Well, I skimmed through some entries and read all of some others.
Some statements I would question:
The position of the JREF, and the skeptical community in general, are that dowsers cannot do any such thing, and are merely fooling themselves into thinking they have some kind of ability, and moving the forked stick themselves.
Is that the position of JREF? I seriously doubt it.
In discussing a dowser's perceived success rate, you talked about counting hits and ignoring misses, but I don't think you mention that a dowser might know from observation and experience where water is likely to be, and the ideomotor effect takes over from there.
You also tend to make sweeping statements, which can weaken an argument. Here's an example:
The question we pose to him is, can you locate water that is sitting in a bucket in a parking lot? His answer is, as is to be expected, always yes.
Always? Really? I doubt that. (And for that matter, "as to be expected?")
So, we continue, if there were ten buckets, and one had water in it, you could tell us which one? Again, we will be answered with the affirmative.
I know you are setting up a hypothetical here, but it is easily interpreted as your saying "this is what always happens," which is not the case.
Another sweeping statement:
Invariably, he will find some places in the subject area to be a problem.
Replacing "invariably" with "frequently" would make this more believeable. If you yourself had conducted many tests of dowsers, the "invariably" could be inferred to mean "...within my experience." But using it in describing the experience of others weakens your statement. In my eyes, anyway.
Here it is again:
What invariably happens, is that the dowser is able to locate the water 100% of the time when he already knows where it is.
Same comment as previous.
A comment on formatting: either double-space between paragraphs, or indent paragraphs more than you are. As it is, it seems to be jost a mass of words, and is not easy on the eye. Perhaps you have no control over this, though.
A skeptic will tell you that psychics et al. are almost certainly using a technique called cold reading with their clients.
Well, this time you at least said "
almost certainly." I would have mentioned warm and hot reading at this point as well.
Every time the psychic gets a 'hit,' the subject immediately forgets the previous four or five misses.
Another sweeping statement. Every time? No. I've read the accounts of several skeptics who went to a "psychic", and they forgot no such thing. I have also read the accounts of people who believe in psychics, but decided that a particular "psychic" was a fraud, because they noticed that very thing.
Not surprisingly, virtually no psychic will allow a recording to be made of the sitting.
Again, a (fairly) sweeping statement, implying you know more than you could possibly know. I personally have read posts from many people who were allowed by their psychic/whatever to record their reading. Some psychics apparently ENCOURAGE it. Others will record it for you (for a fee). Others, like TV psychics, are recorded (though heavily edited) for their own programs. So a person reading this could know that this statement is untrue (within their own experience), and thus discard everything you are saying.
