• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge applications

If you want to see the power of the ideomotor effect, tell people there's some water where there isn't. Show them how your rod makes the motion there, and fudge it so it does. Watch them learn how to dowse on that section. :)
 
MRC_Hans said:
There is no reason to continue if you have already decided that nothing will shake your faith. You will always fail, and you will never learn.

Hans
Click to expand...
Same old story. DowserDon sounds quite reasonable, and deserves kudos for doing a self-test, but when it comes down to it, he won't be accepting any negative results, in this or any other test. There will always be another excuse available.
 
DowserDon said:
Thanks. Good summary, Pixel 42.
There will be one covered trench whose position I know, referred to as my standard.
What will I do in each of the instances? Discuss with the three Profs and other knowledgeable and interested parties. I promise I won't run away. If anywhere near being successful, I will also discuss a possible signal source and bodily receptor.
The other event, irrespective of the test outcome, will be to show all present how to dowse over real, natural, signals. This is where I expect the ideomotor effect to rear its head. The majority of people I've shown how to dowse have been curious and open minded and have quickly learned how to do it. There will be a non-typical selection of the population present. I do not necessarily expect such a success rate. I expect the idea to be so repugnant to some, that they will fail. We'll see.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Uhm, don't get me wrong ... I mean, i really wish you the best luck, and hope that you succeed. Simply because that would mean that a whole new field of physics is to be discovered.

However, in the post quoted above you only talk about what you will do "If anywhere near being successful ..."

You also said that "The majority of people ... quickly learned how to do it." Again, don't get me wrong, but in my experience like-minded people pool together way more often, because that means to start with people who are far more likely to accept you beliefs, which of course is far more comforting than to face opposition.

You then close by saying that "There will be a non-typical selection of the population present", having the sound of latent contempt for people who do not outright accept your stories/beliefs.

So, please tell me. What will you do when you fail? Did you keep track of how many people were interested in dowsing and had success after you showed them versus the number of people who simply did not care and/or who did not succeed? Because if you do not have the latter, in exact numbers, compared to the former, all i can say is that you fell victim to confirmation bias.

And as for the last part of your post, it already smells like a cop-out in case you fail: All those bad skeptical people ruined for you! Did you really mean to say that if something is real and a fact, people will fail at it just because they do not believe in it? Like, if i would not believe that a car driving into me would kill me, that i simply would not be killed by a car if i would just walk in front of one onto a highway?

Again, don't get me wrong. You have been very nice and accepting so far. But it somehow starts to look as if you are seeking some cop-out and someone to put the blame on in case you fail.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Just thought I'd point out the road that this may be going down.

Let's say there's a random thing that happens. No pattern to it at all, in fact. But humans look for a pattern.

So it happens on a Tuesday. Aha! It's a once-a-week thing.

But next Tuesday it doesn't happen. But it was rainy last week and clear this week. So it only happens on a rainy Tuesday.

But the next rainy Tuesday it doesn't happen. It happens on a rainy Wednesday though. And both times, the TV was playing in the background. So the day of the week doesn't matter, but it needs to be rainy with the TV playing.

Maybe it happens again under those conditions sometimes, but sometimes fails. That's okay. We just don't have the conditions figured out yet. The TV was set to a different channel the time it failed. Clearly it requires rain--hard rain, not drizzle, like the day it failed--and the TV set to the right channel--with good reception, not lousy the day it failed...

And so forth. It feels like one is testing the conditions under which it happens, and making progress, getting it all figured out. But in fact, there are no conditions. It's a random event.

Humans are so insistent on pattern-seeking, though, that unless they're aware of the tendency, they will tend to interpret the situation as hits which show there actually is a pattern, and failures that mean the pattern needs readjusted to account for other conditions, rather than coming to the conclusion there is no pattern.
 
Pup said:
And so forth. It feels like one is testing the conditions under which it happens, and making progress, getting it all figured out. But in fact, there are no conditions. It's a random event.

Humans are so insistent on pattern-seeking, though, that unless they're aware of the tendency, they will tend to interpret the situation as hits which show there actually is a pattern, and failures that mean the pattern needs readjusted to account for other conditions, rather than coming to the conclusion there is no pattern.
Click to expand...
One can easily imagine our ancestors convincing themselves than doing a raindance makes it rain in the same way, with the raindance getting increasingly complicated as time goes on.
 
DowserDon said:
An early subscriber to this forum wrote, "Words, words, words.....when shall we see some action". Action 25th March. I will write to this forum after then but assessment of the results will be done by others.
...
Click to expand...

I disagree with your statement "but assessment of the results will be done by others." One way for you to approach this would be like this hypothetical young male athlete is approaching his trials:

If I run the 100m dash consistently in less than 11s, I will try to go professional.

If I run 100m dash consistently in between 11 and 11.5s, I will train hard for another year and try to improve.

If I run the 100m dash consistently over 11.5s, I probably don't have what it takes.

---

@DowserDon: Your upcoming self-test can be a step in the right direction and you should - and will - receive kudos for doing it.

@Everyone: Let us remember however, that self-tests like these should be the norm and not the exception. What many people in this sub-forum seem to go through (and what I went through myself) when it comes to rare occasions like these is the "development of lowered expectations".

We see it all the time e.g. in politics: One side, let's say the GOP in the US, constantly rejects a national health care bill. Then they make a teensy-tiny concession toward the bill and it is lauded like a gesture of utmost generosity - when it is more like the minimum requirement for a civilized society.

Self-test like the one set to happen on the 25th should be standard procedure. Let's remember Mr. Wolfe's words, shall we?
 
Almo said:
If you want to see the power of the ideomotor effect, tell people there's some water where there isn't. Show them how your rod makes the motion there, and fudge it so it does. Watch them learn how to dowse on that section. :)
Click to expand...
I've been doing some more reading on dowsing, and it appears this has been demonstrated more than once.

Ray Hyman describes one such experiment here:

I used two groups of student volunteers. [...]

With one rod in each hand, I first demonstrated how dowsing works by holding the rods in front of me, aimed straight ahead and with their horizontal arms parallel to each other and to the floor. I then slowly walked about the room until the rods suddenly crossed one another. I walked away from that spot and showed how the rods uncrossed and became parallel again. I suggested that the place where the rods had crossed must be near a source of flowing water, perhaps a water pipe under the floor. I then requested that each of the students try the rods. To their amazement, the rods crossed when they walked over the spot I had indicated. [...]

I did similar demonstrations for the second group of students. However, this time I let them see my dowsing rods crossing at a different arbitrarily chosen location in the room. Sure enough, for these students, too, the rods crossed just at the spot where mine had. [...]

I made this video to illustrate a simple, but important, point. Under a variety of circumstances, our muscles will behave unconsciously in accordance with an implanted expectation [2,3]. What makes this simple fact so important is that we are not aware that we ourselves are the source of the resulting action. This lack of any sense of volition is common in many everyday actions as well as reports of those responding to hypnotic suggestions [4]. The latter report that their actions feel as though they are being propelled by powers external to themselves. My demonstrations with the divining rods had implanted the suggestion in each of the onlookers that the rods would cross at a certain location. When these students took the rods in their own hands and walked over the place where they believed the water pipe to be, they unconsciously made tiny muscle movements that caused the unstable rods the cross. They emphatically denied that they had done anything intentionally to make the rods move. Indeed, many insisted that they could feel the rods moving of their own accord, driven by some outside force.
Click to expand...

I wonder if DowserDon has ever tried such a control experiment when teaching people to dowse. I suspect not.
 
Pixel42 said:
I've been doing some more reading on dowsing, and it appears this has been demonstrated more than once.

Ray Hyman describes one such experiment here:



I wonder if DowserDon has ever tried such a control experiment when teaching people to dowse. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

The other interesting thing I've heard (in a talk at TAM, I think), is that the reaction of the rods is also learnt. If you show people how to dowse, and tell them that the rods will cross when detecting water, than that's what they will do. On the other hand, if you tell people that the rods will swing apart, that that is what they do.

Another double-blind test here, from the Richard Dawkins Enemies of Reason documentary, featuring Chris French (who showed it during his talk last week).




ETA: Although the test is not one that DowserDon would accept (which is fair enough), note that all the participants did accept it, and when they knew where the water was, were happy that they could detect it. It was only when they didn't know where the water was that they couldn't find it.
 
Last edited:
William Smith said:
...
One way for you to approach this would be like this hypothetical young male athlete is approaching his trials:

If I run the 100m dash consistently in less than 11s, I will try to go professional.

If I run 100m dash consistently in between 11 and 11.5s, I will train hard for another year and try to improve.

If I run the 100m dash consistently over 11.5s, I probably don't have what it takes.
...
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
...
Outcome 1: Proceed confidently with next stage of testing

Outcome 2: Do more self testing to identify the kind of trench you can consistently find by dowsing

Outcome 3: Conclude that dowsing does not work and there's no point in spending any more of your hard earned money on it
Click to expand...

DowserDon, are you ready to determine a grading scale for your results, along the lines of the suggestions quoted?
 
So, who from the forum plans to be there? I think Pixel42 is going. Anyone else?

I would also like to wish DowserDon good luck this weekend.

I'd also like to express one cautionary note. We have all seemed to accept that DowserDon has no motive to cheat in this test. I include myself. I still take him at his word that he will not cheat. It would not serve him in the MDC if he were to cheat in this test.

I can, however, conceive of other possible motivations to cheat.

Perhaps he plans to start a dowsing business. He will use this test, supervised by noted skeptics, to promote his business. No need to win the million. He could set up a going concern based on this test alone.

Perhaps he's just the type of guy who cannot bear being wrong or losing. It need not make sense financially or in any other way. He might just be that kind of guy.

There are probably others motivations that are possible as well.

I am not saying that any of these are the case. He seems like a reasonable guy. I believe that he's been and will continue to be an honest broker. But I just want to point out that I could be mistaken.

I could be mistaken in my belief that dowsing is not effective. And I could be mistaken in my belief that DowserDon is being honest with us.

This weekend will help to determine if I'm mistaken or not.

Does anyone know if anyone's going to have a video camera to record the proceedings?

Again, to DowserDon, good luck this weekend. I can't wait to hear how things turn out.

Ward
 
wardenclyffe said:
So, who from the forum plans to be there? I think Pixel42 is going. Anyone else?
Click to expand...
As well as Professor Chris French representing JFEF a contingent from ASKE, including Professor Mike Heap and Tony Youens, will also be there, and members of two SitP groups. It looks like there will be around a dozen people observing altogether. I don't know if there are any other forum members amongst them though.

Does anyone know if anyone's going to have a video camera to record the proceedings?
Click to expand...
A member of Milton Keynes Sceptics in the Pub will apparently be videoing the proceedings.

I'll post a full report on the thread as soon as I get home on Sunday.
 
Thanks Pixel42. I look forward to the report.

And see if you can find out from the MKSceptics if, when and where they plan to post any video.

Thanks again,
Ward
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom