Dowsing: Fact or Fiction?

[baldtaco-II]

I understand what you mean. I am a stage magician and I've seen and done some incredible things. But in the words of one of my ancestors, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." At issue is if dowsing is impossible or improbable. Some seem to dismiss it a priori. I agree that testing is necessary, but skipping an invitation from codger to go see him dowse because it must be tested is not logical. Either he can do it or not. If he can convince a spectator he can do it, then you can try to talk him into a controlled test. But some of the people who can do or have experienced extraordinary things are so tired of the doubt and criticism that they do not trust a fair test. That this is an excuse of the conman is not indicative that mistrusting the agenda of the skeptic is an indication of fraud. Meet him on his own turf and terms first, and then you can talk test.

One of your ancestors was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes. That puts a twist in the thread.

 

[Chuka]

...some of the people who can do or have experienced extraordinary things are so tired of the doubt and criticism that they do not trust a fair test.

Some good points! It's hard for the two schools of thought to get together on what each sees as fair/equal terms. Sort of like talking politics or religion, it gets a bit dicey at times. For good reason too, these are very personal and deep rooted beliefs.


Oh and to Baltaco, I couldn't have said it better myself!

It's not about "denigrating another's beliefs" it is about the closest approximation to what is true, and individual's thresholds of acceptance and rejection.

If I make the claim "if you are lost just rub and apple on your head and you will automatically know where north is" it is incumbent on me to provide darn solid supporting evidence beyond a few measly anecdotes. Sometimes a bit of eyewitness testimony for something is enough, but when the claims are bold or the consequences are potentially a disaster you show up with your powder dry.

1] Claim that you have waterproof boots - I may accept that on face value.
2] Claim you saw some boots on the Gadget Show that enable you to walk on water - I find that unlikely but who knows what kind of waterskate polystyrene pontoons they could be so I'll look for evidence.
3] Claim you've bought some boots that enable you to fly - And my bullshit detector is going to go off and although I am willing to be moved to avoid dogma you're going to need to present me with some top tier evidence. A few people claiming they too have the flying boots does not change that for me.

As we progress from 1-3 the claims become increasingly less grounded in reality because they fly contrary to what we know of the world. Same with this dousing thing. It has a long history grounded in nothing more than superstition and folklore, whilst the direction of rigorously discovered evidence exposes it as false.

So, If I ever do claim here that "if you are lost all you need to do is rub an apple on your head and you'll know where north is", and I don't provide overwhelming support for my claims, not only do I expect you to tell me to fek-off you have an absolute responsibility to challenge me. It is the same with the dousing discussion here. How one feels about their beliefs either way is totally irrelevant. Provided folk are polite, which has been the case so far, someone getting hurt feelings when they are challenged is no more than a character fault. It is more important that we get as close to we can to truth here than it is that we are the get-along-gang or the care-bear club. Happy and fluffy but dead is just dead.

 

[JCavSD]

I'm a curious about the Chupacabra. The way I understand it there isn't any scientific evidence behind it. I should start a thread.

 

[batosai117]

I'm a curious about the Chupacabra. The way I understand it there isn't any scientific evidence behind it. I should start a thread.

When you're born and raised in South Texas you don't just wonder about the Chupacabra, you KNOW there is a Chupacabra

 

[woodgood]

Wasn't there a reported Chupacabra seen dowsing?

 

[A.W.U.K.]

Seems like Dowsing might be a good way to find a chupacabra.

 

[Preacher Man]

One of your ancestors was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes. That puts a twist in the thread.

I thought the smiley shows it is meant as a joke. The whole "In the words on one of my ancestors..." is a quote from Star Trek: the Undiscovered Country with an über logical Vulcan saying it. As Chuka points out, my point is that we have two or more world-views colliding that tend to dismiss certain things a priori and suspects the other's intentions. What I'm saying is that this should be considered in the equation. I did debunking of palm readers, card readers, and psychics when I was in he Society of American Magicians. In my experience, meeting the claimant in his own turf first and then try to do controlled tests in a controlled environment is a better process than "show up for the test or I'll know you are a fraud." If there ever was someone who genially could do those things, he or she would be extremely skeptical of the tester's intentions, leaving the tester with only those who try to con him. This is not JREF approach, and he does great work debunking frauds, but he is not the only one doing debunking and too many take the "agenda" approach.

As for Dowsing, I've never studied, and I'm extremely skeptical that anything psychic or supernatural is afoot. That been said, hypersensitivity to magnetic or electromagnetic fields occurs in nature. Can a human be sensitive enough to these changes as to account for dowsing? I don't know, but I think is within the real of the possible, So I can't dismiss it a priori.

 

[Raymond1000]

Finance it and they will come.

Dane:

If that is to my address, there’s no need to finance anything. I’m simply restating the experimental conditions they actually used in a real long term study.

I still ask, “Why is this not a scientific experiment?” Assuming it was competently done, I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Is it because you accept only one test format, so nothing else counts? That’s no way to do science. You don’t get to dictate the shape of another researchers’ experiment. Criticize flaws? Sure. Propose alternative explanations? Sure. As long as you play by the rules.

Saying the test is unscientific because the dowser wasn’t forced to stick one foot in a bucket doesn’t cut it.

 

[JCavSD]

Here's a brief overview for those who aren't familiar with scientific method.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

 

[Rick Marchand]

Remember these guys?...