Explain Water divining
Discussion
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.
Except that there is no conceivable explanation as to why the JRF would want to set up an experiment to hide the fact that a genuine 'supernatural' effect was working. If a genuine psychic went to the JRF and was unable for some reason to display their talent because their demonstration had been sabotaged, all they would have to do would be to go public. There are millions of people out there desperate for woo to be true and for the JRF to be discredited.I see no conclusive evidence either way.
Fact of the matter is, the tests are fair, they are mutually agreed, independently observed and open to any scientist to check the findings by recreating the experiment.
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.
I have read through a few of the exchanges on setting the rules. I makes interesting reading and I get the impression it would appear the claimant is backing out because they cannot control the situation.I see no conclusive evidence either way.
TheHeretic said:
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.
I didn't say I did have conclusive evidence. I am a scientist and like to sere proof. The Randi test is designed to give Randi publicity. As I have said divining seems to work for me and I know people in the water industry use it. But this isn't properly researched scientifif proof and IMO neither re Randis tests.
Like all woo woo it's simple enough to cut to the answer.
If it worked we wouldn't need to discuss it, it would just work and there would be no maybe about it.
If water divining worked, it would be as controversial as metal detecting for instance, you would go and buy the kit and start doing it.
If it worked we wouldn't need to discuss it, it would just work and there would be no maybe about it.
If water divining worked, it would be as controversial as metal detecting for instance, you would go and buy the kit and start doing it.
blueg33 said:
I didn't say I did have conclusive evidence. I am a scientist and like to sere proof. The Randi test is designed to give Randi publicity.
As I have said divining seems to work for me and I know people in the water industry use it. But this isn't properly researched scientifif proof and IMO neither re Randis tests.
As a scientist, it should be a piece of piss for you to design an appropriate double blind experiment to test your hypothesis that divining works. So I suggest you do so, and report the results back to me. Then I can repeat your experiment, and get the same results. We then ring up JRF, get them to repeat the experiment, and we can then trouser the million bucks.As I have said divining seems to work for me and I know people in the water industry use it. But this isn't properly researched scientifif proof and IMO neither re Randis tests.
And since you are the scientist, and have done the experimental design, we'll do an 80/20 split. I'd be quite happy to get 200 grand out of this, and you are welcome to the worldwide fame and fortune and multi-million dollar earnings that you will inevitably get for proving something which so far has eluded science.
Westy Pre-Lit said:
I always thought it was used to find flowing water courses or pipes with flowing water etc.
Nope, you are being far too focused there! In fact, according to (for instance) The Society of British Dowsers (http://www.britishdowsers.org/learning/what_is_dowsing.shtml) you can dowse not just for water, but also oil, archaeological remains, treasure and even human bodies. So, to clarify - anything. And, even better, you don't need to be ANYWHERE NEAR the source. You can be on another continent and your chances of success are EXACTLY THE SAME (I am certain that this is true).Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 08:07
I 100% believe this to be accurate. No matter where I am, if I begin dowsing for something - say to locate a missing child - my chances of success are equal whether I am at home or within a 5 mile radius of the child.
That is to say, exactly the same as chance.
ETA:
The Rio-Tinto Zinc company (RTZ) once employed Uri Geller, urine smeller to 'far-sense' oil and diamond reserves by studying maps with his psychic powers. He too got accurate results - eerily similar to those of someone who 'randomly guessed'. Chance? I think not! All I can say to that is that Sir Tiny Rowland must have been particularly pissed that day.
HTH
-R
Edited by robsa on Saturday 28th January 17:16
jmorgan said:
I have read through a few of the exchanges on setting the rules. I makes interesting reading and I get the impression it would appear the claimant is backing out because they cannot control the situation.
Have a read about 'Project Alpha' from the early '80s where Randi managed to get 2 young magicians who claimed to have psychic powers into a US University that had been given a $500,000 grant to create the Laboratory for Psychical Research. They managed to be tested for about 3 years because they were able to control the experiments conditions not the scientists studying their supposed abilities. The scientists were fooled by simple magic tricks and slight of hand and poor experiment control/methodology.http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm
You can see a preliminary Million Dollar Challenge test on youtube (4 parts) of a Danish lady called Connie Sonne who claimed dowsing powers using a pendulum to identify playing cards in sealed envelopes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qiG9PUiaQ
tank slapper said:
blitzracing said:
So I take it you understand how everything in the universe works then to discount this 100%? Maybe we should stick to magnets bulbs and batteries?
