Hypothesis is obviously that dowsing rods will respond to changes in electrical conductivity - but this is never stated.Originally Posted by chaggle
Methods: test areas chosen on the basis of stated lack of variation of electrical conductivity (no evidence provided) - given susbsequent inclusion of scrub land this seems unlikely. This is 'verified' by dowsing! Selected objects buried 24 hours before experiment - stated no visual cues left - highly unlikely as any disturbance of the grass etc will leave some visual cues. The blinding procedure is unclear - was the unblinded investigator present or absent? No statistical evaluation - false positives, false negative rates etc - they appear to be claiming 100% accuracy and absolute reproducibility - yet later suggest that many factors can affect electrical conductivity.
Results are presented primarily as an example of one chart of movements around one supposed object. Vague statements about accuracy in respect of other objects.
Discussion - brings in so far unrelated claims about electrical conductivity contours.
The videos then show completely different experiments - using surface clutter or other markers where objects are buried, or experiments where there clear surface evidence of the supposed hidden objects. Also surface clutter aparently does not affect the 'conductivity', but objects hidden (on the surface) do.
The journal that is stated to have published this work does not necessarily exist - the link provided leads to this: http://www.temple.edu/CFS/index.html, if this journal exists, it is clearly run by fruitbats - so the quality of the research is entirely in line with the chosen method of publication.
etc
Thanks Pebble, knew I could rely on you
I reluctantly admit that I can "do" it, i.e. find buried items by holding bits of cast-off dry cleaner's sundries; but cannot explain why.
Water pipes and old foundations are the easiest, but I could probably hold my own against the average *"metal detectorist" when it comes to finding worthless metal debris in a freshly ploughed field.
* Could someone please find and shoot the cretin who first came up with this diabolical, inelegant abuse of English.
Its called 'confirmation bias' Remembering success and forgetting failure, plus expanding the range of possible positives to maintain faith. Were people able to show a change in the electrical or magnetic fields in inert pieces of metal of sufficient magnitude and directionalty to cause the alleged motion, then one could begin to consider credibility. However, as it stands all we have are anecdotes and poorly designed and excuted trials on the positive side and several well (and some poorly) controlled negative trials on the other.
I am afraid this one belongs firmly in the land of woo.
Even in a place without surface cues, unless there is knowledge of how likely someone is to score a 'hit' by chance at randomly-chosen points in the area, it's not possible say how unusual getting a 'hit' is.
Likewise, without digging up the track of a dowser everywhere they failed to feel anything, you don't know how often they miss things they might have liked to have found.
More generally, there can be an extreme bias in the reporting of results.
It's *vastly* more likely that someone who dowses in a garden to try and help find a missing wedding ring and has success will end up being reported in the media compared to someone who tries and fails.
I'm sure most people will have seen this before. To quote Richard Dawkins, "This state of denial is extraordinary."
I dowsed and found water once. Of course the fact that it was in a ditch next to the highway, in the bottom of a valley with a creek running through it, may have had something to do with it... but at ten years old, I thought my Dad was discovering real things about the world. Luckily I wasn't enamoured of myself and didn't give it any more thought. I imagine some of these charlatans are groomed as kids to believe their own future woo...
I just realised: they get the woo pulled over their eyes!apologies for this atrocious pun, which no doubt everyone else has spotted, but had the decorum not to bother flagging up
This'll have to do, I couldn't find a blushing icon!
What aboutI couldn't find a blushing icon!?
Don't mean to rerail the thread. Fascinating as it is even though cannot see original link/
Anyway, dowsing proven is the headline. Yes folks. Dowsing proven wrong. Whooops, sorry, missed a word. A non-debate ever again surely.
Every credible experiment with even the most credulous has shown this, shurely shome mishtake on my part if not. Blame the Glenkinichie or summat.
Dowsing- Bowlocks mate. As in Ade 651, GT200, HEDD 1, SNIFFEXX, Alpha 1, PSD2 etc etc etc etc , and any other form of the ancient art of waving sticks about pointlessly. Dontchaknow! Gotta be innit it. No explicable mechanism. And, strangely enough, nay a shreddie of eddie evidence. Dowsing. PAH!
The atrocious pun, of course! And like the lady pharmacist calling across the pharmacy for the condoms for the young lad at the counter, you have brought everyone's attention back to that silliness!What about
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks