Challenge applications

[Ladewig]

Doing a blinded test on yourself is important. I did a blinded test using iTunes to see if I could tell the difference between compressed music files and uncompressed music files. I couldn't. I was surprised, but when I couldn't tell which file was which because they all looked the same, I couldn't hear the difference, either.

Emphatically yes. A blind test is by far the most important thing that the OPer can do at this stage.


..
As for your test, of course you couldn't hear the difference, you weren't using magic gold-plated wires.

 

[Almo]

A friend of mine doesn't believe me about compressed audio. He has multiple iPods with different sections of his huge uncompressed music collection.

It is instructive that instead of doing a blinded test, he ridicules me for not being able to hear the difference. I just ask if he's done a test, and he doesn't have anything else to say.

He remains nameless because I don't intend to insult him; he's just behaving irrationally.

ETA: For the record, I do know you can hear the difference at low enough bitrates with poor compression codecs. My claim that I cannot tell the difference is for 256 kbps AAC files and uncompressed .wav files, played through my Grado SR-125 headphones via iTunes. I'm sure the stereophile types would say I can't hear the difference because the setup is inferior, bad DAC on the audio card, poor cabling, etc.

My wife also took a blinded test. That tested the difference between a CD played in our stereo, and a 256 kbps AAC played from the Mac over wireless to PS3 out through HDMI to TV back through RCA cable to the receiver where the CD player is built in. Honestly; if you can't hear the difference with THAT setup, then I don't know where they would hide. Speaker cables maybe?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Hi. I am new to this site. I was researching GMO's and found a good discussion here.

Then I saw the challenge and read (skimmed) the dowsing exchange.

Many years ago, I knew some-one in South Africa who made his living from dowsing. He used rods and/or maps. I think his use of maps precludes having some sort of animal-like ultra-sense (which I have seen examples of, and some dowsers may use this).

He was paid by corporations and individuals to find not only water but minerals including gold. He made a good income, but I asked why he was not a whole lot richer. This was when I learned about the "abuse and lose rule". Such gifts are not "law of physics" but are moderated by a higher power. This gives skeptics (I am part skeptic) logical reason to shout "Cop-out".

A test was designed. Dig multiple holes and fill them in. Put gold jewellery in a cloth in one hole. He could not find the gold. His genuine puzzlement gave me my first lesson (of many) of the "no test rule". Another "cop-out", but it means the prize is 100% safe, unless the higher power decides to surprize you.

I needed to drill for water on a farm. The drillers claimed that geological survey and dowsing had about the same success rate of 80%.

I tried the rods where water had been predicted. It seemed to work - the rods moved at the same spot repeatedly. I don't think there is a "spook" force moving the rods. An extremely slight tilt of one's hands causes the rods to move. The rods are thin and slippery, and while I could make them swing if I wished, I could not sense my hands tilting when doing the dowsing.

I am an engineer and researcher, and have come across many claims. I find I can debunk most by just asking the right questions, and seeing the people back off. This must be done in a gentle, genuine interest manner, otherwise they go into "shields up" mode.

All of my psychic experiences occur when I least expect them. My guard is down, and my skeptical nature is at rest. My mood is one of idle curiosity mostly, and a spontaneous test will work. But only once, as if to prove to me personally that certain things work.

Because of "personal proof/evidence" I lean toward acceptance of a higher power, and of psychic phenomena. Certain "intuitions" have been a great help at times. At one stage I was a complete atheist, and for many years an agnostic.

Unfortunately my experiences fall into the category of anecdotes. These can be debunked by claiming a number of theories. Coincidence, liar, self-deception, self-delusion, hallucination, tricks of the mind, and so on. I would doubt my own sanity, except that there were often others involved who would confirm to me what happened.

 

[wardenclyffe]

PartSkeptic,

Welcome to the forum. You make many good points. But there are a couple of problems with the theories you present.

First, if the higher power shows you that it exists only once, doesn't it seem more likely that it was just a coincidence once? If it did keep happening over and over, that seems like something worth exploring.

Also, if the higher power prevents someone from getting rich using their powers, how much money does it allow them to make? At what point would your dowser friend have gone broke? If he'd asked for one Rand more? If he'd accepted one job more? There are millionaire psychics like James Van Praagh and John Edward. Are they frauds because they are rich? Are the only true psychics the ones who scrape by with a neon palm in their living room window?

We should be able to measure how much the higher power is willing to allow a practitioner to make.

Ward

 

[Pixel42]

Hi. I am new to this site. I was researching GMO's and found a good discussion here.

Welcome to that discussion.

This was when I learned about the "abuse and lose rule". Such gifts are not "law of physics" but are moderated by a higher power. This gives skeptics (I am part skeptic) logical reason to shout "Cop-out".

Well spotted.

The argument seems to boil down to which of three possible types of universe we live in:

Type A: in which there are no higher powers and no paranormal abilities which in any way override the laws of physics as we understand them, and coincidences occur as often as those laws predict

Type B: in which higher powers/paranormal abilities affect the universe to the extent that sufficient experiments, observations and measurements can detect their effect

Type C: in which higher powers/paranormal abilities occasionally override the laws of physics but something is deliberately ensuring that no amount of experiments, observations and measurements can detect their effect in, for example, an unexpectedly high number of coincidences

Most sceptics would I think argue that Type C is redundant. There are only two types of universe; if Type C is indistinguishable from Type A under any conceivable circumstances then it is Type A, and there is no good reason to postulate it as a separate possibility.

So we concentrate on trying to determine if the universe we live in is Type A or Type B. If it's Type B it should be relatively easy to gather sufficient evidence to prove it. The more time and effort is spent trying and failing to do so the more likely it becomes that the universe is Type A, but we can never definitely prove it.

 

[Ladewig]

This was when I learned about the "abuse and lose rule". Such gifts are not "law of physics" but are moderated by a higher power. This gives skeptics (I am part skeptic) logical reason to shout "Cop-out".

So the question I have is: How does the higher power regulate demonstrations of special abilities when the JREF-challenge applicant specifically says that his powers come from above and that when he wins the money he will donate to charity? This situation happens with surprising regularity.

I am also interested in your theories about this regulatory higher power. Is it more like some sort of karma in that there are no conscious decisions or is it more like a powerful being who can evaluate specific situations (including the motives and thoughts of individual people) and then make decisions about whether a power will successfully work, partially work, or fail to work?
But perhaps those questions are best asked in a different thread.

 

[DowserDon]

No 666 I did not intend to say CEGB. Admittedly that is who paid me but for the mainly non-UK forum members I said UK EGB. Central could have been Central Mongolian, Central Australian or Central American. UK EGB gives more info.

 

[DowserDon]

I'm in a ratty mood today.
Can we please in this forum use the terminology adopted by JREF in its $1 million Challenge. It uses "paranormal" to mean "not explicable by science". That means it could change tomorrow with a scientific paper being published giving an explanation. "Supernatural" suggests the intervention of an force that is "super-" (outside of nature). I do not believe in the supernatural. I do believe that there are many processes that have not at present got an explanation. Personal experience suggests that dowsing is one of them.
Can anyone point to a proper well-funded examination of dowsing. Unlikely as no scientist with a reputation to defend would even look at it. Do not quote JREF bottle and bucket protocol, it is too far removed from conditions in the field.
I am retired, so I'm not concerned about reputation.
As for anecdotes. I'm sure that if I report a successful double blind test, it will still be regarded by many as anecdotal.
I may have some land made available to me in March (February in the UK is likely to be snowy).
I promise to post the results.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm in a ratty mood today.
Can we please in this forum use the terminology adopted by JREF in its $1 million Challenge. It uses "paranormal" to mean "not explicable by science".

While I am prepared to accede to your request and use that particular terminology, I feel compelled to point out that in this message board, opening posters do not have the power to limit what is discussed or how it is discussed.



ETA: I do want to point out that if you think posts 83-86 are too far away from the topic defined in the opening post, you may request that they be moved to another thread. Your request may be denied but one never knows. To make such a request, select any of the posts and click on the exclamation point inside the triangle located in the lower left portion of the post. When a dialogue box comes up briefly explain that you want those posts moved to a new or a different thread because they are off-topic. Then wait 8-32 hours for a response.

 

[Pixel42]

Can anyone point to a proper well-funded examination of dowsing.

The wiki article references several such studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Evidence

as does the skeptic's dictionary entry: http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

and the entry on dowsing in this site's own encyclopedia: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/encyclopedia.html

I'm sure that if I report a successful double blind test, it will still be regarded by many as anecdotal.

Anecdotal describes evidence gathered in circumstances where sources of error such as confirmation bias haven't been rigorously excluded, a properly conducted double blind test is not anecdotal evidence. Of course if all you offer in support of an assertion that you have conducted such a test is your word, that is still anecdotal. If, however, you have a successful double blind test recorded before independant witnesses (again I recommend your nearest sceptics in the pub group) it will be difficult for even the most cynical sceptic to dismiss it.

I may have some land made available to me in March (February in the UK is likely to be snowy).
I promise to post the results.

Excellent.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I might be getting off thread with some of the comments, but will respond to particular replies.

First, if the higher power shows you that it exists only once, doesn't it seem more likely that it was just a coincidence once? If it did keep happening over and over, that seems like something worth exploring.

The "once" applies to an impulsive "test" of a particular phenomenon. Examples: Mental telepathy, picking horse racing winners, remote viewing, seeing the future. Trying to repeat the "tests" were dismal failures. But I have enough instances of psychic events occurring spontaneously to make me lean toward personal belief. Recently, I "knew" that a particular motorcyclist passing me would die in the next mile. He did.

Also, if the higher power prevents someone from getting rich using their powers, how much money does it allow them to make? At what point would your dowser friend have gone broke? If he'd asked for one Rand more? If he'd accepted one job more? There are millionaire psychics like James Van Praagh and John Edward. Are they frauds because they are rich? Are the only true psychics the ones who scrape by with a neon palm in their living room window?

We should be able to measure how much the higher power is willing to allow a practitioner to make.

It is not science with metrics. Many people start out with psychic abilities, and then slowly lose them if they overcharge, and they know /feel it. By then they have learned how to "fake it", and could not care. I would guess that most (if not all) professional and wealthy psychics are in this category.

The true "superstars" were probably the biblical prophets, but it is too late to test them.

A clairvoyant friend who charges, works for a modest fee, and will decline to charge if she cannot deliver. Another professional clairvoyant I knew did have abilities, but got a lot of "inside information" from the interconnected clients she had, and was quite astute and perceptive of human nature.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Most sceptics would I think argue that Type C is redundant. There are only two types of universe; if Type C is indistinguishable from Type A under any conceivable circumstances then it is Type A, and there is no good reason to postulate it as a separate possibility.

I would agree with you that, for most people, Type C is indistinguishable from Type A. And for that reason they are unlikely to change their viewpoint. This includes many who have "blind faith", although they might have a personal "feeling".

Type C: in which higher powers/paranormal abilities occasionally override the laws of physics but something is deliberately ensuring that no amount of experiments, observations and measurements can detect their effect in, for example, an unexpectedly high number of coincidences

For me, I am compelled to say that my experience gives me good reason to feel that Type C exists. Even if I could say that something big would happen this year, and it did happen, it could still be explained by a "lucky guess".

Small "near future" events can (but rarely) be predicted with accuracy, but anyone giving a day/month year for the end of the world (and details of how it will happen) MUST be mistaken. My experience is that it would not be allowed. Even the prophet Muhammad's advice about a very long-shot famous bet (the winnings given to charity when won) his friend had placed, was given an extended window and time frame. I was raised Methodist by the way.

I told my wife in 2008, that there was a good chance of an economic crash, and we acted to cash out our investments including selling our home. I was "guided" to internet articles. Economists WERE saying for many years it would happen. I happened to read all the right ones at the right time. I am quite happy to accept a chain of coincidences (albeit serendipitous) on this one.

DowserDon. You sound honest and I believe what you say. But you are likely to find that the proof needed to win the prize will elude you. But explore the psychic world. It is interesting to say the least.

 

[PartSkeptic]

So the question I have is: How does the higher power regulate demonstrations of special abilities when the JREF-challenge applicant specifically says that his powers come from above and that when he wins the money he will donate to charity? This situation happens with surprising regularity.

Donating to charity is irrelevant. Proof will NOT be allowed. You might have some-one who knows that greed is abuse and tries to get around the first rule I gave. Hence I separated the two rules "abuse and lose" and "no test (permitted to succeed)". Anyone claiming to "possess a power" should realize that "powers" are "given" on an event by event basis by an outside higher power, and that even the best have "off-days" and get it wrong (to keep them "honest and stop conceit).

I am also interested in your theories about this regulatory higher power. Is it more like some sort of karma in that there are no conscious decisions or is it more like a powerful being who can evaluate specific situations (including the motives and thoughts of individual people) and then make decisions about whether a power will successfully work, partially work, or fail to work?

It seems we are here to learn lessons (and evolve) on a soul level. Think of it as a parent who wants a child to learn a lesson. The parent monitors the child but does not let the child know the parent is observing and is subtly intervening on occasion. If re-incarnation exists (I only suspect it might because it is logical to me) then death(s) at various stages in life is only a lesson.

These days, a soldier can be put into simulations that he is unaware of the monitoring and controlling, if you want a less biblical scenario.

 

[Ladewig]

Donating to charity is irrelevant. Proof will NOT be allowed. You might have some-one who knows that greed is abuse and tries to get around the first rule I gave. Hence I separated the two rules "abuse and lose" and "no test (permitted to succeed)". Anyone claiming to "possess a power" should realize that "powers" are "given" on an event by event basis by an outside higher power, and that even the best have "off-days" and get it wrong (to keep them "honest and stop conceit).



It seems we are here to learn lessons (and evolve) on a soul level. Think of it as a parent who wants a child to learn a lesson. The parent monitors the child but does not let the child know the parent is observing and is subtly intervening on occasion. If re-incarnation exists (I only suspect it might because it is logical to me) then death(s) at various stages in life is only a lesson.

These days, a soldier can be put into simulations that he is unaware of the monitoring and controlling, if you want a less biblical scenario.

Thank you for your prompt responses. Given that this description is the exact opposite of what the OPer/claimant is asserting, might you consider starting a new thread to talk about your beliefs, experiences, and evidence?

 

[Pixel42]

I would agree with you that, for most people, Type C is indistinguishable from Type A.

For all people. By your definition.

But I agree with Ladewig, you need to start your own thread if you want to discuss this view further as it is very different to the one the OP is describing and certainly doesn't belong in this subforum.

 

[666]

No 666 I did not intend to say CEGB. Admittedly that is who paid me but for the mainly non-UK forum members I said UK EGB. Central could have been Central Mongolian, Central Australian or Central American. UK EGB gives more info.

Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the slight derail. I take your point although I would probably have phrased it as "the UK's Central Electricity Generating Board", but that's just me.

 

[gnome]

If it's not allowed to be known for sure, then you don't know for sure either. So the only possible conclusion is not that you do, in fact know, but that you aren't sure but prefer to believe so.

 

[gnome]

Can anyone point to a proper well-funded examination of dowsing. Unlikely as no scientist with a reputation to defend would even look at it. Do not quote JREF bottle and bucket protocol, it is too far removed from conditions in the field.

Too often the "conditions in the field" allow for the use of information available besides the dowsing technique.

It is on you to describe what eliminates non-dowsing methods of sussing where water might be, while still retaining enough "field conditions" for dowsing to work. Which, to your credit, you are attempting to do by applying. I will be keeping up because I love it when an applicant gets to preliminary testing.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I agree my posts are off-thread, and I will back off. Feel free to delete if it cleans up the discussion.

Starting a new thread is not really a good idea since I would be compelled to spend a lot of time trying to be precise to avoid apparent contradictions in logic. And getting to the truth of the anecdotes would require me to go through extensive (and unwanted by me or readers) discussions of my credibility and credulity.

I will limit any future posts to simple, short and relevant comments.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If it's not allowed to be known for sure, then you don't know for sure either. So the only possible conclusion is not that you do, in fact know, but that you aren't sure but prefer to believe so.

Re-read your post. A great summary. Yes, I agree.

If I was not such a natural doubter who also wants unshakeable proof (like God appearing daily to a large bunch of us to confirm what I think, then submitting to testing, and claiming the prize) I would not be saying I am not sure.