Maybe if you read this you might understand why your point doesn't really make any sense. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
So this forum is for scientific literacy and education is it not? Ergo, the thread discussion is valid.
blueg33 said:
I didn't say I did have conclusive evidence. I am a scientist and like to sere proof. The Randi test is designed to give Randi publicity.
As I have said divining seems to work for me and I know people in the water industry use it. But this isn't properly researched scientifif proof and IMO neither re Randis tests.
Did you watch the link posted re:Connie? What about the test was unscientific?As I have said divining seems to work for me and I know people in the water industry use it. But this isn't properly researched scientifif proof and IMO neither re Randis tests.
Didn't Randi once say whatever happened he would get out of paying the prize money anyway, then tried to work his way out of it by trying to explain away the statement ?
Unfortunatly once you've made a statement of case, people can read into that statement what they will whether it was what was meant or not.
In that case why would anybody with any supposed credence or believed powers want to put themselves up to guy who they see as a fraud without integrity, to then be made out to be a charlton themselves.
In that case isn't this 1,000,000 dollar prize fund put up by Randi all a bit pointless ? It all seems a bit attention seeking to me...........silly old duffer
Unfortunatly once you've made a statement of case, people can read into that statement what they will whether it was what was meant or not.
In that case why would anybody with any supposed credence or believed powers want to put themselves up to guy who they see as a fraud without integrity, to then be made out to be a charlton themselves.
In that case isn't this 1,000,000 dollar prize fund put up by Randi all a bit pointless ? It all seems a bit attention seeking to me...........silly old duffer
No better than homeopathy, 200 years of research (by homeopaths) and the best they can say is "there might be something in it" i.e. there isn't but it keeps the money coming in.
If it doesn't work it's because the wind was in the wrong direction / the sticks were wrong / I wasn't in the mood etc. etc.
I think we need a woo woo smiley.
If it doesn't work it's because the wind was in the wrong direction / the sticks were wrong / I wasn't in the mood etc. etc.
I think we need a woo woo smiley.
Westy Pre-Lit said:
Didn't Randi once say whatever happened he would get out of paying the prize money anyway, then tried to work his way out of it by trying to explain away the statement ?
Unfortunatly once you've made a statement of case, people can read into that statement what they will whether it was what was meant or not.
In that case why would anybody with any supposed credence or believed powers want to put themselves up to guy who they see as a fraud without integrity, to then be made out to be a charlton themselves.
In that case isn't this 1,000,000 dollar prize fund put up by Randi all a bit pointless ? It all seems a bit attention seeking to me...........silly old duffer
An excellent example of unscientific heresay - where is your evidence for Randi saying this? Oh wait, you don't believe in it do you???!!!! Unfortunatly once you've made a statement of case, people can read into that statement what they will whether it was what was meant or not.
In that case why would anybody with any supposed credence or believed powers want to put themselves up to guy who they see as a fraud without integrity, to then be made out to be a charlton themselves.
In that case isn't this 1,000,000 dollar prize fund put up by Randi all a bit pointless ? It all seems a bit attention seeking to me...........silly old duffer
Taken from here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Education...
Dennis Rawlins claimed the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[19] Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation.[20] Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[21][22]. Randi states that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat.[23] On Larry King Live Randi stated that if such phenomena did exist and someone accurately demonstrated it, he would give them one million dollars.
Unfortunately what he said has given those who say they have a claim an excuse not to prove it to him. He can't prove they're wrong in as much as they don't have to prove they're right if there is still people willing to believe in it.......people of religion have used the same round about excuses for thousands of years and look where it's got them.
It's all a load of b
ks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Education...
Dennis Rawlins claimed the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[19] Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation.[20] Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[21][22]. Randi states that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat.[23] On Larry King Live Randi stated that if such phenomena did exist and someone accurately demonstrated it, he would give them one million dollars.
Unfortunately what he said has given those who say they have a claim an excuse not to prove it to him. He can't prove they're wrong in as much as they don't have to prove they're right if there is still people willing to believe in it.......people of religion have used the same round about excuses for thousands of years and look where it's got them.
It's all a load of b
ks Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 28th January 23:08
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff