Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2
4 5 ... 16 17
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Ali G

1,176 posts

162 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
Do you feel the same way about magic crystals, talismans, etc?
Not at all.

The effects of those artefacts are dealt with more usefully by psychologists - not physicists.

This is off topic btw!

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Ali G said:
Not at all.

The effects of those artefacts are dealt with more usefully by psychologists - not physicists.

This is off topic btw!
It is not off topic. Here we have a thread about dowsing, whereby there is NO evidence whatsoever of it having any physical effect whatsoever. There has been no double blind tests to prove it effective at all.

So, what IS dowsing, and why do you put it in a category apart from crystals, etc? Why is dowsing a physicist issue, whereas crystals are a psychologist issue?

Westy Pre-Lit

4,606 posts

83 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
freecar said:
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
Do people normally go divining for bottles of still water from Tesco's then? I always thought it was used to find flowing water courses or pipes with flowing water etc.

The experiment shown there proves naff all. I'm not saying the practice works but if your carrying out experiments to prove/disprove/debunk a theory, then carry out those experiments to suit the claim not to suit yourself !

Have controlled experiments taken place where water courses etc are known to be and not to be by the scientists, but not to the people who do the divining ? Also as shown in that clip, each dowser is said to do it in their own way which also has to be taken into account when carrying out the experiment.


Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 08:07

Eric Mc

74,158 posts

145 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
I am terribly disappointed with the way the science forum is going. It is not at all what I thought it would be.

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Westy Pre-Lit said:
Do people normally go divining for bottles of still water from Tesco's then? I always thought it was used to find flowing water courses or pipes with flowing water etc.

The experiment shown there proves naff all. I'm not saying the practice works but if your carrying out experiments to prove/disprove/debunk a theory, then carry out those experiments to suit the claim not to suit yourself !

Have controlled experiments taken place where water courses etc are known to be and not to be by the scientists, but not to the people who do the divining ? Also as shown in that clip, each dowser is said to do it in their own way which also has to be taken into account when carrying out the experiment.


Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 08:07
All I am hearing is excuses. Are you saying that dowsing is not a physical phenomena, and is merely some fanciful woo-filled notion dependent upon the individual powers of the individual dowser and their special twigs? Yes, the tests are so unfair. So unfair no-one, in the history of dowsing has proven it to be effective beyond blind chance.


Advertisement

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Eric Mc said:
I am terribly disappointed with the way the science forum is going. It is not at all what I thought it would be.
So ignore the thread. Do topics have to be passed by you for permission to post? Despite the woo filled nature of the subject matter, is asking about the evidence scientific, or not? There is 1 and a 1/2 woo topics on the first page. That is it. Quit fretting.

Edited by TheHeretic on Saturday 28th January 08:44

Shaolin

2,372 posts

69 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Eric Mc said:
I am terribly disappointed with the way the science forum is going. It is not at all what I thought it would be.
It seems that to many people woo IS science.

Getragdogleg

4,382 posts

63 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Eric Mc said:
I am terribly disappointed with the way the science forum is going. It is not at all what I thought it would be.
hehe

It has gone exactly the way I thought it would.

This is due to the fact that science and "woo woo" are very close, things often start out as "woo woo" and then get proven to be science.

Users of this section of the forum need to realise that both standpoints exist and that discussions to move subjects from one category to the other are going to discuss both science and the dreaded woo.

I am sure a clever sort can root out some subjects that were previously thought of as Magic or trickery before they got scientifically discussed and then entered the glorious title banner of "Science" once discussed enough to prove how they work, I would find some links but It is saturday, it's sunny in Cornwall and I am going to spend some time in my Garage with my V8.

jmorgan

19,151 posts

164 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
freecar said:
Steve996 said:
It's a technique that is used commercially to find borehole sites for private water supplies quite commonly in rural Scotland. Often a several thousand pound borehole decision is taken on the basis of it. I know a divining contractor who pretty much has a 100% hit rate on borehole sites even to the point of being able to say how far down the source is. I am a resolutely scientific/engineering minded person and don't have a physical or scientific explanation for it but my father worked with this guy on a consulting basis for a number of years and his results speak for themselves.....he was regularly engaged by large engineering/project consultants in rural Scotland to locate optimum borehole sites where others trusting to chance/judging based on terrain had failed to find a source.
How do you know he had a 100% hit rate? Because he told you?

Anecdotal evidence does not take the place of replicable results, nobody has yet performed this feat with any level of observability and replicability.

Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
I wonder what the chances are of not hitting water when drilling away in certain area's?

I do doubt the claim as the result of divining, but if you are over an aquifer, how big are they? I would also thing the more altruistic diviners would be out in drought hit area's finding much needed H2O.

blueg33

12,496 posts

104 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
Entirely on subject. James RNdi has a prize to anyone who can show these 'supernatural' powers in controlled tests. If, as the chap says, the guy has a 100% record, there is a million dollars waiting for him from Randi. Any other dividers who can prove they can do it should also apply. I fear the prize will remain safe.
You have.no evidence other than anecdotal that the test conditions applied by Randi do not prevent the phenomenon from working. It could just as easily be an elaborate ruse on his part to discredit such things.





Russ35

1,597 posts

119 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Westy Pre-Lit said:
freecar said:
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
Do people normally go divining for bottles of still water from Tesco's then? I always thought it was used to find flowing water courses or pipes with flowing water etc.

The experiment shown there proves naff all. I'm not saying the practice works but if your carrying out experiments to prove/disprove/debunk a theory, then carry out those experiments to suit the claim not to suit yourself !

Have controlled experiments taken place where water courses etc are known to be and not to be by the scientists, but not to the people who do the divining ? Also as shown in that clip, each dowser is said to do it in their own way which also has to be taken into account when carrying out the experiment.


Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 08:07
Is this a better experiment for you then? Flowing water in 1 of 10 buried pipes.

Carried out by James Randi in Australia 1980.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoYrSd94kA





Edited by Russ35 on Saturday 28th January 12:47

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
blueg33 said:
You have.no evidence other than anecdotal that the test conditions applied by Randi do not prevent the phenomenon from working. It could just as easily be an elaborate ruse on his part to discredit such things.
If you are going to make accusations like that I suggest you back them up. Otherwise your assertion is nothing more than bluster.

Gaspode

3,376 posts

76 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
There are a lot of old boys around here who can 'divine' where water is. They use extensive knowledge and experience of the area, and are good at picking up visual cues from the environment - vegetation changes, slope angles, soil and rock types - plus of course if you dig down anywhere you will find water, even in the Sahara. Much of this knowledge fall into the realm of 'unconscious competence', but that doesn't mean there's anything woo about it.

I strongly suspect that the diviners who use a hazel twig or crossed wires are using it either as a prop to add to the theatricality of it all, or just as a means to help them concentrate.

As has been pointed out many times before, all the studies have shown that there's no mystical techniques involved. Take away the environmental clues and it can't be done. If it's a genuine skill that can be demonstrated at will, there's an easy million dollars that can be earned from the JRF for simply demonstrating it. And let's not forget that the "Tests are rigged to prevent the phenomena from working properly" argument is complete bks. The contract stipulates that both parties must be happy with the test conditions

Oakey

15,625 posts

96 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
I suppose if you fail to find any water you could always have a go at finding bombs;



"Mr McCormick, who is a former Merseyside police officer, claimed that the devices found explosives in the same way as dowsing rods are used to find water."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245377/Bo...

It'd be hilarious if the subject matter wasn't so serious. £20,000 each for those glorified divining rods!

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Oakey said:
I suppose if you fail to find any water you could always have a go at finding bombs;



"Mr McCormick, who is a former Merseyside police officer, claimed that the devices found explosives in the same way as dowsing rods are used to find water."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245377/Bo...

It'd be hilarious if the subject matter wasn't so serious. £20,000 each for those glorified divining rods!
Yup... A complete load of bks.

freecar

4,200 posts

67 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Westy Pre-Lit said:
freecar said:
Watch the video on the first page with Dawkins in it, it's pretty conclusive.
Do people normally go divining for bottles of still water from Tesco's then? I always thought it was used to find flowing water courses or pipes with flowing water etc.

The experiment shown there proves naff all. I'm not saying the practice works but if your carrying out experiments to prove/disprove/debunk a theory, then carry out those experiments to suit the claim not to suit yourself !

Have controlled experiments taken place where water courses etc are known to be and not to be by the scientists, but not to the people who do the divining ? Also as shown in that clip, each dowser is said to do it in their own way which also has to be taken into account when carrying out the experiment.


Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 08:07
Want some cheese with that w(h)ine?

Westy, it's well known that you have a passion for lunacy and woo woo so you're not the best person to judge whether the correct processes have been used.

Sorry if that offends.

Westy Pre-Lit

4,606 posts

83 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
roflrofl I think you all need to read again what I said !

So long as both parties are happy and in agreement before an experiment is carried out there can be no excuses after can there. At the end of the linked clip, the dowsers had already said before the experiment had taken place that they were unhappy and had concerns with the way it was set up.

As to the subject, I was making an observation on the experiment being carried out, not a statement whether I thought divining worked or not.

freecar said:
Westy, it's well known that you have a passion for lunacy and woo woo
bowtiehehe

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 15:54

Nimby

538 posts

30 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
blueg33 said:
You have.no evidence other than anecdotal that the test conditions applied by Randi do not prevent the phenomenon from working. It could just as easily be an elaborate ruse on his part to discredit such things.
James Randi does not set the test conditions - they are mutually agreed. See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/cont... section 2.1.

blueg33

12,496 posts

104 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
Nimby said:
James Randi does not set the test conditions - they are mutually agreed. See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/cont... section 2.1.
Except you only have his word for it that he hasn't set something up that others don't know about. Its like TV magicians use all sorts of tricks.

I see no conclusive evidence either way.

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

135 months

[news] 
Saturday 28th January 2012 quote quote all
blueg33 said:
Except you only have his word for it that he hasn't set something up that others don't know about. Its like TV magicians use all sorts of tricks.

I see no conclusive evidence either way.
Not only do you see no conclusive evidence, you provide none either. It's very easy to make these assertions without any evidence at all.
1 2
4 5 ... 16 17
Reply to Topic