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.
Hi tiger, and welcome.
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.
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 RandiOriginally Posted by John Jackson
Hi tiger, and welcome.
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.
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?
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.
And thank you for the welcome it's good to be here.Hi tiger, and welcome.
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.
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?
Hi Tiger, allow me to add my welcome to John's :)
Seconded!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?
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.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
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.it may not be something that can be done, but it is science
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.
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.
.
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.
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.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
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
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!
Yes I'm not talking about the claim itself made by the dowsers! I'm talking about the concept that this is consideredPrecisely. 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.
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.
Sure I understand but disagree with your comment on Randi on this subject, he did make the claim that if findingQuite. 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.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
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
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!
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 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.
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.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!
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 ideomotor effect and properly controlled and blinded tests have already been mentioned here. 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.
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.
What do you mean by "using the natural sources"?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks