufficient research) eventually make it possible to investigate them scientifically.

Neither we nor Randi reject the claims of dowsing because the explanations offered are paranormal - we simply doubt the claims because they are not consistent with observable reality. If new aspects of reality were to be reliably observed, then science (and good skeptics) would change their views to take this new evidence into account O0

We are genuinely keen to participate in properly-designed and controlled experiments. We do not seek to embarrass anybody, or prove them wrong just for the sake of it. if there is an undiscovered reality lurking behind dowsing, then it is potentially of colossal value to find out more about it!

[tiger]

Randi has conducted many dowsing tests. The crux of the matter is that in all those tests, the rods do not move any more often when passing over water than they do over emptiness. Therefore, the Ideomotor Effect is the explanation which is the best fit to the available facts.

Precisely. The claim that dowsers make is that they can, via the use of the rods, determine the location of hidden water or objects, which is a claim that has repeatedly failed scientific testing. Whether the rods move, and why, is not relevant when the claimed ability -- to detect objects via dowsing -- has not been shown to exist in the first place.

Until such time as the claims made by dowsers are demonstrated scientifically, they remain firmly in the realm of the paranormal. If they are ever demonstrated, they will then become a new scientific effect requiring explanation, as others have said.


Yes I'm not talking about the claim itself made by the dowsers! I'm talking about the concept that this is considered
paranormal activity when it's actual science. Whether it's proven that you can find water or not with rods doesn't
make a claim that it's paranormal. James randi claimed after a water dowsing test that if we believe that you can find water using these means science would have to be rewritten. My point is that if you don't believe that using these
natural sources can accomplish something like proving it can be done then you will have to rewrite science.
Randi's claim is this is not natural and yet your using metal,water,wood,soil, and magnatism all source sciences and
all sources used to prove scientific research. Paranormal means beyond the norm and even if a dowsers claim is off that it can be done, that doesn't mean the concept and proviblity is not there.

[tiger]

Until such time as the claims made by dowsers are demonstrated scientifically, they remain firmly in the realm of the paranormal. If they are ever demonstrated, they will then become a new scientific effect requiring explanation

Quite. And as John says, we are willing to investigate these claims in the manner which would (after sufficient research) eventually make it possible to investigate them scientifically.

Neither we nor Randi reject the claims of dowsing because the explanations offered are paranormal - we simply doubt the claims because they are not consistent with observable reality. If new aspects of reality were to be reliably observed, then science (and good skeptics) would change their views to take this new evidence into account O0

We are genuinely keen to participate in properly-designed and controlled experiments. We do not seek to embarrass anybody, or prove them wrong just for the sake of it. if there is an undiscovered reality lurking behind dowsing, then it is potentially of colossal value to find out more about it!


Sure I understand but disagree with your comment on Randi on this subject, he did make the claim that if finding
water using these means were true we would have to rewrite science. I am saying if you think using concepts
like this and using the natural sources means you would have to rewrite science, then you better start writing!

[Araneus]

I'm talking about the concept that this is considered
paranormal activity when it's actual science. Whether it's proven that you can find water or not with rods doesn't
make a claim that it's paranormal.

I think I understand what you are saying. Since the claims of dowsers are scientifically testable, and more importantly falsifiable, the fall within the realm of a scientific hypothesis rather than, say, the existence of God which is a non-scientific, unprovable claim.

If this is what you are saying, then it basically comes down to an argument about what "paranormal" means -- if you use the word to refer only to non-testable hypotheses like the existence of gods, then dowsing obviously does not qualify. If, on the other hand, you use the word "paranormal" to refer to any claim which defies the current understanding of scientific reality, which dowsing does, then it is applicable in this case. It seems to be the latter definition that Randi is using.

[Jocky]

Randi ... did make the claim that if finding water using these means were true we would have to rewrite science. I am saying if you think using concepts
like this and using the natural sources means you would have to rewrite science, then you better start writing!

I don't know the exact words Randi may have used on this topic offhand, but I accept that the jist of the quote you are attributing to him is probably accurate.

There is presently no need to rewrite science, because there is no evidence that dowsing is real. All the information presently available suggests that dowsing exists only as a (mistaken) idea in peoples' minds: there is no evidence that it exists as real effect which describes actual properties of natural things.

The fact that wood and water are naturally occuring substances seems to be misleading you, but it is irrelevant here: the key point is that they do not seem to behave in the manner which dowsing claims they should.

[Mojo]

Dowsing appears to work but the explanation can be found in the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

Where properly controlled trials are done the apparent success of dowsing disappears.

In fact, we have a dowsing protocol designed to test the phenomenon under controlled conditions (designed by Jocky) which was for dowsing jewellery (some people believe that lost items can be found this way) but it could easily be adapted for water dowsing, for example.

We would like to run these tests - if you're interested in participating?


The ideomotor effect and properly controlled and blinded tests have already been mentioned here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73090). Tiger didn't seem too interested in either. He just seems to want people to "prove him wrong" by running an unblinded test themselves.

ETA: the jref forum seems to be down at the moment.

[tiger]

Randi ... did make the claim that if finding water using these means were true we would have to rewrite science. I am saying if you think using concepts
like this and using the natural sources means you would have to rewrite science, then you better start writing!

I don't know the exact words Randi may have used on this topic offhand, but I accept that the jist of the quote you are attributing to him is probably accurate.

There is presently no need to rewrite science, because there is no evidence that dowsing is real. All the information presently available suggests that dowsing exists only as a (mistaken) idea in peoples' minds: there is no evidence that it exists as real effect which describes actual properties of natural things.

The fact that wood and water are naturally occuring substances seems to be misleading you, but it is irrelevant here: the key point is that they do not seem to behave in the manner which dowsing claims they should.


The fact that wood and water are natural is not misleading me on anything. My point has been made quite clear!
And amazes me that something someone has done eons ago is considered has much unbelievible has our thought's and discoveries would be to them.

[Mojo]

Sure I understand but disagree with your comment on Randi on this subject, he did make the claim that if finding water using these means were true we would have to rewrite science. I am saying if you think using concepts like this and using the natural sources means you would have to rewrite science, then you better start writing!


What do you mean by "using the natural sources"?

[tiger]

I'm talking about the concept that this is considered
paranormal activity when it's actual science. Whether it's proven that you can find water or not with rods doesn't
make a claim that it's paranormal.

I think I understand what you are saying. Since the claims of dowsers are scientifically testable, and more importantly falsifiable, the fall within the realm of a scientific hypothesis rather than, say, the existence of God which is a non-scientific, unprovable claim.

If this is what you are saying, then it basically comes down to an argument about what "paranormal" means -- if you use the word to refer only to non-testable hypotheses like the existence of gods, then dowsing obviously does not qualify. If, on the other hand, you use the word "paranormal" to refer to any claim which defies the current understanding of scientific reality, which dowsing does, then it is applicable in this case. It seems to be the latter definition that Randi is using.


Your sort of missing my point there have been thousands of tests done using all the sources of wood,water,metal,soil
and magnatism and how they all work together and conincide and take on each others properties. these are natural
source science's. All of earth's science's scientific tests are based on these source resources. And anytime you test
can this source find or interact with this source it's science and there's nothing paranormal about it. It doesn't matter
if you prove it true or false or could be plausible it's still science. If you have a dowser claiming I can find water using
these rods because I'm psychic well yes that persons beliefs belong has paranormal.

[tiger]

Sure I understand but disagree with your comment on Randi on this subject, he did make the claim that if finding water using these means were true we would have to rewrite science. I am saying if you think using concepts like this and using the natural sources means you would have to rewrite science, then you better start writing!


What do you mean by "using the natural sources"?


Go back and read!

[Araneus]

Your sort of missing my point there have been thousands of tests done using all the sources of wood,water,metal,soil
and magnatism and how they all work together and conincide and take on each others properties.

OK, I take it back. I don't understand what you are saying, at all. What do you mean "sources"? Wood and magnetism have nothing to do with one another, so what do you mean "take on each other's properties"?


It doesn't matter if you prove it true or false or could be plausible it's still science.

If you prove what true or false? What is still science? Science is very much about proof, if something has not been proven then it is not part of scientific theory, although it may be a possible scientific hypothesis.

[tiger]

You know I shouldn't have started this since noone really understands earth science and what source science is. And the fact that thousands of scientific studies havd been done on the sources abilities
with each other. Or the fact whether proven or not it's still science by trying to prove whether metal can find water and react in a way that allows one to detect it. I venture a guess that all thoughts that are now put into a scientific study and proven wrong are all paranormal. So Einstiens theory of realitivity
although accepted is so far out there that it's paranormal even though it's accepted it's never been proven.

[Araneus]

You know I shouldn't have started this since noone really understands earth science and what source science is. And the fact that thousands of scientific studies havd been done on the sources abilities
with each other. Or the fact whether proven or not it's still science by trying to prove whether metal can find water and react in a way that allows one to detect it.

Oh I see, that makes things a lot clearer, thanks. I thought you were talking about actual science, which I wasn't understanding because of a language barrier, but it turns out you are just expounding some particular brand of woo-woo. My bad.

[vbloke]

tiger - firstly, welcome to the forums

Now, dowsing isn't my forte, but to me, for dowsing to work requires some sort of effect.

We all know how you can detect the presence of a magnet due it's magnetic field, but in order to detect such wildly different things as water, gold, copper, wood, etc with the same equipment each time strikes me as odd - you wouldn't use a voltmeter to test for the presence of water, for example.

Now before we get bogged down in discussions about what this "force" may be, we need to ascertain if it even exists and a properly blinded dowsing study can tell us this. All we ask is for the dowser to do what they claim they can do except that someone is watching and taking careful notes of hits and misses.

Every study of this type that has been done on dowsers shows that they cannot do what they claim to be able to do.

And the Theory of Relativity can never be proven - it has been tested many times and many other theories have come off the back of it that all work. Science can never "prove" anything 100%, it can only observe, note and predict future events, all of which relativity has done to an unprecedented degree of accuracy.

[tiger]

You know I shouldn't have started this since noone really understands earth science and what source science is. And the fact that thousands of scientific studies havd been done on the sources abilities
with each other. Or the fact whether proven or not it's still science by trying to prove whether metal can find water and react in a way that allows one to detect it.

Oh I see, that makes things a lot clearer, thanks. I thought you were talking about actual science, which I wasn't understanding because of a language barrier, but it turns out you are just expounding some particular brand of woo-woo. My bad.


Your not going to believe in anything thats how it is with you. And no matter what I say your going to argue against
it because non scientists did some tests that didn't go beyond how can we prove it might work. Do you think a scientist explores something just one way and if that way doesn't work they just quit.

[tiger]

tiger - firstly, welcome to the forums

Now, dowsing isn't my forte, but to me, for dowsing to work requires some sort of effect.

We all know how you can detect the presence of a magnet due it's magnetic field, but in order to detect such wildly different things as water, gold, copper, wood, etc with the same equipment each time strikes me as odd - you wouldn't use a voltmeter to test for the presence of water, for example.

Now before we get bogged down in discussions about what this "force" may be, we need to ascertain if it even exists and a properly blinded dowsing study can tell us this. All we ask is for the dowser to do what they claim they can do except that someone is watching and taking careful notes of hits and misses.

Every study of this type that has been done on dowsers shows that they cannot do what they claim to be able to do.

And the Theory of Relativity can never be proven - it has been tested many times and many other theories have come off the back of it that all work. Science can never "prove" anything 100%, it can only observe, note and predict future events, all of which relativity has done to an unprecedented degree of accuracy.


Thanks for the welcome! And you won the prize finally some one who understands. Good job on the theory of relativity
science cannot prove anything !00%. But it's also clear the the people doing the dowsing are the ones being tested not the concept that water can be detected but with a different way. This is why we should leave these tests up to
people who are qualified and have the expertise to do them and will search every possible outcome.

[Araneus]

Your not going to believe in anything thats how it is with you.

I am not going to believe anything without scientific evidence, no.


And no matter what I say your going to argue againstit because non scientists did some tests that didn't go beyond how can we prove it might work. Do you think a scientist explores something just one way and if that way doesn't work they just quit.

Sorry, but you're making absolutely no sense. Are you saying that dowsing exists, or it doesn't exist? If you are saying it exists, where is the evidence that supports this claim?

[tiger]

Your not going to believe in anything thats how it is with you.

I am not going to believe anything without scientific evidence, no.


And no matter what I say your going to argue againstit because non scientists did some tests that didn't go beyond how can we prove it might work. Do you think a scientist explores something just one way and if that way doesn't work they just quit.

Sorry, but you're making absolutely no sense. Are you saying that dowsing exists, or it doesn't exist? If you are saying it exists, where is the evidence that supports this claim?


Read Vblokes thread and my reponse!

[tiger]

Your not going to believe in anything thats how it is with you.

I am not going to believe anything without scientific evidence, no.


And no matter what I say your going to argue againstit because non scientists did some tests that didn't go beyond how can we prove it might work. Do you think a scientist explores something just one way and if that way doesn't work they just quit.

Sorry, but you're making absolutely no sense. Are you saying that dowsing exists, or it doesn't exist? If you are saying it exists, where is the evidence that supports this claim?


And all I have been saying all along is don't stick science in with the ghost's, hauntings, psychics, etc. You cannot claim studies done with natural resources and how they might interact with each other has paranormal bull. Your not trying to prove a ghost exists, your trying to see if metal can detect water and it's science. I never said a dowser
can detect water I said there maybe something to the concept and stop dismissing it has hocus pocus. And that is why we should leave these tests up to people who are quailified to examine all possible ways if any that it may be done. Not a bunch of skeptics making up one test and then claiming it has scientific. I am a skeptic too but not when it comes to science and I'm not just believe other skeptics because they ran some test. Then claim that trying to see if metal can detect water has paranormal when it's not. The dowsers may not have proven anything but niether have the skeptics.

[vbloke]

Thanks for the welcome! And you won the prize finally some one who understands. Good job on the theory of relativity
science cannot prove anything !00%. But it's also clear the the people doing the dowsing are the ones being tested not the concept that water can be detected but with a different way. This is why we should leave these tests up to
people who are qualified and have the expertise to do them and will search every possible outcome.

This is very true, it is the people who are being tested. However, since science has no explanation for what this detectable "force" may be, it must test the people who claim to be able to detect it.

If the dowsers can truly detect such a force, then there must be something about them, or their equipment that can be tested once they succeed at the tests.

However, every test done so far shows that dowsers cannot detect water, or anything else for that matter, any better than chance.

There is no point in trying to detect this force until we can ascertain if this force actually exists and so far, there is no evidence of it.

In this regard, science is quite correct in not trying to do anything or writing it off as paranormal, as the only people who can achieve the effect, when tested, show no effect whatsoever.

[Admin]

Hi, Tiger.

Now you did introduce yourself as a skeptic.

As skeptics we have to be prepared to investigate claims. In order to do that we need to understand exactly what is being claimed and work out a protocol to test the claim properly.

Now, my take on dowsing claims is that they can use their divining rods (or whatever) to locate water (or whatever) the whereabouts of which is unknown. I think that’s a fair description of the claim.

The key to this claim is the word unknown.

To test the claim, we need to see if dowsers can actually locate water if they don’t know its location.

As pointed out, we’re prepared to do that (!)

It’s not an adequate test to simply place a bottle of water down and then dowse over it as the rods will deflect every time due to unconscious ideomotor action. In fact, this is how people usually test themselves and that’s why the ideomotor effect fools them into believing that dowsing works!

The actual way to test it is to see if the dowser can find water from a set of, say, ten identical targets only one of which has the water hidden in it.

That’s the basic idea. Of course there are also other complications: randomising the target choice procedure and doing the testing double-blind to avoid information leakage etc. (see The Clever Hans effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=clever_hans.php), for example).

We’re faced with a couple of possibilities. Either dowsing is real or there are other factors that make it appear to be real. It’s only through rigorous testing and controlling for the other factors that we can get a true answer.

That's the scientific way to approach such claims.

[Araneus]

You cannot claim studies done with natural resources and how they might interact with each other has paranormal bull.

You can, if the supposed effect has no scientific basis and has never been reliably shown to exist, and yet people continue to claim they are capable of demonstrating it. Just because something supposedly involves "natural resources" does not make it valid science.


I never said a dowser can detect water I said there maybe something to the concept and stop dismissing it has hocus pocus. And that is why we should leave these tests up to people who are quailified to examine all possible ways if any that it may be done. Not a bunch of skeptics making up one test and then claiming it has scientific.

What specifically do you think is unscientific about the dowsing tests that have been carried out? What factors are not properly examined by the protocol? It seems pretty simple to me -- dowsers claim they can detect objects, they perform in a controlled study and fail to detect those objects. How would you suggest their claim is tested, if not by the existing protocols?


The dowsers may not have proven anything but niether have the skeptics.

True. A failed test does not prove anything. However, that does not make the claimed concept valid, since the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove that he possesses the claimed abilities, not the skeptic to prove that he doesn't.

[Mongrel]

I'd add that if it's a real effect, it'll be reproducible in controlled conditions. No need to believe in it, no magic blocking effect from the bad Skeptics, the energy fields that are involved will be measureable and pinned down - then we can build machines that'll be able to dowse.

Since Dowsing has yet to even be reproduced I'm not going to hold my breath on it becoming scientific anytime soon.

[tiger]

Hi, Tiger.

Now you did introduce yourself as a skeptic.

As skeptics we have to be prepared to investigate claims. In order to do that we need to understand exactly what is being claimed and work out a protocol to test the claim properly.

Now, my take on dowsing claims is that they can use their divining rods (or whatever) to locate water (or whatever) the whereabouts of which is unknown. I think that’s a fair description of the claim.

The key to this claim is the word unknown.

To test the claim, we need to see if dowsers can actually locate water if they don’t know its location.

As pointed out, we’re prepared to do that (!)

It’s not an adequate test to simply place a bottle of water down and then dowse over it as the rods will deflect every time due to unconscious ideomotor action. In fact, this is how people usually test themselves and that’s why the ideomotor effect fools them into believing that dowsing works!

The actual way to test it is to see if the dowser can find water from a set of, say, ten identical targets only one of which has the water hidden in it.

That’s the basic idea. Of course there are also other complications: randomising the target choice procedure and doing the testing double-blind to avoid information leakage etc. (see The Clever Hans effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=clever_hans.php), for example).

We’re faced with a couple of possibilities. Either dowsing is real or there are other factors that make it appear to be real. It’s only through rigorous testing and controlling for the other factors that we can get a true answer.

That's the scientific way to approach such claims.


Okay please read the above threads because I explained how I feel about this subject and should have just wrote a book. One person actually got the concept but only people qualified to do scientific testing should do them.
Reason why is simple how far are you willing to take it, are you going to examine every possible way water can be detected has would be the scientific way. And has I said your testing dowsers abilities and your not looking for any possible outcome that could be favourable to the concept of water detection by other means. So how can you claim
the ability to detect water underground with metal or any other source is false. James Randi claims detecting water
is paranormal hocus pocus and we should rewrite science if true. Well using natural resources that is the basis for
every earth science study he better start rewriting. In short I'm claiming the concept has science james randi and others are claiming paranormal which means beyond the norm. So every study experiment done with water,wood,
soil,metal, magnatism and how they react to and with each other is jibberish not to be believed.

[tiger]

I'd add that if it's a real effect, it'll be reproducible in controlled conditions. No need to believe in it, no magic blocking effect from the bad Skeptics, the energy fields that are involved will be measureable and pinned down - then we can build machines that'll be able to dowse.

Since Dowsing has yet to even be reproduced I'm not going to hold my breath on it becoming scientific anytime soon.


You know I really sorry to have brought this up, I know that I have explained myself and how it's not about any claim for or against but about labeling science has paranormal. With your beliefs all of earth science is worthless so believe it or not nothing to do with geography, physics etc can be counted on has true.

[Admin]

You know I really sorry to have brought this up


I bet you are!! ;D

If you're a skeptic, perhaps your expertise lies in another area?

Please feel free to join in other topics - you're more than welcome.

Dowsing ability is a scientific claim as it is testable (falsifiable).

But the mechanism by which it is supposed to work, i.e. some unknown mode of remote detection, is currently considered as paranormal as if it were true (if dowsing really produced positive results) then we'd have no way of explaining it with the currently understood laws of science.

[Araneus]

One person actually got the concept but only people qualified to do scientific testing should do them.

And how does one become "qualified" to perform scientific testing?

If you think the current testing protocol for dowsers is unscientific, please specify exactly what is unscientific about them and what factors they fail to account for. Your argument essentially boils down to "I don't think Randi is a Proper Scientist therefore his tests are not valid", which is a fallacious appeal to (lack of) authority with no scientific basis. It is the protocol itself which is important, not the "qualifications" of the people conducting it.

[tiger]

One person actually got the concept but only people qualified to do scientific testing should do them.

And how does one become "qualified" to perform scientific testing?

If you think the current testing protocol for dowsers is unscientific, please specify exactly what is unscientific about them and what factors they fail to account for. Your argument essentially boils down to "I don't think Randi is a Proper Scientist therefore his tests are not valid", which is a fallacious appeal to (lack of) authority with no scientific basis. It is the protocol itself which is important, not the "qualifications" of the people conducting it.


Let's see a scientist that has tested and studies water and scientists that have tested and studied metals,woods
earth sciences etc etc. People who aren't trying to disprove anything or prove anything with bias. Scientists come across thungs that don't work out, but are going a different directions searching and seeking how possible it could be.
Do you believe putting 20 skeptics out somewhere who all believe this concept is BS that have no scientific background or or education is something to be accepted has scientific fact. Let me clue you in the scientific community
has not accepted any of the skeptics findings has fact. Nor have they accepted any of the dowsers finding's has facts.
Thats called being unbiased, and with you argueing with me about how natural resources studies are not nessecarly
science I would say your to biased to participate in any testing.

[tiger]

You know I really sorry to have brought this up


I bet you are!! ;D

If you're a skeptic, perhaps your expertise lies in another area?

Please feel free to join in other topics - you're more than welcome.

Dowsing ability is a scientific claim as it is testable (falsifiable).

But the mechanism by which it is supposed to work, i.e. some unknown mode of remote detection, is currently considered as paranormal as if it were true (if dowsing really produced positive results) then we'd have no way of explaining it with the currently understood laws of science.


I appreciate your offer but it's to bad I don't feel it would be of any value. I fully expected people on this forum
to seat back and say he's not claiming dowsing for water is right or not. He is saying it's not paranormal but science
and out of all of this one person figured it out...just 1 and thats sad. I contacted a scientist I know who deals with
earth science and he just had to laugh at how noone on this forum took the time to listen to what was being said.
And the comment came that this is why the skeptics are even less believed because their bias is more pronounced
and unwaviering. So I am a skeptic about the paranormal but never about science. But in the end you finally got it
it's science and just because someone says i CAN DO IT THIS WAY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE BUT THE CONCEPT
DONE A DIFFERENT WAY CAN BE TRUE. But your still hanging onto to that concept of unknown remote detection,
or psychic ability could there be a natural answer.

[Araneus]

Let's see a scientist that has tested and studies water and scientists that have tested and studied metals,woods
earth sciences etc etc. People who aren't trying to disprove anything or prove anything with bias. Scientists come across thungs that don't work out, but are going a different directions searching and seeking how possible it could be.
Do you believe putting 20 skeptics out somewhere who all believe this concept is BS that have no scientific background or or education is something to be accepted has scientific fact. Let me clue you in the scientific community
has not accepted any of the skeptics findings has fact. Nor have they accepted any of the dowsers finding's has facts.
Thats called being unbiased, and with you argueing with me about how natural resources studies are not nessecarly
science I would say your to biased to participate in any testing.

That's just a rehash of the old "closed minded skeptics" nonsense. I suggested that you point out specific flaws in the protocols themselves, which you have again failed to do, instead choosing to resort to some nebulous invective about the "bias" of the testers and their lack of "qualifications", even though the actual tests are extremely simple and just require a supposed dowser to locate the positions of some sample objects. Material science doesn't even come into it -- the question is simply "can they locate the objects" and thus far the answer has consistently been "no".

Are you saying that it is in fact necessary to understand "earth science" or whatever you are calling it, in order to determine whether a dowser has succeeded in finding hidden objects or not? If somebody claimed they could see through walls, would you say that it is not possible to test them scientifically unless you are qualified in optics and civil engineering?

[tiger]

Let's see a scientist that has tested and studies water and scientists that have tested and studied metals,woods
earth sciences etc etc. People who aren't trying to disprove anything or prove anything with bias. Scientists come across thungs that don't work out, but are going a different directions searching and seeking how possible it could be.
Do you believe putting 20 skeptics out somewhere who all believe this concept is BS that have no scientific background or or education is something to be accepted has scientific fact. Let me clue you in the scientific community
has not accepted any of the skeptics findings has fact. Nor have they accepted any of the dowsers finding's has facts.
Thats called being unbiased, and with you argueing with me about how natural resources studies are not nessecarly
science I would say your to biased to participate in any testing.

That's just a rehash of the old "closed minded skeptics" nonsense. I suggested that you point out specific flaws in the protocols themselves, which you have again failed to do, instead choosing to resort to some nebulous invective about the "bias" of the testers and their lack of "qualifications", even though the actual tests are extremely simple and just require a supposed dowser to locate the positions of some sample objects. Material science doesn't even come into it -- the question is simply "can they locate the objects" and thus far the answer has consistently been "no".

Are you saying that it is in fact necessary to understand "earth science" or whatever you are calling it, in order to determine whether a dowser has succeeded in finding hidden objects or not? If somebody claimed they could see through walls, would you say that it is not possible to test them scientifically unless you are qualified in optics and civil engineering?


Sad thing is that I haven't failed, but it's sad that you have.

[Araneus]

Sad thing is that I haven't failed,

You have not pointed out any valid scientific flaws in the protocols used for testing dowsers (appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks against "biased skeptics" do not count). Perhaps "failed" is too strong a word, since it was presumably never your intention to do so in the first place.


but it's sad that you have.

Sad that I have failed to do what?

[Admin]

I contacted a scientist I know who deals with
earth science and he just had to laugh at how noone on this forum took the time to listen to what was being said.


He's more than welcome to join this forum and explain what we're doing wrong then. ;)

I think you're arguing from a position of ignorance. The whole point of double-blind testing is to remove biases so that it's is only that which is under test that gives the results. It becomes simply a matter of counting up the hits and misses.

Now, sadly, your posting style is becoming a one of issuing insults. You're not going to prove your point by insulting those who disagree with you.

Your mind seems closed on this subject. If you're willing to ask questions then we'll happily provide answers, but if you just want to shout us down then you'll only succeed in making yourself look foolish.

I had hopes of a meaningful dialogue with you at the start of this thread but you've adopted woo tactics of asserting that you're right, ignoring things that have been explained to you and resorted to insulting skeptics as a whole.

How about you provide us with what you or your earth scientist friend would consider a robust method of testing dowsing?

[Dr B]

I am a skeptic too but not when it comes to science and I'm not just believe other skeptics because they ran some test. Then claim that trying to see if metal can detect water has paranormal when it's not. The dowsers may not have proven anything but niether have the skeptics.


;D I laughed so hard at this bit, a little bit of wee came out... ;D ;D

[tiger]

[quote=tiger ]
I am a skeptic too but not when it comes to science and I'm not just believe other skeptics because they ran some test. Then claim that trying to see if metal can detect water has paranormal when it's not. The dowsers may not have proven anything but niether have the skeptics.


;D I laughed so hard at this bit, a little bit of wee came out... ;D ;D
[/q
uote]
Glad you could offer such a good thought to the topic. Curious do you wet your pants alot doe's your mommy
help you.

[Dr B]

I also doubt the existence of any real scientist who would give this the time of day....

[Dr B]

Most serious scientists have to resort to wearing rubber underwear when dealing with the utterly ridiculous.... :D ;D Please, do go on, its really entertaining O0

Cat pictures anyone?

[tiger]

I contacted a scientist I know who deals with
earth science and he just had to laugh at how noone on this forum took the time to listen to what was being said.


He's more than welcome to join this forum and explain what we're doing wrong then. ;)

I think you're arguing from a position of ignorance. The whole point of double-blind testing is to remove biases so that it's is only that which is under test that gives the results. It becomes simply a matter of counting up the hits and misses.

Now, sadly, your posting style is becoming a one of issuing insults. You're not going to prove your point by insulting those who disagree with you.

Your mind seems closed on this subject. If you're willing to ask questions then we'll happily provide answers, but if you just want to shout us down then you'll only succeed in making yourself look foolish.

I had hopes of a meaningful dialogue with you at the start of this thread but you've adopted woo tactics of asserting that you're right, ignoring things that have been explained to you and resorted to insulting skeptics as a whole.

How about you provide us with what you or your earth scientist friend would consider a robust method of testing dowsing?


Doesn't have the time he just thought you guys were funny arguing against proven science theory in regards to earth science. His point was the skeptic will argue anything even proven science.

[tiger]

Most serious scientists have to resort to wearing rubber underwear when dealing with the utterly ridiculous.... :D ;D Please, do go on, its really entertaining O0

Cat pictures anyone?


It's nice to see your mother changed your pant's...depends would help.

[Dr B]

Your interest in my underwear is concerning, but no where near as worrying as your other suggesitons on dowsing.

btw - there is no scientist friend - you made him / her up. Would you like to tell us about your childhood...?

[Mojo]

Doesn't have the time he just thought you guys were funny arguing against proven science theory in regards to earth science. His point was the skeptic will argue anything even proven science.


Are you claiming that dowsing for water has been proven to work when the dowser doesn't know where the water is? What you've posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2277890#post2277890) on the JREF forum suggests that the "professor" who you saw demonstrating it knew exactly where the water was, and so was just demonstrating the ideomotor effect.

By the way, what do you mean by "earth science"?

[tiger]

Your interest in my underwear is concerning, but no where near as worrying as your other suggesitons on dowsing.

btw - there is no scientist friend - you made him / her up. Would you like to tell us about your childhood...?


You were the one talking about peeing your pants, don't blame me because you bring info like that on this forum.

[Dr B]

It was true ;D

I do blame you for talking nonsence. Normally I would be more cordial - but i have been through the JREF thread and cannot see why you have come here to talk the same nonsense. Many people have taken the time to chat to you - but your so 'closed-minded' ;D ;D you do not seem to have considered a thing.

To have success here you might want to try the following.

What is the specific claim or conclusion that you want us to discuss? Say this simply in one or two sentences. Then - what are your reasons that you recruit for this? Again, try to be clear and try to provide some reasons for your conclusion. Then we can all discuss it rationally - but ask yourself one question first - are you prepared to listen? We are - but on the JREF you dont seem to do listening 8).

[tiger]

Doesn't have the time he just thought you guys were funny arguing against proven science theory in regards to earth science. His point was the skeptic will argue anything even proven science.


Are you claiming that dowsing for water has been proven to work when the dowser doesn't know where the water is? What you've posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2277890#post2277890) on the JREF forum suggests that the "professor" who you saw demonstrating it knew exactly where the water was, and so was just demonstrating the ideomotor effect.

By the way, what do you mean by "earth science"?


I don't know could earth sciences be physics,enviormental,meterology,etc etc. How many times can that question be asked ..seriously. Here you guys are planning what your claiming to be this big scientific test for water dowsers and
it's obvious you don't have a clue about the science. How many of your skeptics are going to have any training or
education pertaining to the science's your trying to debunk, could the answer be none. How can you sit here and try to debunk science when you don't understand it. And this is why noone in the scientific community will ever take
you anymore serious than a ghosthunter has an example. James Randi was offered the chance to try to dowse
for water and he refused, and this is why none of his stuff is taken seriously either by science. It's about going beyond
that extra mile when it comes to science. Scratching your heads and yelling foul to everything in science will get you nowhere, and trying to debunk proven sciences is just stupid. People spend years testing and finding answers just to have someone on a forum say there full of it, and look at our one test we did while they did hundrens of tests. I don't know if this will sink in but one can always hope.

[tiger]

It was true ;D

I do blame you for talking nonsence. Normally I would be more cordial - but i have been through the JREF thread and cannot see why you have come here to talk the same nonsense. Many people have taken the time to chat to you - but your so 'closed-minded' ;D ;D you do not seem to have considered a thing.

To have success here you might want to try the following.

What is the specific claim or conclusion that you want us to discuss? Say this simply in one or two sentences. Then - what are your reasons that you recruit for this? Again, try to be clear and try to provide some reasons for your conclusion. Then we can all discuss it rationally - but ask yourself one question first - are you prepared to listen? We are - but on the JREF you dont seem to do listening 8).




Stupid man with bladder problem!

[Dr B]

Maybe you should dowse for it.... ;D

I note you did not answer my questions....you see, we skeptics, we spot things like that O0

[Mongrel]

Doesn't have the time he just thought you guys were funny arguing against proven science theory in regards to earth science. His point was the skeptic will argue anything even proven science.


If it's 'proven science' then there's going to be papers published on it - got links?

[Mojo]

I don't know could earth sciences be physics,enviormental,meterology,etc etc. How many times can that question be asked ..seriously.

It usually refers to Geology, meteorology and related subjects. While they may have knowlege which enables them to locate underground water other than by dowsing, how is someone who works in these fields particularly qualified to talk about tests of dowsing?

I'll repeat the question you didn't bother to address:

What you've posted on the JREF forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2277890#post2277890) suggests that the "professor" who you saw demonstrating dowsing knew exactly where the water was, and so was just demonstrating the ideomotor effect.

Are you claiming that dowsing for water has been proven to work when the dowser doesn't know where the water is?

[Admin]

Here you guys are planning what your claiming to be this big scientific test for water dowsers and
it's obvious you don't have a clue about the science. How many of your skeptics are going to have any training or
education pertaining to the science's your trying to debunk, could the answer be none. How can you sit here and try to debunk science when you don't understand it. And this is why noone in the scientific community will ever take
you anymore serious than a ghosthunter has an example.


Dowsing is not a science. It's only the fact that it's a claim that is testable that means that it is a scientifically valid hypothesis: it does lend itself to scientific testing. That does not mean that it is a science itself however.

Skeptics do not set out to debunk science or claims that lend themselves to scientific testing. Claims only become debunked as a consequence of testing if they do not stand up to scrutiny.

i.e. scientific testing is a robust method of weeding out false claims; and make no mistake, dowsing is a false claim.

I take it that your version of skepticism (which I'm sure does not match how skeptics would define it) is based on a lack of belief in ghosts and associated phenomena?

How would you respond to someone who believed that 'orbs' are the first phase of a spirit manifestation?

I'm sure you know that there's a real, non-paranormal, explanation for orbs in photographs. So what if someone insisted that they really are spirits and that you are a closed-minded fool for not understanding the science of orbs?

With your dowsing claim, you're putting yourself in exactly the same position as an orb believer. If you can understand that, and have the humility to accept that, then you'll see why you're making zero progress here.

In fact, a great example for you is table tipping or Ouija board communication. How do you think that tables tip (when it's non-fraudulent) or that the planchette spells out messages on a Ouija board?

It's not spirits; it's exactly the same subconscious movements that occur in dowsers: the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

The evidence is there to show that this is indeed the case. If you wish to been seen as a skeptic, you'd do well to realise that we base our conclusions about testable claims on the evidence.

If you ignore the evidence and stick with personal opinion or belief then you are not displaying the characteristics of a skeptic.

It's your call; but I invite you to investigate dowsing with the same level of critical scrutiny that you would apply to ghost phenomena. And that means examine the evidence - don't make your mind up before you begin. O0

[tiger]

Here you guys are planning what your claiming to be this big scientific test for water dowsers and
it's obvious you don't have a clue about the science. How many of your skeptics are going to have any training or
education pertaining to the science's your trying to debunk, could the answer be none. How can you sit here and try to debunk science when you don't understand it. And this is why noone in the scientific community will ever take
you anymore serious than a ghosthunter has an example.


Dowsing is not a science. It's only the fact that it's a claim that is testable that means that it is a scientifically valid hypothesis: it does lend itself to scientific testing. That does not mean that it is a science itself however.

Skeptics do not set out to debunk science or claims that lend themselves to scientific testing. Claims only become debunked as a consequence of testing if they do not stand up to scrutiny.

i.e. scientific testing is a robust method of weeding out false claims; and make no mistake, dowsing is a false claim.

I take it that your version of skepticism (which I'm sure does not match how skeptics would define it) is based on a lack of belief in ghosts and associated phenomena?

How would you respond to someone who believed that 'orbs' are the first phase of a spirit manifestation?

I'm sure you know that there's a real, non-paranormal, explanation for orbs in photographs. So what if someone insisted that they really are spirits and that you are a closed-minded fool for not understanding the science of orbs?

With your dowsing claim, you're putting yourself in exactly the same position as an orb believer. If you can understand that, and have the humility to accept that, then you'll see why you're making zero progress here.

In fact, a great example for you is table tipping or Ouija board communication. How do you think that tables tip (when it's non-fraudulent) or that the planchette spells out messages on a Ouija board?

It's not spirits; it's exactly the same subconscious movements that occur in dowsers: the Ideomotor Effect (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php).

The evidence is there to show that this is indeed the case. If you wish to been seen as a skeptic, you'd do well to realise that we base our conclusions about testable claims on the evidence.

If you ignore the evidence and stick with personal opinion or belief then you are not displaying the characteristics of a skeptic.

It's your call; but I invite you to investigate dowsing with the same level of critical scrutiny that you would apply to ghost phenomena. And that means examine the evidence - don't make your mind up before you begin. O0


I stood here and told you guys time and time again and gave arguments you cannot answer it's just that simple.

You claim your big test means anything how do you get by the catch 22 you've put yourself's in.

Your going to try to debunk the same science that your going to try to use against the dowsers. How much sense doe's that make?

You can't say this science is wrong and then use it to try to prove your right.

Science has a community will never take you serious, they will not sit there and bang their heads against the wall
hoping your going to finally get it. And their not going to take the time with people that debunk the same science their trying to use to prove their right.

Think about it your acting like hypocrites in a catch 22 and you still won't get it ever, has sad has it is you've lost already.

[Admin]

I stood here and told you guys time and time again and gave arguments you cannot answer it's just that simple.

You claim your big test means anything how do you get by the catch 22 you've put yourself's in.

Your going to try to debunk the same science that your going to try to use against the dowsers. How much sense doe's that make?

You can't say this science is wrong and then use it to try to prove your right.

Science has a community will never take you serious, they will not sit there and bang their heads against the wall
hoping your going to finally get it. And their not going to take the time with people that debunk the same science their trying to use to prove their right.

Think about it your acting like hypocrites in a catch 22 and you still won't get it ever, has sad has it is you've lost already.


Thank you for those insights. O0

I don't know how we've managed to be so wrong for so long. :(

Would you be interested in the position as UK-Skeptics' scientific consultant?

I'd like you to advise us whenever we are faced with fringe claims. We need someone of your ability and experience to keep us on the right track as we are so ridiculously bad at looking into issues that's it's, frankly, embarrassing. :-[

When can you start?

[Mojo]

Your going to try to debunk the same science that your going to try to use against the dowsers. How much sense doe's that make?

The scientific technique that will be used to test whether dowsers can detect water will be the double-blind test. Nobody here (apart from you, perhaps) is going to try to debunk that. Things can only be debunked if they're bunk in the first place.
I don't think any one has tried to debunk that, apart from sCAMmers such as homoeopaths who are aggrieved that DBPC tests show that their quackery doesn't work. I suppose it is quite possible that dowsers will also attempt to debunk double blind tests, but they won't succeed.


You can't say this science is wrong and then use it to try to prove your right.

We aren't saying that double-blind testing, which is the science we'd use to test claims of dowsing, is wrong.

What "science"are you claiming we're saying is wrong?


Science has a community will never take you serious, they will not sit there and bang their heads against the wall
hoping your going to finally get it. And their not going to take the time with people that debunk the same science their trying to use to prove their right.

What "scientists" use dowsing? Go on, name a few. It's OK, we'll make sure Dr. B is wearing his rubber underwear before he reads your list.

[Dr B]

I stood here and told you guys time and time again and gave arguments you cannot answer it's just that simple.

:ponder: I missed these 'arguments' that were soooooo good we could not answer them. Could you specifically state, in the manner I outlined above, exactly what your argument is? O0 You just seem to come here and rant, thats not an argument in the scientific sense of the word. Ask your imaginary scientist.... ;D

[Cuddles]

Well, it's not a kitten, but I thought it was cute.
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2557/chikalully1uy2.jpg

[Darat]

...snip...

I stood here and told you guys time and time again and gave arguments you cannot answer it's just that simple..,..snip...


I've read this thread and your thread at the JREF Forum but the only link you have posted about any evidence that seemingly supports the idea that dowsing works was to a "paper" in periodical that I showed was not peer reviewed.

What evidence is there that dowsing works?

[Jocky]

I've read this thread and your thread at the JREF Forum but the only link you have posted about any evidence that seemingly supports the idea that dowsing works was to a "paper" in periodical that I showed was not peer reviewed.

What evidence is there that dowsing works?


Hi Darat, hadn't seen you here before. Welcome :)

I fear Tiger has made himself look a bit ridiculous, and may never return to answer your question ... nor the good questions asked above by Mojo and others.

Ah well, it's not the first time we've seen a supporter of dowsing resort to absurd 'nassty skeptic' strawmen when asked to provide evidence or participate in properly-conducted experiments, and I don't suppose it'll be the last ::)


Would you be interested in the position as UK-Skeptics' scientific consultant?

:D Ooooh John, I just love it when you resort to trenchant sarcasm ;D

We could even invite tiger's "earth scientist" friends to help out in an advisory capacity - the fact that they're imaginary could only add to their already-impressive credentials to comment on phenomena like dowsing ;)