Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on November 21, 2017, 06:11:39 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-firms-admit-using-divining-rods-to-find-leaks-and-pipes
No issue with water companies being told not to use it. But 'medieval witchcraft'? Don't be so fucking stupid.
-
I know precious little about the subject so I can't vouch for whatever studies have been done into its efficacy or the lack thereof; what interests me is that some of the water companies feel that it's effective:
We’ve found that some of the older methods are just as effective than the new ones
If by "some of the older methods" they mean dowsing (without wanting to say so explicitly) works, they presumably must have a reason for saying it.
Northumbria Water ... our field services manager tells me he’s seen them used successfully before! ... Anglia Water was the firm that was most insistent about the effectiveness of dowsing rods, inviting Le Page to a demonstration.
I'd like to see a demonstration too.
Christopher Hassall, a specialist in water management at the Leeds University school of biology, said: "This isn't a technique, it's witchcraft."
He says that as though it's a bad thing.
-
I know precious little about the subject so I can't vouch for whatever studies have been done into its efficacy or the lack thereof; what interests me is that some of the water companies feel that it's effective:
If by "some of the older methods" they mean dowsing (without wanting to say so explicitly) works, they presumably must have a reason for saying it.
I'd like to see a demonstration too.
He says that as though it's a bad thing.
So when Alan says that god found his contact lens he must have some reason for saying it?
-
Calling it 'witchcraft' immediately makes me think of Christian fundies. Most science types would refer to it as 'superstition' or some such. I'd love to know if he's religious himself.
-
So when Alan says that god found his contact lens he must have some reason for saying it?
Exactly. Of course he does, and we know what it is - he thinks the Creator of All That Is guided him to it.
-
Exactly. Of course he does, and we know what it is - he thinks the Creator of All That Is guided him to it.
So that the water companies think there is something to it is worth exactly the same.
-
So that the water companies think there is something to it is worth exactly the same.
No. Water is real. If somebody claims that they have some sort of ability to find it by some as-yet undetermined means - and nine out of eleven water companies surveyed think there's something to it - then my attitude as usual is "Show me. Stand me in a field, get your stick, do your thing and show me."
-
Calling it 'witchcraft' immediately makes me think of Christian fundies. Most science types would refer to it as 'superstition' or some such. I'd love to know if he's religious himself.
Mmm not sure I buy the distinction but the question is surely is he heavier than a duck?
-
No. Water is real. If somebody claims that they have some sort of ability to find it by some as-yet undetermined means - and nine out of eleven water companies surveyed think there's something to it - then my attitude as usual is "Show me."
Agree with this. Companies don't pay more than once unless they get results. I want to see it in action.
-
No. Water is real. If somebody claims that they have some sort of ability to find it by some as-yet undetermined means - and nine out of eleven water companies surveyed think there's something to it - then my attitude as usual is "Show me."
Except in the comparison water = contact lens, and I am happy to believe Alan's contact lens is real. Absolutely if there is something to be shown then you do the studies, but those studies show there isn't. There are millions of people who think homeopathy is great but you wouldn't think that the number was useful in saying anything.
-
Agree with this. Companies don't pay more than once unless they get results. I want to see it in action.
Yes, that's why graphology must be true.
-
Yes, that's why graphology must be true.
Again, we are talking about found water/pipes/leaks, not perceived personality traits.
It may be all old pony. I want to see.
-
My father and two of his brothers were dowsers, it proved very useful when they wanted to discover the best place to sink wells on their properties. My father was also a geographical dowser. He volunteered his assistance to the UK police in the early 50s when a famous piece of hardware went walkabout, and put them of the right track for its recovery.
I have no idea how dowsing is accomplished, none of my siblings or cousins have the skill. I don't think it is of supernatural origin.
-
Except in the comparison water = contact lens, and I am happy to believe Alan's contact lens is real. Absolutely if there is something to be shown then you do the studies, but those studies show there isn't. There are millions of people who think homeopathy is great but you wouldn't think that the number was useful in saying anything.
Except nine out of eleven water companies think that it gets results. I want to know why they think this given, as Rhiannon has noted, they're unlikely to continue to pay somebody to do it if it's as hopeless as you make out. (Though I wouldn't imagine the financial burden of paying a dowser is particularly onerous).
Homeopathy unquestionably "works" in the sense that while there's zero evidence that it cures the underlying condition, some people find that they feel better psychologically after it than they did before on the basis of the placebo effect/suggestibility.
Failing to cure an underlying condition is my definition of "not working." Making somebody feel better, if only a little, is working of another sort, though.
Absolutely if there is something to be shown then you do the studies
This seems haywain prior to the equine. In this case it looks as though there's something to be shown: 9 out of 11 water companies - big businesses - think that there's something about this practice that works regardless of what the studies say.
-
Except nine out of eleven water companies think that it gets results. I want to know why they think this given, as Rhiannon has noted, they're unlikely to continue to pay somebody to do it if it's as hopeless as you make out. (Though I wouldn't imagine the financial burden of paying a dowser is particularly onerous).
Homeopathy unquestionably "works" in the sense that while there's zero evidence that it cures the underlying condition, some people find that they feel better psychologically after it than they did before on the basis of the placebo effect/suggestibility.
Failing to cure an underlying condition is my definition of "not working." Making somebody feel better, if only a little, is working of another sort, though.
This seems haywain prior to the equine. In this case it looks as though there's something to be shown: 9 out of 11 water companies - big businesses - think that there's something about this practice that works regardless of what the studies say.
There is something quite touching in your faith in 'big businesses' as being clever and knowing what works as opposed to scientific studies. It's an appeal to authority, and numbers that you wouldn't use in other circs.
-
My father and two of his brothers were dowsers, it proved very useful when they wanted to discover the best place to sink wells on their properties. My father was also a geographical dowser. He volunteered his assistance to the UK police in the early 50s when a famous piece of hardware went walkabout, and put them of the right track for its recovery.
I have no idea how dowsing is accomplished, none of my siblings or cousins have the skill. I don't think it is of supernatural origin.
the plural of anecdote isn't data.
-
the plural of anecdote isn't data.
Ehhhhhhhh?
-
Again, we are talking about found water/pipes/leaks, not perceived personality traits.
It may be all old pony. I want to see.
The studies show it doesn't work. Why do you think that companies who think that Myers Briggs is science are somehow worth more than the studies.
-
Ehhhhhhhh?
saying it works because you know two people who thought it worked without scientific controls is just anecdote.
-
There is something quite touching in your faith in 'big businesses' as being clever and knowing what works as opposed to scientific studies. It's an appeal to authority, and numbers that you wouldn't use in other circs.
Faith is for wee white-haired old mammies and what have you. A majority of these companies think that it works - I assume - on the basis of the evidence available to them, not faith. If Anglia Water is sufficiently confident to throw down this gauntlet:
We're happy to take you out and demonstrate, let us know and we can arrange. We'll even make a film and post it on our social channels putting both sides!
then I want to be there watching to see what's going on, if anything is as these companies think there is. This sounds like a hypothesis being tested to me - a good start on a scientific experiment.
What are you scared of? Are you "frustrated" by these "mediaeval witchcraft practices" as is Mr Hassall? It remains to be seen if Ms. Le Page takes Anglia Water up on the offer. She'll look a bit of a prat if after all this she doesn't.
-
I'd go. It'd be a laugh if nothing else. I'd take nice sandwiches for everyone too.
-
I'd go. It'd be a laugh if nothing else. I'd take nice sandwiches for everyone too.
Will there be a vegetarian option, i.e. "fuck off"?
-
Faith is for wee white-haired old mammies and what have you. A majority of these companies think that it works - I assume - on the basis of the evidence available to them, not faith. If Anglia Water is sufficiently confident to throw down this gauntlet:
then I want to be there watching to see what's going on, if anything is as these companies think there is. This sounds like a hypothesis being tested to me - a good start on a scientific experiment.
What are you scared of? Are you "frustrated" by these "mediaeval witchcraft practices" as is Mr Hassall? It remains to be seen if Ms. Le Page takes Anglia Water up on the offer. She'll look a bit of a prat if after all this she doesn't.
Aw, how cute a quick piece of 'poisoning the well', how ironic, and a misrepresentation.
There are tons of hard nosed financial companies following Chartists even after it has been shown not to work. Dowsing has been studied, it doesn't work.
-
There are tons of hard nosed financial companies following Chartists even after it has been shown not to work. Dowsing has been studied, it doesn't work.
On what basis do a majority of water companies think that it does in some form or other?
-
On what basis do a majority of water companies think that it does in some form or other?
and again the appeal to authority and numbers
-
I raised this elsewhere and was also discussing Myers Briggs as an example of something big companies spend millions on even though it has no scientific basis. My friend, a psychologist, who hates it with a passion referred to it as witch doctor voodoo - what can we tell about him from his choice of phrasing?
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/britains-water-companies-still-use-11560650
Witches and wizards. FFS.
Interesting that they are technicians they already employ by the looks of it. So in all likelihood they are subconsciously reading the landscape/environment and are moving the rods while unaware of it. No cost to the company and customer and it's clearly working for them. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Probably how Floo's family got it to work too.
It's not fucking witchcraft whichever way you look at it.
-
and again the appeal to authority and numbers
No. Your super-dooper fallacy detector is miscalibrated it would seem - take Vlad's back to the shop with you when you go.
It would be an appeal to authority and numbers if I said "Dowsing works because a majority of water companies think that it does." (Remember that in nearly all cases it's the 'because' that flags the fallacy).
Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results) think that the practice is sufficiently effective for them to continue to do it, investing in time and money in the process (though I suspect not much of either). One such company has invited a sceptic to take part in an experiment purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of the practice. That is what I understand to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
I'm not seeing a problem so far, to be honest.
-
I raised this elsewhere and was also discussing Myers Briggs as an example of something big companies spend millions on even though it has no scientific basis. My friend, a psychologist, who hates it with a passion referred to it as witch doctor voodoo - what can we tell about him from his choice of phrasing?
He wants to be more accurate? There, not difficult.
You can suggest 'superstitious bollocks'.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/britains-water-companies-still-use-11560650
Witches and wizards. FFS.
Interesting that they are technicians they already employ by the looks of it. So in all likelihood they are subconsciously reading the landscape/environment and are moving the rods while unaware of it. No cost to the company and customer and it's clearly working for them. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Probably how Floo's family got it to work too.
It's not fucking witchcraft whichever way you look at it.
The worth of that article - i.e. zero - leapt out at me at this bit in particular:
It's a bit like witchcraft, a medieval technique invented 450 years ago to source water underground.
Dowsing was invented in 1567, three years after Shakespeare was born? Really now, Joshua Barrie? Really? actually this 450 years bullshit comes from Le Page herself, which Barrie merely repeated.
What tickles me is that in both articles is not even the implication but the statement that the populace is supposed to be "worried" by this. I'm not - NS seems a bit edgy but I'm holding up well so far.
-
He wants to be more accurate? There, not difficult.
You can suggest 'superstitious bollocks'.
Since this is all metaphor I am bemused at your idea of accuracy. Do you mean 'culturally sensitive'?
-
'It's a bit like witchcraft'. ;D ;D ;D
-
No. Your super-dooper fallacy detector is miscalibrated it would seem - take Vlad's back to the shop with you when you go.
It would be an appeal to authority and numbers if I said "Dowsing works because a majority of water companies think that it does." (Remember that in nearly all cases it's the 'because' that flags the fallacy).
Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results) think that the practice is sufficiently effective for them to continue to do it, investing in time and money in the process (though I suspect not much of either). One such company has invited a sceptic to take part in an experiment purporting to demonstrate the efficacy of the practice. That is what I understand to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.
I'm not seeing a problem so far, to be honest.
Aw, the Dunning Kruger effect too. This is rather lovely as an illustration of the problem if the fallacies. So you make an assumption about the companies being reliable in some way, which given what companies have spent money on such as graphology and Myers Briggs, is demonstrably unjustified and then use that to ignore any actual studies on dowsing.
-
Aw, the Dunning Kruger effect too. This is rather lovely as an illustration of the problem if the fallacies. So you make an assumption about the companies being reliable in some way, which given what companies have spent money on such as graphology and Myers Briggs, is demonstrably unjustified and then use that to ignore any actual studies on dowsing.
Just following Sally Le Page's lead:
Severn Trent there, a FTSE 100, state-owned water authority that supply about 4.5 million households in the UK
-
I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.
However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.
-
The worth of that article - i.e. zero - leapt out at me at this bit in particular:
Dowsing was invented in 1567, three years after Shakespeare was born? Really now, Joshua Barrie? Really? actually this 450 years bullshit comes from Le Page herself, which Barrie merely repeated.
What tickles me is that in both articles is not even the implication but the statement that the populace is supposed to be "worried" by this. I'm not - NS seems a bit edgy but I'm holding up well so far.
Am I edgy? Oh how cool, I have been edgy in years. BTW your above post is an ad hominem using one issue to dismiss everything else. I was just going gfor the line at fallacy bingo but I suspect at the rate you are going House must be on the cards.
-
Since this is all metaphor I am bemused at your idea of accuracy. Do you mean 'culturally sensitive'?
Nope. My immediate thought on seeing something that isn't medieval witchcraft described as such was that the person using it is a fearful fundie - until now it's only been among those Christians that get scared of witches and witchcraft that I've seen such inaccuracy. Maybe it's normal for scientists to be cavalier with language and accuracy but I'd have thought avoiding misunderstandings and the appearance of prejudice was important for someone who seeks to inform.
Your friend can describe his psychological woo as whatever he wants to over dinner with you. If he wants to educate people who might otherwise be into it though he could choose a more accurate phrasing.
-
Just following Sally Le Page's lead:
And? Just because you might both make the same mistake about appeals to authority makes no difference to you using a fallacy.
-
I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.
However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.
*applaud*
-
Nope. My immediate thought on seeing something that isn't medieval witchcraft described as such was that the person using it is a fearful fundie - until now it's only been among those Christians that get scared of witches and witchcraft that I've seen such inaccuracy. Maybe it's normal for scientists to be cavalier with language and accuracy but I'd have thought avoiding misunderstandings and the appearance of prejudice was important for someone who seeks to inform.
Your friend can describe his psychological woo as whatever he wants to over dinner with you. If he wants to educate people who might otherwise be into it though he could choose a more accurate phrasing.
so bollocks is accurate scientific phrasing?
-
I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.
However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.
So in any scientific sense the 'dowsing' doesn't work.
-
so bollocks is accurate scientific phrasing?
I'm assuming really wouldn't use that. That was me being mildly amusing.
-
I'm assuming really wouldn't use that. That was me being mildly amusing.
No, I think it just needs refining. We just need a scale.
-
Instead what I'm saying is that these companies (not, I'd have thought, generally given to anything that costs them money without demonstrable results)
Well companies do not take decisions, people in companies do. Thus they are subject to the same prejudices and frailties that affect all of us.
Companies indulge in all kinds of nonsense without properly investigating whether they work or not. In my own field, for example, there is quite a lot of cargo cult engineering like so-called "Agile". People claim to use "Agile" for their software projects in spite of the fact that they don't know what it is for the most part and nobody measures it to see if it works.
I bet none of these water companies have tested water divining against mere guessing, particularly for finding water. If you drill a bore hole in the UK, you're apparently about 90% certain to hit water at some point.
-
All the Agile worshippers are moving to DevOps now surely?
-
So in any scientific sense the 'dowsing' doesn't work.
Sorry, how are the possible mechanisms I described not scientific? I'd argue divining doesn't work by a means unknown to science but it possibly can work by more prosaic mechanisms. As I said, I've seen experiments where the diviner is deprived of sensory cues as to the location of the water, but I've never seen an experiment pitting a diviner against a random person not using divining in the kind of environment in which divining is normally used. If the diviner gets better results than a non-diviner in a field in the countryside, can we not say divining works?
-
Well companies do not take decisions, people in companies do. Thus they are subject to the same prejudices and frailties that affect all of us.
Do you think then that a decision to employ dowsing is one taken by an individual alone or perhaps a very small group (3 or 4), or would it be one that would need the rubber stamp of quite a lot of people collectively? (Cards on the table: I think it's hugely more likely to be the latter).
-
All the Agile worshippers are moving to DevOps now surely?
devops is a natural outgrowth of agile, as far as I understand.
-
Sorry, how are the possible mechanisms I described not scientific? I'd argue divining doesn't work by a means unknown to science but it possibly can work by more prosaic mechanisms. As I said, I've seen experiments where the diviner is deprived of sensory cues as to the location of the water, but I've never seen an experiment pitting a diviner against a random person not using divining in the kind of environment in which divining is normally used. If the diviner gets better results than a non-diviner in a field in the countryside, can we not say divining works?
Because it isn't the 'dowsing' that is working, it's the person's expertise on other levels. Let's say a good spiritualist can cold read people better than a random person who hasn't done any reading of people. Does spiritualism work then ?
-
From Anglian Water
If you've ever tried to find a water pipe underground then you'll know that it can be very difficult you will try anything. We're happy to take you out and demonstrate, let us know and we can arrange. We'll even make a film and post it on our social channels putting both sides!
From Severn Trent
We've found that some of the older methods are just as effective than the new ones, but we do use drones as well, and now satellites. You can find more information here: http://ow.ly/8A0b30gH7r8
I'll lay a pound to a pinch of pig-shit that Miss Sally Le"it's all bollocks"Page won't take them up on it - she'll just reject outright not having the balls to put-up-or-shut-up!
-
I'll lay a pound to a pinch of pig-shit that Miss Sally Le"it's all bollocks"Page won't take them up on it - she'll just reject outright not having the balls to put-up-or-shut-up!
It would be a shame if she did - as a professional scientist you'd think she'd jump at the chance of an experiment.
If she's a no-show, however, I'll gladly take Anglian Water up on the offer. I'm taking Rhiannon as she's making sandwiches.
-
From Anglian Water
From Severn Trent
I'll lay a pound to a pinch of pig-shit that Miss Sally Le"it's all bollocks"Page won't take them up on it - she'll just reject outright not having the balls to put-up-or-shut-up!
And that would be relevant to showing that dowsing worked how?
-
It would be a shame if she did - as a professional scientist you'd think she'd jump at the chance of an experiment.
If she's a no-show, however, I'll gladly take Anglian Water up on the offer.
Are you qualified to design a suitable experiment?
-
Are you qualified to design a suitable experiment?
Sandwiches.
-
devops is a natural outgrowth of agile, as far as I understand.
just as Sellafield grew out of Windscale.
-
Are you qualified to design a suitable experiment?
Formally? Hell no. I've a decent grasp of the scientific method though and I've got some chums at Leicester Uni who I'd take along.
-
Sandwiches.
as long as there is some plain bread.
-
Formally? Hell no. I've a decent grasp of the scientific method though and I've got some chums at Leicester Uni who I'd take along.
Message board outing? (With sandwiches)?
-
I'll do one of those big loaf things stuffed with mozzarella and roasted veg.
-
In that case I'm definitely in.
-
I could pair that with the hollowed out cob with two pounds of mushroom that are cooked in two bottles of red.
-
I'll bring the bottle of tepid Lucozade with the bits of crisps floating in it.
-
Do you think then that a decision to employ dowsing is one taken by an individual alone or perhaps a very small group (3 or 4), or would it be one that would need the rubber stamp of quite a lot of people collectively? (Cards on the table: I think it's hugely more likely to be the latter).
Thinking about it, I think it's more likely to be the idea of a head of a department and then everybody else goes along with it.
-
I'll bring the bottle of tepid Lucozade with the bits of crisps floating in it.
With this you are spoiling us.
-
There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect.
I've long suspected (but can't test and therefore prove or disprove) that what people airily call 'intuition' operates much like this - subtle things that individually are too small and/or fleeting for the conscious mind to be aware of, but are nevertheless there.
-
Because it isn't the 'dowsing' that is working, it's the person's expertise on other levels. Let's say a good spiritualist can cold read people better than a random person who hasn't done any reading of people. Does spiritualism work then ?
As I said, we need to define what we mean when we say it works. If water divining is about detecting water by means of watching a pair of rods you are holding, you could say it works (assuming it does detect water better than just looking at and walking around a field). On the other hand, I've never heard anybody before you try to define spiritualism as finding stuff out about people and their dead relatives by any means. An essential part of the definition of spiritualism is communicating with spirits.
-
As I said, we need to define what we mean when we say it works. If water divining is about detecting water by means of watching a pair of rods you are holding, you could say it works (assuming it does detect water better than just looking at and walking around a field). On the other hand, I've never heard anybody before you try to define spiritualism as finding stuff out about people and their dead relatives by any means. An essential part of the definition of spiritualism is communicating with spirits.
But if they find out things about people by unconscious cold reading, where is the difference in that 'working' than dowsing?
-
I'll do one of those big loaf things stuffed with mozzarella and roasted veg.
Oh can I come? (Don't know much about dowsing.)
-
And that would be relevant to showing that dowsing worked how?
The two water authorities have stated, in the quotes I posted, that dowsing is as accurate as more scientific methods and asked Madam to go along to see that it does so work.
-
I should have known better than to expect any kind of sensible discussion of anything that can be dismissed as witchcraft or pseudo-science on this Forum and gone with the picnic with Lady Rhiannon idea - at least then I could dsicuss the pompous way thta any non-scientific is dsmissed without any kind of scientific investigation.
Shaker - I'll brimg the mead - which do you prefer, light of dark in colouir, and how strong do you want it - a slight buzz after a couple of bottles or the one that carries a label that warns that the contents of the bottle are in breach of several international nuclear test-ban treaties?
-
I could pair that with the hollowed out cob with two pounds of mushroom that are cooked in two bottles of red.
Wouldn't that be soggy?
-
The two water authorities have stated, in the quotes I posted, that dowsing is as accurate as more scientific methods and asked Madam to go along to see that it does so work.
So their methids are non scientific? The point which you seem to have missed is if she doesn't accept a 'challenge' it shows nothing about the claim being true.
-
Shaker - I'll brimg the mead - which do you prefer, light of dark in colouir, and how strong do you want it - a slight buzz after a couple of bottles or the one that carries a label that warns that the contents of the bottle are in breach of several international nuclear test-ban treaties?
I'll go for (b) please Bob ;)
-
Wouldn't that be soggy?
The mushrooms and wine are combined outside. Takes a lot of of reducing but it becomes like pate
-
But if they find out things about people by unconscious cold reading, where is the difference in that 'working' than dowsing?
I cant believe this thread has made this many pages .
To all you doubters ; of course it works . Its results are as reliable as planning a bar-b-q in the middle of a British summer and not getting rained on
and of course the earth is flat and a fart with a lump in it isn't shit
-
I cant believe this thread has made this many pages .
To all you doubters ; of course it works . Its results are as reliable as planning a bar-b-q in the middle of a British summer and not getting rained on
and of course the earth is flat and a fart with a lump in it isn't shit
But big companies, Walter! And lots of them big companies!
-
The mushrooms and wine are combined outside. Takes a lot of of reducing but it becomes like pate
and when I was a kid pate was called potted meat , we had it at birthday parties along with blancmange . My dad used to send us out in the garden , after he'd had enough of us , with a pair of sticks telling us there was lemonade somewhere under the grass
-
The mushrooms and wine are combined outside. Takes a lot of of reducing but it becomes like pate
Oh yum, count me in.
Shaker I used to love Lucozade.
Interesting comments Walter :).
I bin reading about dowsing, apparently is also used to contact spirits on the other side. Spooky.
-
But big companies, Walter! And lots of them big companies!
fuck me , it must be true then
btw , big companies are composed of people , some people are cunts . no offence ;)
-
I bin reading about dowsing, apparently is also used to contact spirits on the other side. Spooky.
Is it? How?
Are you sure you're not thinking of spiritualism - JeremyP I think mentioned that in passing earlier.
-
Could be. I merely googled 'dowsing' and various things came up, apart from water. Just tried to find one site that I saw half an hour ago and can't see it now.
There's these:-
http://www.spiritportal.org/dowsing.html
http://theothersidetv.ca/ghost-hunting-resources/ghost-hunting-tips-tricks/dowsing-rods-investigation/
All seems like bunkum to me but then I don't believe in ghosts.
-
But big companies, Walter! And lots of them big companies!
btw
subterranean Britain is awash with water ,if you dig a hole almost anywhere your gonna find water , that's why divining works .
Also , thats why stinkholes are common , sorry , sinkholes and of course ,arseholes , they're the ones with the sticks.
Then you've got the fuckholes at the water companies who waste our money because they havent got the brains of a rissole to care.
-
Could be. I merely googled 'dowsing' and various things came up, apart from water. Just tried to find one site that I saw half an hour ago and can't see it now.
There's these:-
http://www.spiritportal.org/dowsing.html
http://theothersidetv.ca/ghost-hunting-resources/ghost-hunting-tips-tricks/dowsing-rods-investigation/
All seems like bunkum to me but then I don't believe in ghosts.
eh, I thought you were a Christian?
-
btw
subterranean Britain is awash with water ,if you dig a hole almost anywhere your gonna find water , that's why divining works
That seems to be overreaching - if it was literally the case that wherever you drill a hole there's water, there's be no claims of dowsing and then drilling, just lots of drilling and no claims of dowsing.
-
I don't know any Christians who do believe in ghosts, Walter. Certainly none who believe in actively seeking out the spirits of the departed. People (of all faiths or none) can be sensitive to atmospheres and have lucid dreams but that is quite different.
-
I don't know any Christians who do believe in ghosts, Walter. Certainly none who believe in actively seeking out the spirits of the departed. People (of all faiths or none) can be sensitive to atmospheres and have lucid dreams but that is quite different.
what about the Holy Ghost? what's all that about then ?
just a brief answer please ,don't want to side track
-
That seems to be overreaching - if it was literally the case that wherever you drill a hole there's water, there's be no claims of dowsing and then drilling, just lots of drilling and no claims of dowsing.
It's the Alan Burns of dowsing.
-
That seems to be overreaching - if it was literally the case that wherever you drill a hole there's water, there's be no claims of dowsing and then drilling, just lots of drilling and no claims of dowsing.
to be serious for a minute
dowsing has been tested many times scientifically , even on the telly with Mr Dawkins in a live test ,every one fails .
Then they use the excuse they cant work under those conditions , awww what a shame .
-
what about the Holy Ghost? what's all that about then ?
just a brief answer please ,don't want to side track
Briefly: I do not believe that the spirits of dead people come back, appear, occupy some buildings and haunt us. The Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit as is more commonly called, is not one of those.
I'd never even thought about dowsing before now though I knew people did walk around with rods searching for water.
This is quite interesting: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
-
Briefly: I do not believe that the spirits of dead people come back, appear, occupy some buildings and haunt us. The Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit as is more commonly called, is not one of those.
I'd never even thought about dowsing before now though I knew people did walk around with rods searching for water.
This is quite interesting: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
The headline is no better than click bait and they must have needed a filler in the mag .
and I think the clue is in the title ;The Holy 'GHOST'
-
Well I liked it and the writer had fun.
(I'd be tempted to move the rods.......)
-
Well I liked it and the writer had fun.
(I'd be tempted to move the rods.......)
oooh Robbie, you are very naughty
-
Have we stopped planning the picnic? Bugger.
-
Nope. We have your sandwiches & mozarella dish (lots of sun dried tomatoes please), red wine infused mushroom pate in a cob (mouth is watering now), lukewarm Lucozade, mead......what shall I bring?
We ought to bring shovels because if we're very thirsty, someone is bound to find some fresh water - that would be divine!
-
*heart sinks*
I read the topic title, then the first few posts, then see there are four pages, so I cannot bear to start my day with all that - although no doubt I'll miss a few fun posts along the way!
This subject has come up quite a few times in my dozen or so years on message boards. Dowsing never stands up to proper tests. It is not a science. And the number of anecdotes that say it works is not of course evidence.
*sighs and wanders disconsolately away from the computer) :)
Cheered slightly by the subject being mentioned on Radio 4 a minute or so ago!
-
Have we stopped planning the picnic? Bugger.
I suspect somebody forgot to bring any water to make the tea - and not a tap in sight.
-
Water divining? How do you think Crop Circles appear?............"Thers water around here somewhere!".
-
Dowsing must have something going for it if the water companies are using it. I must see if my grandchildren have the talent. My father's divining rods were made out of hazel twigs.
-
Dowsing must have something going for it if the water companies are using it. I must see if my grandchildren have the talent. My father's divining rods were made out of hazel twigs.
No, companies have used all sorts of useless pseudo science, and continue to do so.
-
This Forum is the antidote to "preaching to the converted" as it is "preaching to the unconvertable", a veritable assault course of terminally entrenched positions.
There are times, like this one when you can predict, with a very fair degree of accuracy, exactly which posters are going to be on which side, pro, con and WUM/troll, and what they are likely to say in regard to the subject "under discussion"!.
-
This Forum is the antidote to "preaching to the converted" as it is "preaching to the unconvertable", a veritable assault course of terminally entrenched positions.
There are times, like this one when you can predict, with a very fair degree of accuracy, exactly which posters are going to be on which side, pro, con and WUM/troll, and what they are likely to say in regard to the subject "under discussion"!.
I am sure Alan Burns and Sriram also think it is like preaching to the unconvertible as well. That you might think that for certain issues too adds nothing to your position.
-
I am sure Alan Burns and Sriram also think it is like preaching to the unconvertible as well. That you might think that for certain issues too adds nothing to your position.
I did not ask for anything to be added to, or, for that matter, taken away from, my position. I merely stated my position.
However, maybe, just maybe, I should have added "nit-picker" to "pro, con and WUM/troll"!
-
I did not ask for anything to be added to, or, for that matter, taken away from, my position. I merely stated my position.
However, maybe, just maybe, I should have added "nit-picker" to "pro, con and WUM/troll"!
I suggest that if you want to convert anyone it would be better not to go down the no arguments, just name calling route. If there is a case for dowsing against the studies showing it not to work then make it.
-
I suggest that if you want to convert anyone it would be better not to go down the no arguments, just name calling route. If there is a case for dowsing against the studies showing it not to work then make it.
I believe Anglian Water are trying to.
-
This Forum is the antidote to "preaching to the converted" as it is "preaching to the unconvertable", a veritable assault course of terminally entrenched positions.
There are times, like this one when you can predict, with a very fair degree of accuracy, exactly which posters are going to be on which side, pro, con and WUM/troll, and what they are likely to say in regard to the subject "under discussion"!.
and you confirm the accuracy of your own analysis
-
if there is any doubt , watch this
https://youtu.be/gjC64cnxl0k
-
There is no evidence that dowsing works. If yiu read more about what tge water companies are saying, beyond the small quotes included on this thread, basically they are saying that up until recently no techniques for locating leaks etc have been very effective, including dowsing. Saying it is as effective as modern methods doesn't mean it works if the modern methods don't work either!
-
I was discussing dowsing with my husband, a no nonsense scientist. He is of the opinion that a small number of people do have the talent, gift or whatever you wish to call it, which science may be able to explain one day.
-
I was discussing dowsing with my husband, a no nonsense scientist. He is of the opinion that a small number of people do have the talent, gift or whatever you wish to call it, which science may be able to explain one day.
in your last sentence the most revealing word is 'opinion'. Science doesn't deal in opinion.
-
in your last sentence the most revealing word is 'opinion'. Science doesn't deal in opinion.
Did I say science dealt in opinion?
-
Did I say science dealt in opinion?
no you didn't , but its worth bearing in mind .
-
I was discussing dowsing with my husband, a no nonsense scientist. He is of the opinion that a small number of people do have the talent, gift or whatever you wish to call it, which science may be able to explain one day.
Thanks for sharing your husbands opinion.
-
I'll tell you what it is all about.... ;)
Its probably the Biofield that makes dowsing, reiki, spontaneous healing etc. possible. Its as simple as that.
Why has science not found any biofield yet? Well....Science has not found so many things all these years. So...what's the big deal? Secondly no one is looking for it and no one knows the right methods to detect it either.
There is lots to discover yet...you know. Does anyone think its all done and dusted?! ::)
-
I'll tell you what it is all about.... ;)
Its probably the Biofield that makes dowsing, reiki, spontaneous healing etc. possible. Its as simple as that.
Why has science not found any biofield yet? Well....Science has not found so many things all these years. So...what's the big deal? Secondly no one is looking for it and no one knows the right methods to detect it either.
There is lots to discover yet...you know. Does anyone think its all done and dusted?! ::)
are you kidding ?
Biofield? so you come up with a name but what is it and more to the point ,can you demonstrate it please
-
Biofield?
Didn't he have showdown with James Bond?
-
Biofield?
Didn't he have showdown with James Bond?
'I expect you to dowse, Mr Bond'
(and yes I know that's Goldfinger, but what the hell)
-
Biofield?
Didn't he have showdown with James Bond?
I once thought I'd stumbled upon a snowman's grave yard , turned out to be a bioField of carrots :o
-
anyway, isn't Dowsing a tuneful Chinese ferryboat man ?
-
Is he the one Chris de Burgh advised everyone not to pay?
-
Is he the one Chris de Burgh advised everyone not to pay?
it could well be . ;)
-
I'll tell you what it is all about.... ;)
Its probably the Biofield that makes dowsing, reiki, spontaneous healing etc. possible. Its as simple as that.
Why has science not found any biofield yet? Well....Science has not found so many things all these years. So...what's the big deal? Secondly no one is looking for it and no one knows the right methods to detect it either.
There is lots to discover yet...you know. Does anyone think its all done and dusted?! ::)
This post of yours Sriram, it's a really daft one, best drop it.
Regards ippy
-
You guys don't know about the biofield that surrounds all things??!! Hmm! Remarkable how you manage to keep yourselves completely insulated from true wisdom! ;)
I am sure I have written about this many times...particularly with reference to Floo's sudden frozen shoulder cure, spontaneous healing etc. Nothing 'supernatural' about it, let me add!
Here is something about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)
Also see 'Auras'.
The Biofield is a field that surrounds and penetrates all life. It is like the earth's magnetic field. This biofield is fundamental in maintaining physical health and mental well being. Any major disturbances to the biofield can cause illnesses. These are especially relevant in mental and emotional issues.
It is the flow of energies in this field that ensures well being and good health. Many esoteric healing techniques such as Pranic healing, Reiki, Feng shui, acupuncture...are based on this field and the flow of the energies in and around the body.
Even Yoga and the chakra system is essentially based on the biofield.
Why hasn't Science found this field yet? Maybe because it is full of old school fogies who are more comfortable remaining insulated from such things. But I am sure sooner or later all this will get integrated with physical science to give us a more comprehensive and meaningful picture of ourselves.
About dowsing and biofield...
https://dowsers.org/product/tuning-the-human-biofield/
-
Sririam:-
There is lots to discover yet...you know. Does anyone think its all done and dusted?!
No. I'M prepared to cautiously keep an open mind.
-
Why hasn't Science found this field yet? Maybe because it is full of old school fogies who are more comfortable remaining insulated from such things.
Science is full of young enthusiastic people looking to learn as much as they can about our world. The more likely reason for science not finding any evidence for the biofield would be that there isn't any.
-
You guys don't know about the biofield that surrounds all things??!! Hmm! Remarkable how you manage to keep yourselves completely insulated from true wisdom! ;)
I am sure I have written about this many times...particularly with reference to Floo's sudden frozen shoulder cure, spontaneous healing etc. Nothing 'supernatural' about it, let me add!
Here is something about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)
Also see 'Auras'.
The Biofield is a field that surrounds and penetrates all life. It is like the earth's magnetic field. This biofield is fundamental in maintaining physical health and mental well being. Any major disturbances to the biofield can cause illnesses. These are especially relevant in mental and emotional issues.
It is the flow of energies in this field that ensures well being and good health. Many esoteric healing techniques such as Pranic healing, Reiki, Feng shui, acupuncture...are based on this field and the flow of the energies in and around the body.
Even Yoga and the chakra system is essentially based on the biofield.
Why hasn't Science found this field yet? Maybe because it is full of old school fogies who are more comfortable remaining insulated from such things. But I am sure sooner or later all this will get integrated with physical science to give us a more comprehensive and meaningful picture of ourselves.
About dowsing and biofield...
https://dowsers.org/product/tuning-the-human-biofield/
you are doing this as a joke aren't you ;D
very good , you certainly gave me a laugh this morning ;D ;D ;D thank you
-
I believe Anglian Water are trying to.
As are Severn, as I posted, but that seems to have no validity to the "magic" lot! Hence my comment
-
As are Severn, as I posted, but that seems to have no validity to the "magic" lot! Hence my comment
I can't see where Severn or Anglia say it is effective, only that it can give similar results to some mire modern methods which they say are not very good at detecting leaks.
-
I can't see where Severn or Anglia say it is effective, only that it can give similar results to some mire modern methods which they say are not very good at detecting leaks.
Which - if you are unbiased enough to see it - says that as a method it is as good as or no worse than the scientific ones!
But keep up the bullshit - you might at least convince yourselves . . . God forbid!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/water-divining-bunk-popular-myths-science-sally-le-page
:)
-
You guys don't know about the biofield that surrounds all things??!! Hmm! Remarkable how you manage to keep yourselves completely insulated from true wisdom! ;)
I am sure I have written about this many times...particularly with reference to Floo's sudden frozen shoulder cure, spontaneous healing etc. Nothing 'supernatural' about it, let me add!
Here is something about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)
Also see 'Auras'.
The Biofield is a field that surrounds and penetrates all life. It is like the earth's magnetic field. This biofield is fundamental in maintaining physical health and mental well being. Any major disturbances to the biofield can cause illnesses. These are especially relevant in mental and emotional issues.
It is the flow of energies in this field that ensures well being and good health. Many esoteric healing techniques such as Pranic healing, Reiki, Feng shui, acupuncture...are based on this field and the flow of the energies in and around the body.
Even Yoga and the chakra system is essentially based on the biofield.
Why hasn't Science found this field yet? Maybe because it is full of old school fogies who are more comfortable remaining insulated from such things. But I am sure sooner or later all this will get integrated with physical science to give us a more comprehensive and meaningful picture of ourselves.
About dowsing and biofield...
https://dowsers.org/product/tuning-the-human-biofield/
About as credible as a bird trained to pick out a pre printed card that foretells your whole future, maybe it's time you caught up with the old fogies Sriram, you do seem to be drawn by any of the airy fairy stuff, have you tried the reading of tea leaves yet?
Regards ippy
-
Which - if you are unbiased enough to see it - says that as a method it is as good as or no worse than the scientific ones!
But keep up the bullshit - you might at least convince yourselves . . . God forbid!
the springs have just shot out of my irony meter , piyoing!
-
Which - if you are unbiased enough to see it - says that as a method it is as good as or no worse than the scientific ones!
But keep up the bullshit - you might at least convince yourselves . . . God forbid!
If you do a bit more research and read what else the water boards are saying then I think you would understand it better rather than showing your own bias based on a one line comment.
They clearly say that up until recently modern methods were not very good and dowsing was about the same. Not exactly a glowing recomendation of dowsing is it.
-
Maybe recent modern methods are more accurate. But if dowsing has been able to locate water all these centuries....then it must mean that it definitely works!
It cannot be pure chance every single time all over the world, surely!
-
Maybe recent modern methods are more accurate. But if dowsing has been able to locate water all these centuries....then it must mean that it definitely works!
It cannot be pure chance every single time all over the world, surely!
Do you have a record of every time the dowsers failed to find water when it was under their feet?
-
Dowsing is an ancient practice that has worked successfully in finding water for hundreds of years. There is no reason why water companies should not use this method.
This article mentions what Sriram is trying to explain. It's about the biofield of 'energy'. The reason science claims dowsing doesn't work is because once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken i.e. the procedure cannot work properly.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
-
The reason science claims dowsing doesn't work is because once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken
How does that happen then exactly?
-
Dowsing is an ancient practice that has worked successfully in finding water for hundreds of years. There is no reason why water companies should not use this method.
This article mentions what Sriram is trying to explain. It's about the biofield of 'energy'. The reason science claims dowsing doesn't work is because once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken i.e. the procedure cannot work properly.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
if dowsing was successful all water leakage would be easily resolved and we wouldn't need any other methods of detection
I'm guessing your ability to understand this is due to your lack of critical thinking skills
-
How does that happen then exactly?
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
-
Dowsing is an ancient practice that has worked successfully in finding water for hundreds of years. There is no reason why water companies should not use this method.
This article mentions what Sriram is trying to explain. It's about the biofield of 'energy'. The reason science claims dowsing doesn't work is because once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken i.e. the procedure cannot work properly.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
Did you actually read the article SweetPea?
Sriram is not 'explaining' the biofield, he his expressing his beliefs in the biofield and how he thinks it works. Your 'reason' is very convenient don't you think?
-
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
No there isn't.
-
How does that happen then exactly?
don't ask sweetpea wont have a clue, unable to detect nonsense is a major flaw but many people have it . Most are religious, which is a bit of a give-a-way
-
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
Apart from being a complete non sequitur to the question asked, that's just woo.
-
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
what is the mechanism here then ? and what 'energy' are you referring to ?
-
So, what do you think makes the atmosphere change in the example I gave?
-
So, what do you think makes the atmosphere change in the example I gave?
What do you mean by atmosphere here? You seem to be using a metaphor based on subjective feelings unrelated to any external atmosphere as if it is a scientific term.
-
So, what do you think makes the atmosphere change in the example I gave?
you'll have to be specific . One minute you're you are talking about energy flow (?) then atmosphere
please define your terms
-
you'll have to be specific . One minute you're you are talking about energy flow (?) then atmosphere
please define your terms
It's like this, when someone says you can cut the atmosphere with a knife, you can actually cut the atmosphere up with a knife and if you place it in a pot of boiling water and then freeze it, it can be used to power a mobile phone for two days.
-
It's like this, when someone says you can cut the atmosphere with a knife, you can actually cut the atmosphere up with a knife and if you place it in a pot of boiling water and then freeze it, it can be used to power a mobile phone for two days.
I know, I've tried it ;)
patent pending!
-
Everybody is familiar with the term 'vibs' - which means vibrations which is energy. So, someone can omit good vibs or not so good vibs. It's all about the same thing that Sriram is talking about.
-
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
True - here is the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFPLk5mJ1D4
-
Everybody is familiar with the term 'vibs' - which means vibrations which is energy. So, someone can omit good vibs or not so good vibs. It's all about the same thing that Sriram is talking about.
Metaphors are not science.
-
True - here is the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFPLk5mJ1D4
fabulous , made me smile , thanks ;D
-
Not everything has to answer to science.
-
Dowsing is an ancient practice that has worked successfully in finding water for hundreds of years. There is no reason why water companies should not use this method.
This article mentions what Sriram is trying to explain. It's about the biofield of 'energy'. The reason science claims dowsing doesn't work is because once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken i.e. the procedure cannot work properly.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17532-why-dowsing-makes-perfect-sense/
Yes! Same article as on two pages back, thought I recognised it. I enjoyed reading it then and again just now, SweetPea, thank you. As Sririam has said, there is a lot that cannot be explained yet. Walter said the article was just a filler for the New Scientist on a day where there wasn't much going on (paraphrase), hee hee. Shame!
[/quote]
-
Not everything has to answer to science.
Explain.
-
Yes! Same article as on two pages back, thought I recognised it. I enjoyed reading it then and again just now, SweetPea, thank you. As Sririam has said, there is a lot that cannot be explained yet. Walter said the article was just a filler for the New Scientist on a day where there wasn't much going on (paraphrase), hee hee. Shame!
and it actually argues against dowsing.
-
Not everything has to answer to science.
Didn't say it did, so thank you for the straw. Problem is you and Sriram are making testable claims, now either we try and examine them using the scientific method or it would appear we just accept then because someone said them.
-
So, what do you think makes the atmosphere change in the example I gave?
The atmosphere change is a change in mood brought about by our perception that a particular person has come into the room.
Vibes refers to 'a person's emotional state or the atmosphere of a place as communicated to and felt by others.' We communicate via our senses. No need to imagine some energy field being involved!
-
and it actually argues against dowsing.
Yep, which is why I wondered if SweetPea had actually read it rather than just looked at the headline.
-
Explain.
Exactly that, Gordon. There is much that cannot be explained by science. Sadly probably never will be because science does not investigate the subjective.
-
The atmosphere change is a change in mood brought about by our perception that a particular person has come into the room.
Vibes refers to 'a person's emotional state or the atmosphere of a place as communicated to and felt by others.' We communicate via our senses. No need to imagine some energy field being involved!
who knew? ::) ::) ::)
-
Exactly that, Gordon. There is much that cannot be explained by science. Sadly probably never will be because science does not investigate the subjective.
but it can explain what you're talking about. Turns out its BOLLOCKS!
-
Exactly that, Gordon. There is much that cannot be explained by science. Sadly probably never will be because science does not investigate the subjective.
Except you and Sriram are making objective claims. You aren't saying I really like the idea of the biofield, it's got salty goodness. You are claiming it exists. To then talk about subjectivity is dishonest.
-
Yep, which is why I wondered if SweetPea had actually read it rather than just looked at the headline.
Maeght, the part of the article that stood out for me was... "So what happened? Baker’s explanation is that by relaxing, and suppressing all my rationalisations, I allowed my brain to tune into a kind of “energy” associated with the buried structure."
The author does add that he thinks there's a simpler explanation, but he's at least open to what the dowser is showing him.
-
Exactly that, Gordon. There is much that cannot be explained by science. Sadly probably never will be because science does not investigate the subjective.
Don't be silly - of course science investigates the subjective: ever heard of opinion polls?
However you are implying objective claims that you say are outwith the scope of science: so what alternative methods do you have at your disposal?
-
Maeght, the part of the article that stood out for me was... "So what happened? Baker’s explanation is that by relaxing, and suppressing all my rationalisations, I allowed my brain to tune into a kind of “energy” associated with the buried structure."
The author does add that he thinks there's a simpler explanation, but he's at least open to what the dowser is showing him.
I LIKE MAGIC TRICKS, DOESNT MEAN I THINK THEYRE REAL
-
who knew? ::) ::) ::)
Clearly not SweetPea - who the post was to.
-
Clearly not SweetPea - who the post was to.
Clearly! ;)
-
Maeght, the part of the article that stood out for me was... "So what happened? Baker’s explanation is that by relaxing, and suppressing all my rationalisations, I allowed my brain to tune into a kind of “energy” associated with the buried structure."
Again, this is not an explaination but a belief. I think you should read the article again with an open mind if that is the maion bit which stood out.
The author does add that he thinks there's a simpler explanation, but he's at least open to what the dowser is showing him.
Not really.
-
Have you been in a room with others when someone has walked-in and the atmosphere changes? This is a change in the energy flow in the room.
Not what I asked.
"
once the sceptics interfere through double-blind testing the energy flow is broken "
How does double blind testing break the energy flow?
-
I fear sweetpea may have been scared off :o
-
I think she is probably having her dinner.
-
But if they find out things about people by unconscious cold reading, where is the difference in that 'working' than dowsing?
Because spiritualism isn't defined as "finding things out about people by cold reading or indeed any other means", it's defined as "communicating with the spirits of dead people".
-
Because spiritualism isn't defined as "finding things out about people by cold reading or indeed any other means", it's defined as "communicating with the spirits of dead people".
And dowsing isn't defined by reading clues unconsciously from the environment. I think you might be thinking I am talkung about people deliberately cold reading as oppised to doing it unconsciously.
-
If you dowse and find water or a pipe or whatever you have found something tangible. If you don’t the person who needs to find it might be a bit pissed but it’s not the end of the world.
Spiritualism promises to help people contact dead relations and if they are exposed as cold reading or in fraud (committed consciously or otherwise) then the consequences can be gut wrenching. And there is nothing tangible to find, is there?
-
If you dowse and find water or a pipe or whatever you have found something tangible. If you don’t the person who needs to find it might be a bit pissed but it’s not the end of the world.
Spiritualism promises to help people contact dead relations and if they are exposed as cold reading or in fraud (committed consciously or otherwise) then the consequences can be gut wrenching. And there is nothing tangible to find, is there?
Irrelevant to whether you consider one working or not by the analogy. I don't see the harm caused by being wrong relates to whether something works.
-
What is the harm in being ‘wrong’ about dowsing for water? Would you think it ok to dowse if you think it a tool for accessing the subconscious but not if you think the pixies direct the rods?
-
What is the harm in being ‘wrong’ about dowsing for water? Would you think it ok to dowse if you think it a tool for accessing the subconscious but not if you think the pixies direct the rods?
I've just said that the harm is irrelevant to it being wring, so don't understand the relevance of the question. But the harm in promoting bad thinking is the that it's the same sort of stuff as anti vax nonsense from which people die.
-
What is the harm in being ‘wrong’ about dowsing for water? Would you think it ok to dowse if you think it a tool for accessing the subconscious but not if you think the pixies direct the rods?
muddled thinking here , dowsing has been debunked . why are you trying to conflate things?
-
For dowsing to be successful, the Diviner first of all has to familiarise him/herself with the area by studying the ley lines, then when on site a bit of feng shui helps her or him to harmonise with the environment.
-
For dowsing to be successful, the Diviner first of all has to familiarise him/herself with the area by studying the ley lines, then when on site a bit of feng shui helps her or him to harmonise with the environment.
I hope you're having a laugh , otherwise I would recommend you watch that documentary we were talking about last week , you know , the one you and Rhi were outraged by aimed at 'moms'
-
Oooh you beast, you, you are awful!
(Fair do's, I made it up as I went along)
-
Oooh you beast, you, you are awful!
(Fair do's, I made it up as I went along)
Robbie........ you are becoming a bit of a tease ;)
-
muddled thinking here , dowsing has been debunked . why are you trying to conflate things?
No, dowsing can work under certain conditions. It’s likely that dowsers subconsciously read the landscape or environment. It doesn’t work in situations where that isn’t possible.
What is debunked is that there is anything about vibes or biofields or pixies behind it.
-
For dowsing to be successful, the Diviner first of all has to familiarise him/herself with the area by studying the ley lines, then when on site a bit of feng shui helps her or him to harmonise with the environment.
It’s of the divil. The divil I tells thee.
-
No, dowsing can work under certain conditions. It’s likely that dowsers subconsciously read the landscape or environment. It doesn’t work in situations where that isn’t possible.
What is debunked is that there is anything about vibes or biofields or pixies behind it.
okay Rhi, you have just confirmed you are the target market for the documentary I just mentioned.
condemned by your own words!
-
okay Rhi, you have just confirmed you are the target market for the documentary I just mentioned.
condemned by your own words!
Ffs. Read Jeremy P’s posts, he’s saying exactly the same thing. Do you think he needs ‘science moms too? Funny, your prejudice is showing in spades
Do not patronise me.
-
Ffs. Read Jeremy P’s posts, he’s saying exactly the same thing. Do you think he needs ‘science moms too? Funny, your prejudice is showing in spades
Do not patronise me.
don't know which post of jeremyp you're referring to ive gone back and read them but don't know what you mean
and don't play your sexism card on me , ill patronise whoever I like .
-
Jeremy's first post on page one seems to fit, you may not have gone back that far.
-
Jeremy's first post on page one seems to fit, you may not have gone back that far.
well I've looked back to the beginning and still nothing , besides he doesn't appear on my page one ? what number post?
-
Sorry, page two.
I think we probably need to think about what it means to say "it works". I've seen televised experiments with water diviners where the diviner was able to detect water quite easily, right up until the moment when they introduced a double blind protocol. At that point the diviners stopped being able to do any better than random chance. There's nothing inherent about water that makes divining work.
However things buried in the ground are rarely concealed as well as in a double blind experiment. There are often subtle signs on the surface that the diviner might pick up subconsciously and transmit to his or her rod via the ideomotor effect. For example water close to the surface may manifest as greener grass or softer soil. Pipes are usually laid in trenches so there might be a dip, or the vegetation might be less healthy or the ground might sound different as you walk over it.
-
Rhi
Ive gone back and re-read your post only to find I misread it
I owe you a most sincere apology . I got it wrong , my mistake and I withdraw my 'documentary' comment
Please don't spank me too hard
-
Rhi
Ive gone back and re-read your post only to find I misread it
I owe you a most sincere apology . I got it wrong , my mistake and I withdraw my 'documentary' comment
Please don't spank me too hard
Thank you, Walter, that’s most gracious of you.
I’ll be gentle with you in future, I promise.
-
Thank you, Walter, that’s most gracious of you.
I’ll be gentle with you in future, I promise.
you may have noticed , I don't mind a bit of rough and tumble ;)
-
you may have noticed , I don't mind a bit of rough and tumble ;)
:P
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/uk-water-firms-admit-using-divining-rods-to-find-leaks-and-pipes
No issue with water companies being told not to use it. But 'medieval witchcraft'? Don't be so fucking stupid.
Anyone with common sense know it is an excuse not to spend money...
-
Sigh!!
Most people seem to think in two boxes. Something is either Science or it is Supernatural (woo). This kind of 'either or' thinking is nonsense. It is the old school thinking. Come to the 21st Century guys!
Reality is a spectrum ranging from the hard and precise observations of Physics and maths at one end ...to the less precise areas of chemistry and biology.... to the even less observable areas of Psychology. And it doesn't stop there.....
There are many more subtle phenomena such as the Biofield, Prana, Consciousness and Spiritual realities that are not observable and measurable to the same extent as the less subtle areas of reality. We can't be sure where the other end of the spectrum is.
Now don't tell me...'so prove that in terms of hard, objective, measurable evidence and we will agree'. That doesn't make sense. Psychology cannot be treated the way we treat Physics. Much more so with the even more subtle areas of reality.
-
We know for a fact that Dowsing works. Therefore, instead of the usual blinkered denial...people should get serious about investigating how it works. This might require some adventurous, lateral thinking instead of the same old silly and standard ideas of the paranormal vs Natural phenomena.
Most people might think that they are harboring modern and progressive ideas while in fact the shoe could now be on the other foot. The so called progressive and scientific thinkers could now be the old world traditionalists who are standing in the way of progressive thinking. The old school scientists are now the Conservatives! Things are moving on...keep up guys!
-
We know for a fact that Dowsing works. Therefore, instead of the usual blinkered denial...people should get serious about investigating how it works. This might require some adventurous, lateral thinking instead of the same old silly and standard ideas of the paranormal vs Natural phenomena.
Most people might think that they are harboring modern and progressive ideas while in fact the shoe could now be on the other foot. The so called progressive and scientific thinkers could now be the old world traditionalists who are standing in the way of progressive thinking. The old school scientists are now the Conservatives! Things are moving on...keep up guys!
I'm sure you think this is correct but that's because you live in a world full of woo beliefs.
-
I’m not adverse to the possibility that there is new stuff to discover, but dowsing isn’t the key to it - it’s just a great way of demonstrating the power of the subconscious.
-
I’m not adverse to the possibility that there is new stuff to discover, but dowsing isn’t the key to it - it’s just a great way of demonstrating the power of the subconscious.
I don't think anyone is adverse to that,despite what Sriram thinks.
-
I don't think anyone is adverse to that,despite what Sriram thinks.
Indeed.
-
We know for a fact that Dowsing works. Therefore, instead of the usual blinkered denial...people should get serious about investigating how it works. This might require some adventurous, lateral thinking instead of the same old silly and standard ideas of the paranormal vs Natural phenomena.
firstly, show that it works because I haven't seen it
secondly , please, please, please tell me how we can investigate it again because it's been done already and been shown not to work
repeatedly weighing a pig wont make it any heavier !
-
We know for a fact that Dowsing works.
No we don't - I have never seen any properly conducted experiment that indicates that it works. If you know of one please provide a link.
I am aware of an experiment that I think Derren Brown conducted that demonstrated that it didn't work. Interestingly at the start of the experiment the participants (the dowsers) all accepted that the experimental set up was entirely valid and all were convicted that they would be able to identify where the water was. When they failed to do so they then blamed the experimental set up!!
-
Only a few people appear to have the dowsing skill in my opinion. Having seen it in action it is pretty convincing. My father and uncles certainly weren't messing around when using it to discover where to sink the wells on their properties.
-
Only a few people appear to have the dowsing skill in my opinion. Having seen it in action it is pretty convincing. My father and uncles certainly weren't messing around when using it to discover where to sink the wells on their properties.
Anecdotes don't count as evidence though Floo so for now it remains only your opinion of course.
-
Floo. Am I right in saying that two of your interests are the skill of dowsing and pulling people up for making unsubstantiated claims?
-
Floo. Am I right in saying that two of your interests are the skill of dowsing and pulling people up for making unsubstantiated claims?
hahaha , at least one post of yours I can agree with ;D
-
Have any of you witnessed dowsing?
-
Have any of you witnessed dowsing?
More than that; I’ve tried it.
-
More than that; I’ve tried it.
So have I !
-
Gosh Rhiannon and enki, I'm impressed! I wrongly assumed no-one on this thread (including me) had any personal experience of dowsing.
-
And another who has tried it. However, neither seeing it nor having tried it means you can say that it works, or if it does work how it does so.
-
And dowsing isn't defined by reading clues unconsciously from the environment. I think you might be thinking I am talkung about people deliberately cold reading as oppised to doing it unconsciously.
No, dowsing is defined as finding water (or other stuff) by some means unknown but usually excluding mundane means like seeing it or drilling bore holes. Spiritualism is defined as talking to the spirits of the dead. If dowsing works by subconscious clues, you are still finding water. If a spiritualist is cold reading, they are not talking to dead people (even if they really think they are).
-
No, dowsing is defined as finding water (or other stuff) by some means unknown but usually excluding mundane means like seeing it or drilling bore holes. Spiritualism is defined as talking to the spirits of the dead. If dowsing works by subconscious clues, you are still finding water. If a spiritualist is cold reading, they are not talking to dead people (even if they really think they are).
If someone is finding accurate information about someone by subconscious means it's the same as finding water by subconscious means. Dowsing isn't a claim that it's theindividual finding it by subconscious means and creating their own ideomotor effects.
-
If someone is finding accurate information about someone by subconscious means it's the same as finding water by subconscious means. Dowsing isn't a claim that it's theindividual finding it by subconscious means and creating their own ideomotor effects.
You left out ‘by talking to dead people’. I’m not aware that dowsers offer their skills as evidence that your auntie sue is telling them where the water is.
-
If someone is finding accurate information about someone by subconscious means it's the same as finding water by subconscious means.
I agree.
However, spiritualism isn't finding accurate information about somebody. That's merely one of the tricks that spiritualists do to convince people that they can communicate with the dead.
-
You left out ‘by talking to dead people’. I’m not aware that dowsers offer their skills as evidence that your auntie sue is telling them where the water is.
No, I didn't leave out talking to dead people. because that isn't the comparable part of the dowsing claim. Neither people who might claim to be talked to by dead people to tell people facts but through subconscious cold reading, or dowsers who claim to find water by tapping into energies but through subconscious reading of environmental clues ate correct in their approach. Both are proffering an 'expkanatiin' which ignores the possible subconscious one.
-
I agree.
However, spiritualism isn't finding accurate information about somebody. That's merely one of the tricks that spiritualists do to convince people that they can communicate with the dead.
That there are crooks who tout spiritualism and crooks who tout dowsing is true. We're talking about those who think they are channelling into something mistakenly here, and coming up with an invalid explanation.
-
Many years ago a friend and I were introduced to dowsing by one of our university lecturers, who had invited us to his house for a meal. He asked us both - independently and without witnessing each other - to walk across his lawn holding wire dowsing rods. He didn't give us any further instructions, nor did he mention trying to find water or anything else. We were simply asked to see what, if anything, might happen. So as not to influence us in any way he retired behind a window where he could watch us but we couldn't see him.
I found that at certain places my dowsing rods crossed quite forcefully, as if by themselves, and they crossed at the same places whenever I walked across the lawn. I noticed that even when I squeezed the rod handles the rods still moved, apparently against resistence. My friend's dowsing rods reacted at exactly the same places, but what most surprised her was that hers didn't cross but moved apart instead, something she hadn't expected (she later discovered that dowsing rods always moved apart for her and never crossed). Our host didn't seem at all surprised by any of this and explained that the places where the rods moved were over the known location of drains. We had no proof of that but there was no obvious reason to doubt him. Whether or not the movement of the rods had anything to do with water it was certainly curious that they moved for both of us at identical spots.
The recent media attention on dowsing rekindled these memories and I decided yesterday to make myself a pair of rods out of fencing wire and try to find our outside stop tap, which has become lost in undergrowth. Sadly, I have to report that it is still lost!
-
That there are crooks who tout spiritualism and crooks who tout dowsing is true. We're talking about those who think they are channelling into something mistakenly here, and coming up with an invalid explanation.
it must be true , look at this ;
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdk9vPr9fXAhUDIMAKHVOMC70QFghAMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterdowsing.co.uk%2Fprofessionalwaterdowsercertificate.htm&usg=AOvVaw2XMiOLS2ErxZLgWlKcD-s1
-
Many years ago a friend and I were introduced to dowsing by one of our university lecturers, who had invited us to his house for a meal. He asked us both - independently and without witnessing each other - to walk across his lawn holding wire dowsing rods. He didn't give us any further instructions, nor did he mention trying to find water or anything else. We were simply asked to see what, if anything, might happen. So as not to influence us in any way he retired behind a window where he could watch us but we couldn't see him.
I found that at certain places my dowsing rods crossed quite forcefully, as if by themselves, and they crossed at the same places whenever I walked across the lawn. I noticed that even when I squeezed the rod handles the rods still moved, apparently against resistence. My friend's dowsing rods reacted at exactly the same places, but what most surprised her was that hers didn't cross but moved apart instead, something she hadn't expected (she later discovered that dowsing rods always moved apart for her and never crossed). Our host didn't seem at all surprised by any of this and explained that the places where the rods moved were over the known location of drains. We had no proof of that but there was no obvious reason to doubt him. Whether or not the movement of the rods had anything to do with water it was certainly curious that they moved for both of us at identical spots.
The recent media attention on dowsing rekindled these memories and I decided yesterday to make myself a pair of rods out of fencing wire and try to find our outside stop tap, which has become lost in undergrowth. Sadly, I have to report that it is still lost!
lovely story, I read it while having coffee and a biscuit
-
I don't think anyone is adverse to that,despite what Sriram thinks.
What? You probably mean averse...
But even assuming that the divining rods are affected by our subconscious mind...how does the subconscious mind know there the water is?
-
What? You probably mean averse...
But even assuming that the divining rods are affected by our subconscious mind...how does the subconscious mind know there the water is?
See JP's #34.
-
What? You probably mean averse...
But even assuming that the divining rods are affected by our subconscious mind...how does the subconscious mind know there the water is?
Do you have a record of every time the dowsers failed to find water, despite it being under their feet?
-
What? You probably mean averse...
But even assuming that the divining rods are affected by our subconscious mind...how does the subconscious mind know there the water is?
sriram
have you looked at any of the scientific experiments done on dowsing , maybe even just the ones liked to on here?
or do they not count because they don't give the results you want ?
-
That there are crooks who tout spiritualism and crooks who tout dowsing is true. We're talking about those who think they are channelling into something mistakenly here, and coming up with an invalid explanation.
whether people are charlatans or not is irrelevant to the point.
Spiritualists are not people who claim they can find stuff out about you and the mechanism they use is to talk to your dead relatives, they are people who claim they can talk to your dead relatives and offer finding stuff out about you as evidence that they do.
Can you see the difference?
-
What? You probably mean averse...
Yeah, probably.
But even assuming that the divining rods are affected by our subconscious mind...how does the subconscious mind know there the water is?
You are assuming that dowsing works better than chance, when the studies show it doesn't.
-
whether people are charlatans or not is irrelevant to the point.
Spiritualists are not people who claim they can find stuff out about you and the mechanism they use is to talk to your dead relatives, they are people who claim they can talk to your dead relatives and offer finding stuff out about you as evidence that they do.
Can you see the difference?
please stick to dowsing or go and play outside . ::)
-
Whether or not the movement of the rods had anything to do with water it was certainly curious that they moved for both of us at identical spots.
Not really - not if you could see each other.
-
There are two aspects...
1. Does dowsing work? Yes. Most drilling for water companies around the world use dowsing even today as the preferred or only method of locating water. There are thousands of wells that are evidence of that fact. Even in certain areas in India where the water table is pretty low and we have to dig nearly 80 to 100 feet, dowsing has been the method used for locating water.
2. How does it work? No idea. Saying that our subconscious mind somehow identifies subtle environmental conditions that indicate the presence of water...is nonsense. Water has been located through dowsing in large parched fields where there is no indication of water anywhere. Finding specific tiny spots for drilling bore wells of a couple of feet in diameter, cannot be through such subtle environmental observations.
I agree that we do not know how it works. However it is possible that our sub/unconscious mind is able to detect changes in the biofield which could indicate presence of water. After all,our mind, intuition and instincts are connected to the biofield which helps in coordinating the activities of the eco system as a whole.
-
Where does talking to dead people come into all this anyway?????!!! ::)
-
There are two aspects...
1. Does dowsing work? Yes. Most drilling for water companies around the world use dowsing even today as the preferred or only method of locating water. There are thousands of wells that are evidence of that fact. Even in certain areas in India where the water table is pretty low and we have to dig nearly 80 to 100 feet, dowsing has been the method used for locating water.
2. How does it work? No idea. Saying that our subconscious mind somehow identifies subtle environmental conditions that indicate the presence of water...is nonsense. Water has been located through dowsing in large parched fields where there is no indication of water anywhere. Finding specific tiny spots for drilling bore wells of a couple of feet in diameter, cannot be through such subtle environmental observations.
I agree that we do not know how it works. However it is possible that our sub/unconscious mind is able to detect changes in the biofield which could indicate presence of water. After all,our mind, intuition and instincts are connected to the biofield which helps in coordinating the activities of the eco system as a whole.
Do you have a record of every time the dowsers failed to find water, despite it being under their feet?
Why would that be?
Was the biofield broken?
-
There are two aspects...
1. Does dowsing work? Yes. Most drilling for water companies around the world use dowsing even today as the preferred or only method of locating water. There are thousands of wells that are evidence of that fact. Even in certain areas in India where the water table is pretty low and we have to dig nearly 80 to 100 feet, dowsing has been the method used for locating water.
2. How does it work? No idea. Saying that our subconscious mind somehow identifies subtle environmental conditions that indicate the presence of water...is nonsense. Water has been located through dowsing in large parched fields where there is no indication of water anywhere. Finding specific tiny spots for drilling bore wells of a couple of feet in diameter, cannot be through such subtle environmental observations.
I agree that we do not know how it works. However it is possible that our sub/unconscious mind is able to detect changes in the biofield which could indicate presence of water. After all,our mind, intuition and instincts are connected to the biofield which helps in coordinating the activities of the eco system as a whole.
does it work if no human touches/is holding the dowsing rods?
-
There are two aspects...
1. Does dowsing work? Yes.
Does it work for other things other than water?
-
Not really - not if you could see each other.
I did explain that we couldn't see each other.
-
Does it work for other things other than water?
Divining rods and twigs often show up at Ricky Gervais concerts where people are trying to detect humour.
-
Divining rods and twigs often show up at Ricky Gervais concerts where people are trying to detect humour.
I tried holding two twigs over your post.
They jumped out of my hands and ran away screaming!
-
Does dowsing work? Yes. Most drilling for water companies around the world use dowsing even today as the preferred or only method of locating water. There are thousands of wells that are evidence of that fact. Even in certain areas in India where the water table is pretty low and we have to dig nearly 80 to 100 feet, dowsing has been the method used for locating water.
Where is the actual evidence that this is the case?
-
I tried holding two twigs over your post.
They jumped out of my hands and ran away screaming!
I did the same, and they turned into triffids, who told me that they were technologically advanced plants, who can now simulate complete universes. I ran away laughing.
-
Here is some evidence in an Independent article (about the UK):-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-water-companies-magic-dowsing-rods-use-engineers-leaks-no-scientific-evidence-sally-le-page-a8069616.html
-
Here is some evidence in an Independent article (about the UK):-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-water-companies-magic-dowsing-rods-use-engineers-leaks-no-scientific-evidence-sally-le-page-a8069616.html
And again the plural of anecdote isn't data.
-
Regarding dowsing we can be certain of the future trajectory.
We will enter a post dowsing era
An antidowsing movement will arise
Dowsing will be declared the root of all evil.
A lot of antidowsing books will be sold and vast sums made from stating the bleeding obvious.
Internet forums will be set up decrying Dowsing as a logical fallacy.
Some arsehole will appear on these forums comparing dowsing with leprechauns.
And everybody else will just pour cold water over the whole idea.
-
You left out ‘some people will view it as quaint but irrelevant’.
-
You left out ‘some people will view it as quaint but irrelevant’.
It was left out because it wasn't funny.
-
It was left out because it wasn't funny.
If you were applying that consistently then your post would have said
' '
-
If you were applying that consistently then your post would have said
' '
Now, that's funny.
(Vlad. Please take notes)
-
Now, that's funny.
(Vlad. Please take notes)
I have to thank my manager who said, 'Quick, post that before it wears off!'
-
Here is some evidence in an Independent article (about the UK):-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-water-companies-magic-dowsing-rods-use-engineers-leaks-no-scientific-evidence-sally-le-page-a8069616.html
That's not evidence that it works or is widely used.
-
Yes, I know that & don't believe there any evidence. It just shows that many water companies use the technique (though seem somewhat embarrassed to admit).
-
Yes, I know that & don't believe there any evidence. It just shows that many water companies use the technique (though seem somewhat embarrassed to admit).
They say it us used occasionally.
I was asking Sriram for evidence that most water companies in the world use it mainly or exclusively and that it is shown to work. Don't think yoyr link is evidence of that if it was intended to be. A good summary though.
-
This attempt at showing the so called efficacy of the dowsing method reminded me of something I remembered reading about a few years ago. It was about fake bomb detectors which could, it seems, discover explosives, cocaine and even smuggled ivory. The idea that these devices were useful caught on to such an extent that they were used in conflict zones and by governments around the world.
The fake "detectors" - sold with spurious but scientific-sounding claims - were little more than empty cases with an aerial which swings according to the user's unconscious hand movements, "the ideomotor effect."
It actually started its life as a device which was said to find lost golf balls and ended up as a fully fledged bomb detector. In 2001 it was tested by Home Office scientist Tim Sheldon who warned that not only were the claims for this device misleading but that it would be potentially dangerous to use.
However, the Iraqis spent 53 million pounds on these devices and it was sold in places like Thailand, the Middle East and Mexico. Even some UK government agencies were guilty of promoting this device.
It seems that the Somerset based business man, James McCormick, who sold these devices is now serving a jail sentence for fraud, as is a certain Gary Bolton and others who were also part of the scam. The judge in Bolton's trial said of the device "They had a random detection rate. They were useless."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29459896
-
This attempt at showing the so called efficacy of the dowsing method reminded me of something I remembered reading about a few years ago. It was about fake bomb detectors which could, it seems, discover explosives, cocaine and even smuggled ivory. The idea that these devices were useful caught on to such an extent that they were used in conflict zones and by governments around the world.
It actually started its life as a device which was said to find lost golf balls and ended up as a fully fledged bomb detector. In 2001 it was tested by Home Office scientist Tim Sheldon who warned that not only were the claims for this device misleading but that it would be potentially dangerous to use.
However, the Iraqis spent 53 million pounds on these devices and it was sold in places like Thailand, the Middle East and Mexico. Even some UK government agencies were guilty of promoting this device.
It seems that the Somerset based business man, James McCormick, who sold these devices is now serving a jail sentence for fraud, as is a certain Gary Bolton and others who were also part of the scam. The judge in Bolton's trial said of the device "They had a random detection rate. They were useless."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29459896
yes, an interesting case which raises many questions about human nature and the countries that bought it is very telling
-
The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield. They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.
It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.
But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.
-
But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.
Difficult to do when you find that there is no phenomenon to understand. Dowsing simply doesn't work: Dawkins debunks dowsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI).
-
Difficult to do when you find that there is no phenomenon to understand. Dowsing simply doesn't work: Dawkins debunks dowsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI).
Hmmmmmmmmm! Well my experience of water dowsing, and geographical dowsing is rather different.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm! Well my experience of water dowsing, and geographical dowsing is rather different.
whatever your experience is, IF you had kept a count of every time you observed, or were involved in, any dowsing occasion, if you had made a note of what happened every single time anyone walked with dowsing rods as to exactly what happened, not just remembering afterwards, then such results would not show an overwhelming success rate. they would show results no better than, and most likely far worse than, chance.
-
whatever your experience is, IF you had kept a count of every time you observed, or were involved in, any dowsing occasion, if you had made a note of what happened every single time anyone walked with dowsing rods as to exactly what happened, not just remembering afterwards, then such results would not show an overwhelming success rate. they would show results no better than, and most likely far worse than, chance.
I beg to differ, but each to their own opinion on this topic.
-
The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield. They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.
Oh no - here we go again - yet more completely unevidenced assertions.
-
The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield. They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.
It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.
But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.
So we can add ESP to the list of stuff you believe in for which there is no evidence. Investigate things of course but you should accept that until those investigations find some actual evidence then these are beliefs not facts and to hold those beliefs does not some enlightened thinking as you seem to think.
-
I beg to differ, but each to their own opinion on this topic.
Nope not 'each to their own' - implying this is a matter of opinion. Dowsing either works or it doesn't - it isn't a matter of opinion. And to determine if it works you need to perform proper experiments, such as the one in the video. And when you actually test dowsing in a proper rigorous experiment it becomes clear that it doesn't work.
-
If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?
If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?
So what's the problem?
-
If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?
If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?
So what's the problem?
There is no 'apparently' about it. Properly structured double bind tests have shown dowsing is no more effective than chance. If Anglian water were to do a film then fine but it would need to be under controlled conditions in order for any valid conclusions to be reached.
-
If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?
If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?
So what's the problem?
It's already been tested (see #254 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14877.msg706863#msg706863) and Dawkins debunks dowsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI)) but provided they do another properly controlled double blind trial, then of course it's not a problem.
-
Excellent.
-
If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?
If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?
So what's the problem?
It would depend on how the experiment was performed. It would need to be truly a double blind test - i.e. with neither the dowser nor the person conducting the study knowing where the water was. Also the experiment needs to be devoid of any other cues that might consciously or subliminally lead the dowser to know where the water was. So for example an explanation for the 'success' of dowsing has been that experienced dowsers are actually (albeit perhaps not realising it) using other cues to find water - for example a slight dip in the surface of a filed, subtle changes in colour of vegetation etc.
-
If dowsing is as big a pile of hooey as some here would have us believe (according to various studies, apparently) then surely the offer made by Anglian Water of a filmed experiment with sceptics present and the results posted online shouldn't be an issue, surely?
If it really doesn't work the experiment will confirm it, right?
So what's the problem?
so they've actually made an offer then? I'm not aware of that, please can yo make reference to it (I'm a bit slow sometimes)
-
so they've actually made an offer then? I'm not aware of that, please can yo make reference to it (I'm a bit slow sometimes)
it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.
-
The efficacy of dowsing is connected to intuition and instincts. What we also call gut feeling. All these, along with ESP, are a range of phenomena connected to the mind and the biofield. They are present in all life forms and make the entire globe one single interconnected system.
It is true that we don't know much about how these things work or how they are linked with our system.
But these things exist and cannot be wished away. Makes sense for scientists to come out of the 'two box syndrome' and make attempts to understand these phenomena instead of lumping them all together as 'woo' or some such rubbish, and dismissing them.
you appear to live in a world so different from the one I'm in. However millions of people who share similar beliefs doesn't make those 'beliefs' TRUE . It simply illustrates that most of the population are stupid
-
it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.
oh yeah, I remember that now, I thought it was a new offer I wasn't aware of.
-
whether people are charlatans or not is irrelevant to the point.
Spiritualists are not people who claim they can find stuff out about you and the mechanism they use is to talk to your dead relatives, they are people who claim they can talk to your dead relatives and offer finding stuff out about you as evidence that they do.
Can you see the difference?
To be honest, no. Because you could just as easily state 'Dowsers are not people who claim they can find water and the mechanism they use is to find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks, they are people who claim they can find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks and they offer water as evidence that they do.
-
I am still up for the plan that Shaker and A.N. Other on here work with the bods from Leicester University to come up with an appropriately designed double blind test, and we have an away day picnic to see it.
-
I am still up for the plan that Shaker and A.N. Other on here work with thebodsgrom Leicester University to come up with an appropriately designed double blind test, and we have an away day picnic to see it.
apart from a lovely day out and a pic-nic , experimenting over and over until you get the result 'you' want is definitely the way to go in this new world of emotions rather than facts situation that we find ourselves .
Perhaps the experiments can be conducted by unqualified non-scince , gender-fluid types who could indicate their flip-flopping gender by loudly shouting their preferences each time they flip
surely any results obtained should be regarded as binding , because they say so .
Who could argue wit that?
-
it's in the original story but it's a bit flip. It says come and see it not test in a properly defined double blind test. Indeed the offer seems to underline that they don't understand the idea of testing in since they suggest a YouTube video would be useful.
I assumed that that means they won't put themselves in a position of being accused of concealing any evidence but instead will shove it online for all to see. Again, I'm not seeing the problem with this that some of you seem to.
-
experimenting over and over until you get the result 'you' want
Please can we leave Brexit to the thread dedicated to it?
-
Please can we leave Brexit to the thread dedicated to it?
;D ;D ;D
-
I beg to differ, but each to their own opinion on this topic.
opinion is irrelevant , as I pointed out a couple of days ago , you don't seem to understand this important principle .
Begging to differ is not an answer nor is it an acceptable conclusion to whether something works or not .
Would you apply that logic to the manufacturers of passenger planes ? ' you'll be alright, I think it will fly''
-
Difficult to do when you find that there is no phenomenon to understand. Dowsing simply doesn't work: Dawkins debunks dowsing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI).
It looked more like Goldsmiths college had debunked dowsing and Richard was just there spectating.
-
Please can we leave Brexit to the thread dedicated to it?
Ah Brexit. The first experiment to test the hypothesis that if you suddenly grab the steering wheel of a car it will crash.
And the first time hazel twigs were used to find trade deals
-
It looked more like Goldsmiths college had debunked dowsing and Richard was just there spectating.
if you try a bit harder I'm sure you can find even more to have a go at 'Richard' about .
-
It looked more like Goldsmiths college had debunked dowsing and Richard was just there spectating.
"Dawkins debunks dowsing" is just the title of the video, I don't know or care how much he had to do with the experiment - that isn't the point.
-
if you try a bit harder I'm sure you can find even more to have a go at 'Richard' about .
Ah, Vlad's Dick obsession. It's incurable from what I can see.
-
It looked more like Goldsmiths college had debunked dowsing and Richard was just there spectating.
yesterday I thought maybe you were receiving too many comments against you which cumulatively could be hurtful.
So I decided to try and see things your way for a while and give you some positive favourable comments instead .
Today I saw what you put and thought, bollocks to that !
-
yesterday I thought maybe you were receiving too many comments against you which cumulatively could be hurtful.
So I decided to try and see things your way for a while and give you some positive favourable comments instead .
Today I saw what you put and thought, bollocks to that !
Thank you for your concern.
Let me tell you then some things from my way . One of those things is New Atheist humbug concerning adoration and worship. I will therefore on this board not hesitate to flag up atheist sycophancy concerning the four horsemen and any "To Richard Dawkins be the glory" which manifests itself on here.
As you point out "posse-ism" has long been a bit of a skid ark on this board.
-
Thank you for your concern.
Let me tell you then some things from my way . One of those things is New Atheist humbug concerning adoration and worship. I will therefore on this board not hesitate to flag up atheist sycophancy concerning the four horsemen and any "To Richard Dawkins be the glory" which manifests itself on here.
Haven't seen any - have you?
-
A lot of atheists that I know are not all that interested in Dawkins. I think when he got rid of his forum, it disillusioned some, and his twitter career is, well, interesting.
-
A lot of atheists that I know are not all that interested in Dawkins. I think when he got rid of his forum, it disillusioned some
It was certainly a great pity - in its heyday it was not only huge and hugely active but fascinating.
-
It was certainly a great pity - in its heyday it was not only huge and hugely active but fascinating.
Yes, 60, 000 members, wasn't it? Some brilliant stuff on science.
-
One of those things is New Atheist humbug concerning adoration and worship.
Example...?
-
Yes, 60, 000 members, wasn't it? Some brilliant stuff on science.
At least.
Yes, there were some scarily knowledgeable people there.
And their opposite numbers, of course ;)
-
It was certainly a great pity - in its heyday it was not only huge and hugely active but fascinating.
I learnt a few new swear words from there ;D
-
Example...?
Any post containing the word Dawkins, I suspect :D
... even though most of these actually come from Vlad. Now there's a thing.
-
I learnt a few new swear words from there ;D
Sheltered life, Wal ;)
-
Haven't seen any - have you?
nope, me neither
-
Sheltered life, Wal ;)
and I was brought up in a south Yorkshire mining village :o
where the term ;'' yer cunt'' ,was a term of endearment
-
and I was brought up in a south Yorkshire mining village :o
Sounds like the pits.
-
Sounds like the pits.
hahaha ;D
actually it was quite the opposite .On a summers day the kids in the street would hold hands a skip and sing to the top of a slag heap where we would dowse for coal , we found loads , so I know it works . Then we would have our jam sandwiches and skip all the way home with our basket of coal and mummy would hose us down in the garden . Happy days!
-
What's all the big deal about 'double blind tests'...double blind tests'...?!
The public have been fooled for 40 years about eating saturated fats and cholesterol and atherosclerosis and all that stuff. Now its all being claimed as.... "well...not really...you know...maybe cholesterol really isn't so bad...maybe fats are ok....hee...hee". There were all kinds of tests with a whole village (Framingham) being studied over decades (starting from 1948). It still turns out to be wrong.
Double blind tests or any other are not infallible. It all depends on the assumptions being made to begin with, the way the experiments are designed and finally the vested interests of the people sponsoring the study and so on....
Its quite silly when entire communities of people experience and accept certain phenomena but some 'scientists' come along with their double blind tests and dismiss everything as nonsense. The scientist types like to believe that they are right and that the entire world is foolish and naive. But they are increasingly beginning to look foolish themselves. They no longer hold the authority they once did.
Coming to dowsing....it involves the mind and our spontaneous reactions to subtle natural phenomena. Testing (double blind or otherwise) always involves the Meta consciousness. Once the meta consciousness gets involved, all spontaneous and natural reactions and responses get blocked automatically. Self consciousness prevents spontaneous responses.
This is why most mental phenomena that require a natural, unhindered, uninhibited and non-self conscious state of mind, fail when tested under so called 'strict test conditions'. The test itself hinders the process.
-
What's all the big deal about 'double blind tests'...double blind tests'...?!
It is the only way you can actually determine whether something actually works, because it removes the placebo effect.
Frankly if you aren't prepared to accept that properly controlled double blind studies are the gold standard way to determine whether something actually works then there really isn't much point in discussing this.
-
It is the only way you can actually determine whether something actually works, because it removes the placebo effect.
I would however say that the placebo effect - undeniably a real thing - isn't (yet) an explanation of anything. It's a label for sure, a name for a well observed and well attested phenomenon, but not an explanation because it rests upon a still unexplained link between the mind and the body and the way that the former can influence the latter to the extent that a bland substance of no medicinal value can make someone feel better psychologically because of their mental attitude that it will work. Just calling it the placebo effect doesn't take us any further forward in understanding how this happens. The same goes for the ideomotor effect - it's a label for a particular thing but not much of an explanation.
For the record I would say exactly the same (to date) of some of the ongoing researches in physics and cosmology, namely dark matter, dark energy and dark flow. Carefully sceptical people recognise that these are, for now, placeholders for areas in which we don't have sufficient data, often because the technology isn't yet sufficiently sophisticated.
-
Coming to dowsing....it involves the mind and our spontaneous reactions to subtle natural phenomena. Testing (double blind or otherwise) always involves the Meta consciousness. Once the meta consciousness gets involved, all spontaneous and natural reactions and responses get blocked automatically. Self consciousness prevents spontaneous responses.
.and if those being tested are not told that they are being tested, that would remove that issue would it not....?
-
.and if those being tested are not told that they are being tested, that would remove that issue would it not....?
as I've said , try it without humans holding the rods
-
I would however say that the placebo effect - undeniably a real thing - isn't (yet) an explanation of anything. It's a label for sure, a name for a well observed and well attested phenomenon, but not an explanation because it rests upon a still unexplained link between the mind and the body and the way that the former can influence the latter to the extent that a bland substance of no medicinal value can make someone feel better psychologically because of their mental attitude that it will work. Just calling it the placebo effect doesn't take us any further forward in understanding how this happens. The same goes for the ideomotor effect - it's a label for a particular thing but not much of an explanation.
I agree - the placebo effect is psychological but real and not completely understood. The point about using a placebo (where appropriate, which is actually quite rare) is to negate that effect in order to reveal (or not) an effect of a drug or other intervention.
But actually the placebo effect isn't relevant to studies testing whether dowsing works as there is no intervention.
-
Coming to dowsing....it involves the mind and our spontaneous reactions to subtle natural phenomena. Testing (double blind or otherwise) always involves the Meta consciousness. Once the meta consciousness gets involved, all spontaneous and natural reactions and responses get blocked automatically. Self consciousness prevents spontaneous responses.
Which effectively boils down to suggesting that it only works when you aren't trying to determine whether it works - how convenient. :o
-
What's all the big deal about 'double blind tests'...double blind tests'...?!
The public have been fooled for 40 years about eating saturated fats and cholesterol and atherosclerosis and all that stuff. Now its all being claimed as.... "well...not really...you know...maybe cholesterol really isn't so bad...maybe fats are ok....hee...hee". There were all kinds of tests with a whole village (Framingham) being studied over decades (starting from 1948). It still turns out to be wrong.
I think you need to read up on that before using it as an example here
-
Which effectively boils down to suggesting that it only works when you aren't trying to determine whether it works - how convenient. :o
what appears blatantly obvious to thee and me is out of reach to Sriram for some reason .
-
It is the only way you can actually determine whether something actually works, because it removes the placebo effect.
Frankly if you aren't prepared to accept that properly controlled double blind studies are the gold standard way to determine whether something actually works then there really isn't much point in discussing this.
I have nothing against double blind tests. They are tools and are fine where they are relevant and meaningful. They are however not infallible and cannot be taken as the final word on anything. A tool is only useful depending on the person using it.
-
I have nothing against double blind tests. They are tools and are fine where they are relevant and meaningful. They are however not infallible and cannot be taken as the final word on anything. A tool is only useful depending on the person using it.
Which is why we have said the test need to be carried out properly.
-
What's all the big deal about 'double blind tests'...double blind tests'...?!
You need to ask!?
Okay, they are simply a way to isolate the thing you are trying to test. If you are testing a drug for example, you randomly choose two groups of patients and give one the drug and one a placebo and make sure that nobody who interacts with the patients knows which they are being given. That way, as far as is possible, you ensure that the only difference between the two groups is the drug (the thing you are trying to test).
The public have been fooled for 40 years about eating saturated fats and cholesterol and atherosclerosis and all that stuff. Now its all being claimed as.... "well...not really...you know...maybe cholesterol really isn't so bad...maybe fats are ok....hee...hee".
The problem with dietary advice is not that double blind trials aren't reliable, it's that it's impractical to do them for diet. You can't get large groups of people to live identical lives except for one dietary component.
-
I would however say that the placebo effect - undeniably a real thing - isn't (yet) an explanation of anything.
...
For the record I would say exactly the same (to date) of some of the ongoing researches in physics and cosmology, namely dark matter, dark energy and dark flow. Carefully sceptical people recognise that these are, for now, placeholders for areas in which we don't have sufficient data, often because the technology isn't yet sufficiently sophisticated.
Did somebody suggest otherwise?
-
Did somebody suggest otherwise?
About dark matter/energy/flow? No. With regard to dowsing however it's implicit whenever somebody says that dowsing is 'explained' by the ideomotor effect - to wit, Sally Le Page in her original blog post. It isn't. Ignotum per ignotius is as invalid now as it ever was.
-
2. How does it work? No idea. Saying that our subconscious mind somehow identifies subtle environmental conditions that indicate the presence of water...is nonsense.
Rubbish. It's the only possible mechanism given that people's ability to dowse always disappears when you introduce double blind conditions the remove the visual cues.
Water has been located through dowsing in large parched fields where there is no indication of water anywhere. Finding specific tiny spots for drilling bore wells of a couple of feet in diameter, cannot be through such subtle environmental observations.
The water table doesn't just appear in certain spots. If you drilled down 80 feet and found water in one spot in a field, it's likely you could have drilled the same depth anywhere in that field and found water.
However it is possible that our sub/unconscious mind is able to detect changes in the biofield which could indicate presence of water.
What is this "biofield" bullshit? Can you provide any evidence at all that such a thing exists? Also, why would water, which is not biological, have a biofield?
After all,our mind, intuition and instincts are connected to the biofield which helps in coordinating the activities of the eco system as a whole.
Yeah, that's utter bollocks.
-
I did explain that we couldn't see each other.
Who went first? Did you go first or did the other person go first? Can you provide evidence that the other person didn't see you? Can you provide evidence that the professor was not communicating with you in some subtle way?
-
I tried holding two twigs over your post.
They jumped out of my hands and ran away screaming!
Probably an ideomotor effect caused by your sense of smell detecting bullshit.
-
Also the experiment needs to be devoid of any other cues that might consciously or subliminally lead the dowser to know where the water was. So for example an explanation for the 'success' of dowsing has been that experienced dowsers are actually (albeit perhaps not realising it) using other cues to find water - for example a slight dip in the surface of a filed, subtle changes in colour of vegetation etc.
What about the hypothesis that dowsing works via subliminal cues in the environment? Surely, if dowsing is shown to work in that way, it is shown to work.
-
To be honest, no. Because you could just as easily state 'Dowsers are not people who claim they can find water and the mechanism they use is to find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks, they are people who claim they can find disturbances in the flow of energy by using two sticks and they offer water as evidence that they do.
But they don't do that as a rule. I don't think you'll find any consensus amongst dowsers as to how it works, but they do all claim they can find water.
-
I am still up for the plan that Shaker and A.N. Other on here work with the bods from Leicester University to come up with an appropriately designed double blind test, and we have an away day picnic to see it.
Yes, I think that would be a great day out as long as we can retire to the pub ŕ la Time Team.
-
Yes, I think that would be a great day out as long as we can retire to the pub ŕ la Time Team.
Time Team? they do dowsing with a bloke called Georgeo Fizz , or something , I think he's Italian !
-
What about the hypothesis that dowsing works via subliminal cues in the environment? Surely, if dowsing is shown to work in that way, it is shown to work.
Not really - thats a bit like saying that magic is real because magicians are exceptionally skilled at sleight of hand and/or reading subliminal signs from members of the public.
It may mean that certain people are able to identify areas most likely to contain water, it doesn't mean that dowsing works.
-
Not really - thats a bit like saying that magic is real because magicians are exceptionally skilled at sleight of hand and/or reading subliminal signs from members of the public.
It may mean that certain people are able to identify areas most likely to contain water, it doesn't mean that dowsing works.
It depends how you define dowsing. If you define it as walking around using twigs to find water, the mechanism is irrelevant.
If you see a metal plate levitated off a table by a magician, just because it turns out the table conceals a massive electro-magnet doesn't mean the plate hasn't levitated.
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
All these are 'comfort' explanations. They keep us within our comfort zone. Why are people scared of lateral thinking and exotic explanations? People are scared that somehow God will be forced down their throat if they are not careful. The God phobia!
Just as scientists have come up with bizarre and exotic explanations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain certain observations (going against all intuitive and normal explanations)....we also may have to come up with some new explanations, not just for dowsing but for other unexplained phenomena as well. The Biofield is just one such possibility.
It doesn't have to be either a well known 'Scientific' explanation or else 'Woo'. ::) But that may take a few more generations, I guess.
-
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
All these are 'comfort' explanations. They keep us within our comfort zone. Why are people scared of lateral thinking and exotic explanations? People are scared that somehow God will be forced down their throat if they are not careful. The God phobia!
Why do you think anybody is scared of anything? We know that dowsing (when isolated from the general environment) simply doesn't work - so in that sense there is nothing to explain - let alone any need to consider bizarre new speculations.
If you can find some solid evidence for something new and unknown, that's just fine with me. Your problem seems to be that you have a need to believe in all kinds of stuff that has no supporting evidence.
Just as scientists have come up with bizarre and exotic explanations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain certain observations (going against all intuitive and normal explanations)...
What makes you think dark energy and dark matter are counter-intuitive or even explanations? They are placeholders for actual observed phenomena - just like dowsing isn't.
...we also may have to come up with some new explanations, not just for dowsing but for other unexplained phenomena as well. The Biofield is just one such possibility.
What evidence do you have for anything like a "Biofield" and what predictions does the "hypothesis" make so that it can be tested? (I'll not be holding my breath for an answer.)
It doesn't have to be either a well known 'Scientific' explanation or else 'Woo'. ::) But that may take a few more generations, I guess.
No, it doesn't (as was discussed before) science accepts phenomena that it can't explain yet (dark energy, dark matter, the placebo effect) provided there is some actual evidence...
-
It depends how you define dowsing. If you define it as walking around using twigs to find water, the mechanism is irrelevant.
If you see a metal plate levitated off a table by a magician, just because it turns out the table conceals a massive electro-magnet doesn't mean the plate hasn't levitated.
But it isn't magic is it.
Like dowsing the implication of magic is that it is somehow supernatural. Somehow that special energy moves the twigs outside of the control of the dowser. If the reality is that the dowser is simply picking up perfectly natural signs and is themselves responsible for the movement of the twigs via the ideometer effect then that isn't dowsing.
The point is that dowsing is the mechanism rather than the outcome or you could claim that any method of finding water is dowsing, including using sophisticated instrumentation.
That dowsing fails to work under controlled conditions where the twigs are retained yet any possibility of those external subtle signs are removed shows that dowsing doesn't work.
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
All these are 'comfort' explanations. They keep us within our comfort zone. Why are people scared of lateral thinking and exotic explanations? People are scared that somehow God will be forced down their throat if they are not careful. The God phobia!
Just as scientists have come up with bizarre and exotic explanations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain certain observations (going against all intuitive and normal explanations)....we also may have to come up with some new explanations, not just for dowsing but for other unexplained phenomena as well. The Biofield is just one such possibility.
It doesn't have to be either a well known 'Scientific' explanation or else 'Woo'. ::) But that may take a few more generations, I guess.
But it doesn't work as study after study has proved. So trying to explain how it works is totally irrelevant as it doesn't work.
-
Also it doesn't matter, hardly impacts on our lives unless we have nothing else to think about.
Sririam:- "...there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about? "
Yes sririam.
-
Sririam:- "...there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about? "
Yes sririam.
Except that it doesn't work - so no explanation is needed.
-
If you use a pendulum to dowse for words using letter tiles you will get a coherent message. If you then wear a blindfold you will get nonsense.
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
All these are 'comfort' explanations. They keep us within our comfort zone. Why are people scared of lateral thinking and exotic explanations? People are scared that somehow God will be forced down their throat if they are not careful. The God phobia!
Just as scientists have come up with bizarre and exotic explanations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain certain observations (going against all intuitive and normal explanations)....we also may have to come up with some new explanations, not just for dowsing but for other unexplained phenomena as well. The Biofield is just one such possibility.
It doesn't have to be either a well known 'Scientific' explanation or else 'Woo'. ::) But that may take a few more generations, I guess.
Nobody is scared if it. What would be scary? This is still going on because people are claiming dowsing works yet there us no evidence that it does.
-
It’s sriram’s version of god dodging.
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
Are there other possibilities then?
Just as scientists have come up with bizarre and exotic explanations such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain certain observations (going against all intuitive and normal explanations)
So what? That's no problem to anybody familiar with science (i.e. not you); Lewis Wolpert wrote an entire book (The Unnatural Nature of Science) about how deeply non-commensensical and anti-intuitive science really is. Huxley's idea of science as "trained and organised common sense" pretty much died with him.
If you were as much up to speed about "new" thinking as you love to tell everyone you are, you'd have known this already.
....we also may have to come up with some new explanations, not just for dowsing but for other unexplained phenomena as well. The Biofield is just one such possibility.
Unfortunately for you and your fellow woo-peddlers everywhere an explanation isn't decorative; it can't just lie around looking nice; it has to work for its living by actually explaining things.
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
Lots of things we don't know anything about, what method shall we use to explore then, science or Sriram's woo parade?
-
I think that we are being very unfair to Sriram. It may well be possible that phenomena - inexplicable to our modern scientific world - are about and at work.
In my case I am thinking about teleportation: things moving from one place to another without an human agency. I have experienced its operation.
Last summer I went to France for several weeks. My house and my garden shed were locked-up while I was away. When I arrived back there were a couple of urgent DIY tasks facing me. I went into my garage and my shed looking for tools - but I could not find them. They had completely disappeared.
It wasn't until two weeks later that I found them. They were in my son's shed - three miles away. They had clearly been teleported by paranormal means from my locked shed while I had been away.
What other conceivable explanation could there be?
-
Also it doesn't matter, hardly impacts on our lives unless we have nothing else to think about.
Sririam:- "...there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about? "
Yes sririam.
One explanation is the human propensity for wanting to conjure up all sorts of mysterious phenomena where anecdote is the only guide and even if they are found to be without substance, to carry on insisting on that there must be something at work, either involving some sort of science that we don't yet know about or something 'spiritual' which transcends science.
I remember when my sister showed me a miniature fairy castle in a snow globe(one of those trinkets which, when you shake it, stirs up the 'snow' inside it). She insisted that if you watched it for long enough, real miniature fairies would come out of the castle. She told me she had seen them. I used to watch it for ages, but nothing ever happened. Even so, I wanted to see these fairies so much that I simply believed they were hiding from me. I was however about 8 yrs old at the time. :)
-
This is still going on?!
What is the difficulty in admitting that there is probably some explanation for dowsing that we don't know anything about?
The difficulty is that when you do experiments that eliminate all the ways we do know about (e.g. by seeing the water), dowsing stops working.
It doesn't have to be only well known phenomena such as electricity, magnetism, gravity and such other stuff. It doesn't have to be a con or hoax. Nor does it have to be some known mental phenomenon such as 'subconscious observation of the environment'.
No, you missed out confirmation bias.
-
But it isn't magic is it.
No, it's levitation. And it works in spite of the fact that magic is not real.
Like dowsing the implication of magic is that it is somehow supernatural. Somehow that special energy moves the twigs outside of the control of the dowser. If the reality is that the dowser is simply picking up perfectly natural signs and is themselves responsible for the movement of the twigs via the ideometer effect then that isn't dowsing.
You don't get it. I'm disagreeing with your definition of dowsing. Dowsing is finding water, like levitation is being suspended in mid air without a physical support.
The point is that dowsing is the mechanism
No, the point is that dowsing is the outcome.
That dowsing fails to work under controlled conditions where the twigs are retained yet any possibility of those external subtle signs are removed shows that dowsing doesn't work.
Levitation fails to work in controlled conditions where there are no sneaky magnets. Does levitation not happen?
This thread started with an article about water companies allegedly wasting money on dowsers. In that context, what matters is are they good value for money. Are they more successful than digging holes at random and are they more cost effective than other technological means of finding water. If the answer to both questions is yes, then who gives a fuck that dowsing is not magic?
-
Are they more successful than digging holes at random and are they more cost effective than other technological means of finding water.
Well, are they? We've all heard anecdotes but is there any actual evidence that it works better than chance, even in practical situations?
-
Well, are they? We've all heard anecdotes but is there any actual evidence that it works better than chance, even in practical situations?
dowsing works only for those who believe it does . Just as for those who believe prayer works.
You have to believe.
-
dowsing works only for those who believe it does . Just as for those who believe prayer works.
You have to believe.
Again we have to invoke JeremyP's question about what constitutes working, though.
-
Again we have to invoke JeremyP's question about what constitutes working, though.
as in scientifically or colloquially ?
scientifically ; its been done to death
colloquially ; carry on as it suits you
-
No, the point is that dowsing is the outcome.
I don't agree - dowsing isn't a term used to mean water detection, it is restricted to particular methods of water detection.
You can use this equipment to detect underground water:
http://tracerelectronicsllc.com/page4/tracer/leakdetectors.html
There is no way that you would suggest that someone using this equipment was dowsing. Nope dowsing is the mechanism, not the outcome.
-
I don't agree - dowsing isn't a term used to mean water detection, it is restricted to particular methods of water detection.
You can use this equipment to detect underground water:
http://tracerelectronicsllc.com/page4/tracer/leakdetectors.html
There is no way that you would suggest that someone using this equipment was dowsing. Nope dowsing is the mechanism, not the outcome.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
seconded
-
Well, are they? We've all heard anecdotes but is there any actual evidence that it works better than chance, even in practical situations?
We don't know. Somebody needs to do a properly controlled study. All we have are anecdotes, but we have a lot of anecdotes. I think it's worth proper investigation.
-
as in scientifically or colloquially ?
scientifically ; its been done to death
colloquially ; carry on as it suits you
If dowsers have a better chance of finding water and pipes underground than just guessing or even than other techniques, then empirically it works (for some definitions of "works").
-
I don't agree - dowsing isn't a term used to mean water detection, it is restricted to particular methods of water detection.
You can use this equipment to detect underground water:
http://tracerelectronicsllc.com/page4/tracer/leakdetectors.html
There is no way that you would suggest that someone using this equipment was dowsing. Nope dowsing is the mechanism, not the outcome.
You can't say it is the mechanism since there is no agreement amongst people that think dowsing works on what the mechanism is. There are probably even dowsers who say it works by subconscious picking up visual cues from the landscape.
-
scientifically ; its been done to death
No it hasn't. All that's been found is that, if a dowser is deprived of his normal natural senses, his ability goes away. All that tells us is that there is nothing supernatural about it. As far as I know, nobody has experimented in the conditions that dowsers normally operate i.e. in a field with water under it somewhere.
-
You can't say it is the mechanism since there is no agreement amongst people that think dowsing works on what the mechanism is. There are probably even dowsers who say it works by subconscious picking up visual cues from the landscape.
If that were so it may be the case that experimenters provide a distraction or even shite methodology where the experimental set up could not possibly provide the visual cues needed for success.
-
No it hasn't. All that's been found is that, if a dowser is deprived of his normal natural senses, his ability goes away. All that tells us is that there is nothing supernatural about it. As far as I know, nobody has experimented in the conditions that dowsers normally operate i.e. in a field with water under it somewhere.
have a look at the Munich experiment 1986
-
Dowsing, horoscopes, homoeopathy, other than the well known placebo effect including which doctors, laying of hands, which craft, possession by spirits, demons etc, out of body experiences, spiritualism, ghosts, religions any religion, vampires, treading on the cracks in the pavement, most superstitions in general.
It's all good stuff for the more gullible of us out there, I'm sure there's plenty more if you look hard enough.
Regards to all ippy
-
Here is a report on how Severn-Trent seeks for leaks.
Evidence for use of dowsing overwhelming .... NOT!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42251811
Quote
There's been much shock, horror and laughter in the science twittersphere recently that waster companies still use dowsing rods. Chatting to Severn Trent they are very clear that dowsing rods form no part of official leak detection methods. But it is possible some engineers do use them out in the field. Although obviously they clearly don't work as dowsing is superstitious rubbish.
-
Well that's an incisive, keenly-honed and detailed rebuttal ::)
-
That's the sort if thing I was referring to earlier when I said people should read behind the headlines to really understand if Water companies were saying dowsing works.
-
That's the sort if thing I was referring to earlier when I said people should read behind the headlines to really understand if Water companies were saying dowsing works.
Except there's nothing about whether dowsing works or not, only a single paragraph of a BBC journalist's opinion that it doesn't.
-
There are better websites to be fair which show what the water companies really say about dowsing, but it does say that Severn Trent are very clear that dowsing rods form no part of official leak detection methods. The bit about it not working is just the scientist's opinion of course.
-
There are better websites to be fair which show what the water companies really say about dowsing
We already know this, from the start of this thread. Ten out of twelve companies asked said that it's used. One water company invited a sceptic along to a filmed experiment - no word yet as far as I know on whether she's taken them up on the offer.
but it does say that Severn Trent are very clear that dowsing rods form no part of official leak detection methods.
That it's not official is neither here nor there; the unofficial status is, I strongly suspect, for PR purposes. Official or not it's used regardless and presumably gets results otherwise it wouldn't be.
-
We already know this, from the start of this thread. Ten out of twelve companies asked said that it's used. One water company invited a sceptic along to a filmed experiment - no word yet as far as I know on whether she's taken them up on the offer.
That it's not official is neither here nor there; the unofficial status is, I strongly suspect, for PR purposes. Official or not it's used regardless and presumably gets results otherwise it wouldn't be.
People were suggesting that Water Companies were saying dowsing is an effective method for finding leaks. What they were actually saying, in my view, is that leaks are very hard to find and.some operatives try dowsing but that is is not particularly effective. They compare it to other more modern methods which aren't very effective either. Would they be investing in drones and satellite technology if they could get away with using dowsing rods? You are interpreting what has been said to be an unwillingness to admit their use and to indicate that its use means it works. I interpret it differently and think this view is supported if you investigate further what the Water Companies have said.
-
I've investigated what the water companies have said, and disagree with you.
-
I've investigated what the water companies have said, and disagree with you.
We'll have to disagree then but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?
-
We'll have to disagree then but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?
I'm saying that in 2017 10 out of 12 water companies think there's enough to it to carry on using it (unofficially, natch) despite/alongside the drones and the satellites. I'm sufficiently interested in that fact to wonder why and to want to know why they think this.
-
We'll have to disagree then but when I get the time I'll look again for links which I think supports my interpretation. One thing though, do you think saying dowsing works as well as some modern methods necessarily means it is effective?
As I have said before it was effective when my father and uncles did it; they certainly weren't playing games, a good water supply was essential for their horticultural businesses.
-
I'm saying that in 2017 10 out of 12 water companies think there's enough to it to carry on using it (unofficially, natch) despite/alongside the drones and the satellites. I'm sufficiently interested in that fact to wonder why and to want to know why they think this.
I'm interested too but think that since finding leaks is so difficult they (the operatives) will try anything. This doesn't indicate to me that the Water Companies consider ut effective. You didn't answer my question.
-
As I have said before it was effective when my father and uncles did it; they certainly weren't playing games, a good water supply was essential for their horticultural businesses.
Yes I know.
-
I'm interested too but think that since finding leaks is so difficult they (the operatives) will try anything. This doesn't indicate to me that the Water Companies consider ut effective. You didn't answer my question.
I thought I had. If in the pursuits of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).
-
If in the pursuits of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).
If they considered them equivalent, why would they spend the money on technology? The fact that they feel the need to invest in technology suggests that the bloke with the bent coat hanger isn't very effective at all...
-
If they considered them equivalent, why would they spend the money on technology? The fact that they feel the need to invest in technology suggests that the bloke with the bent coat hanger isn't very effective at all...
So why are they still using both? Since they plainly are, as we know by now.
-
So why are they still using both? Since they plainly are, as we know by now.
I don't know. It might be because it's slightly more effective than guessing (for the non-magical reasons suggested here) or it might just be because the people doing it have convinced themselves it's effective for the same reasons people will swear that horoscopes or prayer works.
However, if it was as reliable as some people make out, it would be very difficult to justify the investment in drones and satellites. Why spend all that money when a bloke with a coat hanger can do the job just as well?
-
I don't know. It might be because it's slightly more effective than guessing (for the non-magical reasons suggested here) or it might just be because the people doing it have convinced themselves it's effective for the same reasons people will swear that horoscopes or prayer works.
However, if it was as reliable as some people make out, it would be very difficult to justify the investment in drones and satellites. Why spend all that money when a bloke with a coat hanger can do the job just as well?
The first three words were sufficient.
-
The first three words were sufficient.
Give it up, Shakes. This thread is like arguing for a proof of Jesus with Vlad - going nowhere.
-
This thread is like arguing for a proof of Jesus with Vlad -
All the evidence for Jesus is out there Owlswing, even hardened atheists accept Jesus as a probable historic figure, largely because a Jesus free first century Palestine doesn't fit the evidence.
-
I thought I had. If in the pursuits of leaks a company can invest squillions in drones and satellites but also spend a bit of loose change from down the back of the sofa on a man with a bent coat hanger, they presumably consider the methods functionally equivalent in pursuit of their aim (i.e. finding leaks with a view to stopping them).
No, there was a specific question about the meaning of something said by a water company rep.
-
All the evidence for Jesus is out there Owlswing, even hardened atheists accept Jesus as a probable historic figure, largely because a Jesus free first century Palestine doesn't fit the evidence.
Considering that all your "evidence" was written after the first century it is hardly what you could call topical evidence. In fact it is not evidence it is wishful thinking by those promoting Christianity and this is upheld by the diligence with which the Church confiscated and/or destroyed any written evidence that contradicted their version of "history".
I'm shutting up here before we get too far off-topic.
-
The first three words were sufficient.
Not really, no. The second paragraph was particularly relevant to your previous post.
-
You have shades of the believer/mystic in you, Shaker. Not entirely blind I would say. Congratulations!
-
You have shades of the believer/mystic in you, Shaker. Not entirely blind I would say. Congratulations!
No. For that to be the case I would have to be a credulous clown, and you and your ilk have cornered the market on that with your biofield nonsense and suchlike. There's nothing to congratulate in gullibility.
I'm defending the scientific enterprise. As are, it would seem, Anglian Water, who as far as I can tell with complete transparency initiated an experiment in view of one and all with any results to be made freely available online. (An experiment to which the one who instigated it is yet to respond AFAIK). I'm happy with that; I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.
-
As are, it would seem, Anglian Water, who as far as I can tell with complete transparency initiated an experiment in view of one and all with any results to be made freely available online. (An experiment to which the one who instigated it is yet to respond AFAIK). I'm happy with that; I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.
I haven't followed all of this but have they offered a properly designed, double blind experiment or just "come along and watch our bloke with his coat hangers"?
I'd be all in favour of the former but the latter is valueless.
-
No. For that to be the case I would have to be a credulous clown, and you and your ilk have cornered the market on that with your biofield nonsense and suchlike. There's nothing to congratulate in gullibility.
I'm defending the scientific enterprise. As are, it would seem, Anglian Water, who as far as I can tell with complete transparency initiated an experiment in view of one and all with any results to be made freely available online. (An experiment to which the one who instigated it is yet to respond AFAIK). I'm happy with that; I can't see why anyone wouldn't be.
I'm happy to see a properly carried out and transparent test too. Not sure anyone has said otherwise on here.
-
I haven't followed all of this but have they offered a properly designed, double blind experiment or just "come along and watch our bloke with his coat hangers"?
I'd be all in favour of the former but the latter is valueless.
I can't tell you that - the invitation can be found in links in the early pages of this thread.
I assume that if Sally Le Page wants to be seen as more than a blustering keyboard warrior she'll take up the offer and between them she and the water company can thrash out a mutually agreeable procedure.
-
I'm happy to see a properly carried out and transparent test too. Not sure anyone has said otherwise on here.
But I think there already have been plenty, including ones conducted 'in the field' as it were, looking water in buried pipes. In every case the likelihood of finding the water was no better than that which would have occurred by random chance.
Summary here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies
-
But I think there already have been plenty, including ones conducted 'in the field' as it were, looking water in buried pipes. In every case the likelihood of finding the water was no better than that which would have occurred by random chance.
Summary here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies
Yes indeed, but if someone is willing to carry out another one it does no harm so why not? There is of course the risk that if it shows a particular result people who hold a view which is different to the result will disregard the experiment but that is always a risk and not a reason to oppose doing the experiment.
-
Yes indeed, but if someone is willing to carry out another one it does no harm so why not? There is of course the risk that if it shows a particular result people who hold a view which is different to the result will disregard the experiment but that is always a risk and not a reason to oppose doing the experiment.
Sure, but a someone pointless exercise.
What I think is actually more interesting is the psychology here - the dowsers clearly genuinely think it works, even though it doesn't. Why else would they agree to take part in the studies unless they were convinced it worked. If they knew it was a con trick they'd never go near a proper study would they.
-
Sure, but a someone pointless exercise.
What I think is actually more interesting is the psychology here - the dowsers clearly genuinely think it works, even though it doesn't. Why else would they agree to take part in the studies unless they were convinced it worked. If they knew it was a con trick they'd never go near a proper study would they.
Indeed.
-
I can't tell you that - the invitation can be found in links in the early pages of this thread.
I found this:-
If you've ever tried to find a water pipe underground then you'll know that it can be very difficult you will try anything. We're happy to take you out and demonstrate...
So, no indication that they would be prepared to fund a properly designed experiment. If somebody wants to do more science on it (despite all the past failures) that's fine but I see no indication that that is what is being offered.
-
So, no indication that they would be prepared to fund a properly designed experiment.
Or any indication otherwise.
-
I wish my father was still alive, he would have been thrilled to have taken part in experiment to have verified, or not, the credibility of dowsing.
-
I can't tell you that - the invitation can be found in links in the early pages of this thread.
I assume that if Sally Le Page wants to be seen as more than a blustering keyboard warrior she'll take up the offer and between them she and the water company can thrash out a mutually agreeable procedure.
So the answer to Stranger's question is that you don't know that any such offer, to a double blind experiment, is what was offered but you'll pretrnd tgat was the offer because it suits you to do so.
-
It's getting a bit cold for the picnic though tbh.
-
So the answer to Stranger's question is that you don't know that any such offer, to a double blind experiment, is what was offered but you'll pretrnd tgat was the offer because it suits you to do so.
No I'm not pretending any such thing. I can only assume that's your characteristically, er ... individual interpretation.
-
So, no indication that they would be prepared to fund a properly designed experiment.
Or any indication otherwise.
I don't have any indication that the The Philatelic Traders’ Society isn't prepared to fund it either.
-
I don't have any indication that the The Philatelic Traders’ Society isn't prepared to fund it either.
Depends if it gets Sally Le Page's stamp of approval I guess.
-
No I'm not pretending any such thing. I can only assume that's your characteristically, er ... individual interpretation.
Yes, you are. That was a specific question from Stranger to which you have insufficient information but you have gave a positive answer. The Dunning Kruger is strong with you.
-
Or any indication otherwise.
I don't have any indication that the The Philatelic Traders’ Society isn't prepared to fund it either.
Irrelevant
-
Yes, you are. That was a specific question from Stranger to which you have insufficient information but you have gave a positive answer. The Dunning Kruger is strong with you.
What was my positive answer?
-
What was my positive answer?
That Anglian Water are supportive of a proper double blind experiment. Which is what Stranger asked. When you stated there was no indication otherwise, that waa such a rather lovely attempt to use the NPF, I almost clapped.
-
That Anglian Water are supportive of a proper double blind experiment. Which is what Stranger asked. When you stated there was no indication otherwise, that waa such a rather lovely attempt to use the NPF, I almost clapped.
Unfortunately your interpretationometer has gone awry - must be the weather.
You claimed I'd given Stranger a positive answer (to Stranger's question about Anglian Water offering a proper double blind experiment).
He said there was no indication that they had. I said that there was no indication that they hadn't. Both are true - there's no indication either way since there are no facts to go on yet (as la Le Page hasn't to my knowledge made any arrangements to take Anglian Water up on their offer).
If that to you is a positive answer you'd be better off joining forces with the like of Alan Burns et hoc genus omne - much more their style.
-
Unfortunately your interpretationometer has gone awry - must be the weather.
You claimed I'd given Stranger a positive answer (to Stranger's question about Anglian Water offering a proper double blind experiment).
He said there was no indication that they had. I said that there was no indication that they hadn't. Both are true - there's no indication either way since there are no facts to go on yet (as la Le Page hasn't to my knowledge made any arrangements to take Anglian Water up on their offer).
If that to you is a positive answer you'd be better off joining forces with the like of Alan Burns et hoc genus omne - much more their style.
and you then called out Sally Le Page on the basis of her not taking up the 'offer' as if it was a sensible experiment that was being offered.
-
and you then called out Sally Le Page on the basis of her not taking up the 'offer' as if it was a sensible experiment that was being offered.
I'm unaware of what's been offered specifically and precisely in terms of experimental testing and whether it was sensible or not, and said so - there are no data here that I know of to date but if you know better, by all means enlighten us all.
Miss Le Page could let us know, perchance?
-
I'm unaware of what's been offered specifically and precisely in terms of experimental testing and whether it was sensible or not, and said so - there are no data here that I know of to date but if you know better, by all means enlighten us all.
Miss Le Page could let us know, perchance?
so making the jydgement of Le Page is unevidemec and a use of the NPF.
Any reason why you used Miss to refer to her?
-
so making the jydgement of Le Page is unevidemec and a use of the NPF.
I fear your NPF detector is similarly on the blink.
Any reason why you used Miss to refer to her?
What other term am I supposed to have used?
-
I fear your NPF detector is similarly on the blink.What other term am I supposed to have used?
Is it? You are calling her out as if the offer was a significant one with no evidence. That reads like an NPF.
And why use any term here that both vovers her sex and martied status irrelevantly? You could just have said Le Page, so why did you use the irrelevant term?
-
Is ot?
Yas.
You are calling her out as if the offer was a significant one with no evidence.
No. I've answered this one already. Whether the offer was significant (significant I assume you mean in terms of proper procedural scientific rigour) is as yet undetermined as there's insufficient evidence that it was or was not.
That reads like an NPF.
I fear I can help you no further.
And why use any term here that both vovers her sex and martied status irrelevantly? You could just have said Le Page, so why did you use the irrelevant term?
Using a surname alone always strikes me as a trifle brusque.
-
Yas.No. I've answered this one already. Whether the offer was significant (significant I assume you mean in terms of proper procedural scientific rigour) is as yet undetermined as there's insufficient evidence that it was or was not.I fear I can help you no further.Using a surname alone always strikes me as a trifle brusque.
And since the scientific rigour is underdetermined, you calling Le Page out on not accepting such an offer is based on your use of the NPF.
Why do you think referencing someone's sex and marital status is an avoidance of brusqueness?
-
And since the scientific rigour is underdetermined, you calling Le Page out on not accepting such an offer is based on your use of the NPF.
Er, no. Since Sally Le Page started this whole brouhaha with her blog post, it seems reasonable to me to assume that when offered the chance to take part in a transparent experimental test, she would accept with alacrity. (Which she may have done; I'm unaware of it though).
Why do you think referencing someone's sex and marital status is an avoidance of brusqueness?
Because using someone's titles is politer than referring to them by their surname alone, which to me makes them sound as though they're about eleven and at a minor public school.
-
We know that Le Page's preferred title is 'Miss' how, exactly?
Eta just had a quick look at her YouTube channel, excellent stuff.
-
We know that Le Page's preferred title is 'Miss' how, exactly?
We don't. Or her preferred flavour of crisp.
-
Er, no. Since Sally Le Page started this whole brouhaha with her blog post, it seems reasonable to me to assume that when offered the chance to take part in a transparent experimental test, she would accept with alacrity. (Which she may have done; I'm unaware of it though).
Because using someone's titles is politer than referring to them by their surname alone, which to me makes them sound as though they're about eleven and at a minor public school.
So now not only are you using the NPF, you are openly admitting you have no idea what she did about thr offer which you have no idea if it was at all scientific and you are calling her out on it. Just wow.
And again i fail to see what her sex and marital status are useful here. It seems you want to refer to them to make you feel comfortable. How odd.
-
We don't. Or her preferred flavour of crisp.
But you haven't attached a desire to eat the sin that is prawn cocktail flavour to her name. You have decided to emphasise her gender and marital status.
-
We don't. Or her preferred flavour of crisp.
So it's as useful in the context as saying 'Le Page, lover of Prawn Cocktail flavour'
-
So now not only are you using the NPF
No, that's very much just you thinking so, again.
you are openly admitting you have no idea what she did about thr offer which you have no idea if it was at all scientific
Both of which I've said.
and you are calling her out on it. Just wow.
Called out? I haven't asked her out for a scrap in the car park or anything.
And again i fail to see what her sex and marital status are useful here. It seems you want to refer to them to make you feel comfortable. How odd.
Your insistence that I've deployed the negative proof fallacy is deeply odd but it seems to keep you amused of a cold winter's morning.
-
But you haven't attached a desire to eat the sin that is prawn cocktail flavour to her name. You have decided to emphasise her gender and marital status.
Well her gender is obvious and doesn't need emphasising if you've followed any of the links provided so far; her marital status I'm unsure of (and uninterested in).
-
No, that's very much just you thinking so, again.
Both of which I've said.Called out? I haven't asked her out for a scrap in the car park or anything.
Your insistence that I've deployed the negative proof fallacy is deeply odd but it seems to keep you amused of a cold winter's morning.
I note the avoidance of the questkon of your irrelevantly titling Le Page as Miss. And your use of the straw in using a specific instead of general meaning of calling out. This seems to me tk be about your trying to hide tgat upu have no reason to complain abut, as you did , Le Page's willingness or not to take Anglian Water up on an offer that yoj have no reason to believe, NPF, was a double blind scientific test.
-
Well her gender is obvious and doesn't need emphasising if you've followed any of the links provided so far; her marital status I'm unsure of (and uninterested in).
so if her gender is obvious, and irrelevant, and doesn't need emphasing, and her marital status is unknown, and irrelevant, why use a title proclaiming and emphasising them?
-
I note the avoidance of the questkon of your irrelevantly titling Le Page as Miss. And your use of the straw in using a specific instead of general meaning of calling out. This seems to me tk be about your trying to hide tgat upu have no reason to complain abut, as you did , Le Page's willingness or not to take Anglian Water up on an offer that yoj have no reason to believe, NPF, was a double blind scientific test.
Sorry, it's a really bad line, it must be the weather.
-
Sorry, it's a really bad line, it must be the weather.
More avoidance
-
More avoidance
No, more witticism.
Heavy night last night, was it?
-
No, more witticism.
Heavy night last night, was it?
And more avoidance.
-
And more avoidance.
Of my question, yes.
-
Of my question, yes.
And now misrepresentation
-
Word salad posting when using a mobile isn't uncommon, I do it all the time.
-
And now misrepresentation
Why are you referring to representation as mis?
-
Why are you referring to representation as mis?
Further avoidance.
-
A good dowse could sort it.
-
A good dowse could sort it.
We would need to run tests on that first ;)
-
There was an item in the BBC Midlands news tonight about a major leak from a broken water main near Tewkesbury. It showed Severn-Trent using a drone to find the leak and included some of the very clear footage recorded by the thermal camera in the drone.
They must have known about our discussion.
-
There was an item in the BBC Midlands news tonight about a major leak from a broken water main near Tewkesbury. It showed Severn-Trent using a drone to find the leak and included some of the very clear footage recorded by the thermal camera in the drone.
They must have known about our discussion.
Honestly HH, you make it sound like the supporters of dowsing are , by supporting dowsing, trying to deny that there are modern ways of doing things - we are NOT arguing for the return to the horsedrawn plough etc!
-
Where - in what I have written - have I referred to dowsing or the supporters of dowsing? I am reporting an item in a news broadcast which shows a water company actually seeking and finding a major leak. In other words, a demonstration of current practice. Nothing more, nothing less.
I considered that - as we have had an extensive discussion on the subject - members of this forum may find it interesting.
-
Where - in what I have written - have I referred to dowsing or the supporters of dowsing? I am reporting an item in a news broadcast which shows a water company actually seeking and finding a major leak. In other words, a demonstration of current practice. Nothing more, nothing less.
I considered that - as we have had an extensive discussion on the subject - members of this forum may find it interesting.
Agree HH, I didn't see your post in the way that Owlswing saw it.
-
Where - in what I have written - have I referred to dowsing or the supporters of dowsing? I am reporting an item in a news broadcast which shows a water company actually seeking and finding a major leak. In other words, a demonstration of current practice. Nothing more, nothing less.
I considered that - as we have had an extensive discussion on the subject - members of this forum may find it interesting.
That is one way of looking at it - my comment is from another way of looking at it - "it" being your post.
-
Agree HH, I didn't see your post in the way that Owlswing saw it.
You are, of course, entitled to read HH's post in any way you see fit, however I reserve the right to do likewise.
-
You are, of course, entitled to read HH's post in any way you see fit, however I reserve the right to do likewise.
Didn't say you didn't.
-
That is one way of looking at it - my comment is from another way of looking at it - "it" being your post.
I have told you what my posting was intended to say. Are you calling me a liar? If not then kindly rephrase your own posts to reflect that.
-
I have told you what my posting was intended to say. Are you calling me a liar? If not then kindly rephrase your own posts to reflect that.
A liar - no. Blinklered and/or biased - possibly.
-
A liar - no. Blinklered and/or biased - possibly.
Perhaps you would like to substantiate this allegation? What evidence do you have?
None - I suspect you are using "possibly" as a weasel-word escape route.
I wrote: There was an item in the BBC Midlands news tonight about a major leak from a broken water main near Tewkesbury. It showed Severn-Trent using a drone to find the leak and included some of the very clear footage recorded by the thermal camera in the drone.
Would you tell me where I make any reference to dowsing in this post? Might it be that you are so sensitive about your own beliefs (about which I am not aware that I have ever made any comment - why should I) that you interpret any objective, value-free, report of a television news story as an attack?
-
Perhaps you would like to substantiate this allegation? What evidence do you have?
None - I suspect you are using "possibly" as a weasel-word escape route.
I wrote:
Would you tell me where I make any reference to dowsing in this post? Might it be that you are so sensitive about your own beliefs (about which I am not aware that I have ever made any comment - why should I) that you interpret any objective, value-free, report of a television news story as an attack?
It is by the very absence of the word "dowsi9ng" on a thread with the title "Dowsing" that makes your comments read - this shows that science works now let's see dowsing match this.
Sorry you got so offended, I did not intend to offend, but hey, no-one seems to give a toss when I get offended - I just get told to calm down - can I suggest you do the same.
-
What peculiar logic. You haven't started to celebrate the Winter Solstice early, have you?
-
What peculiar logic. You haven't started to celebrate the Winter Solstice early, have you?
Being diabetic I'm teetotal!
-
It is by the very absence of the word "dowsi9ng" on a thread with the title "Dowsing" that makes your comments read - this shows that science works now let's see dowsing match this.
Sorry you got so offended, I did not intend to offend, but hey, no-one seems to give a toss when I get offended - I just get told to calm down - can I suggest you do the same.
I become highly amused when you get offended and for that , I thank you .