Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Sep 6th 2010, 11:50 am
#91
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Valencia
Posts: 1,164
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Likewise there are probably a thousand and one theories as to why dowsing works, but the only thing known for sure is that it does work, and has been successfully practised by many people worldwide for a great many years.
I take the point Jimento makes, having thought about it myself a time or two,however I have absolutely no idea if there is any way it can be done remotely
I take the point Jimento makes, having thought about it myself a time or two,however I have absolutely no idea if there is any way it can be done remotely
Knowing that dowsing works nobody would employ a company to use that machinery and manpower when a dowser can do it in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately some people refuse to accept that there are probably as yet unknown outside forces at play here. Lack of imagination and the ability to think for themselves could be their problem.
Regurgitating/parroting other peoples theories etc, using them to validate themselves is not very clever at all. Quoting what someone else has said or cutting and pasting snippets is just plain boring
Bricwoods account of his witnessing dowsing at work was informative, interesting to read and totally believable.
Sep 6th 2010, 3:03 pm
#92
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Here's a typical example. I actually believe that very few people really want advice or information to improve what they are doing.
I used to keep koi, and because when I do things I like to learn everything I can about the subject, I studied the subject fairly intensively.
One problem is creating an adequate filtering system that will remove fine particulates, and the second is algal growth, both blanket weed and green water.
You would see people who had spent hundreds of pounds on each koi, putting them in ponds with cloudy water, sometimes so gree that the fish were invisible when they were 1 foot below the surface.
Me, I had a pond that was eight feet deep, the water was clear enough to read newsprint at the bottom if your eyesight was up to it, and no algae whatsoever. I'd say to people with scummy water that there was no need for it, and that if they wanted, I'd tell them how to do it with a small investment and effectively no running cost.
Did anyone do what I said? One.
Sep 6th 2010, 3:05 pm
#93
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
I saw people/geologists? using vehicles with machinery which vibrated the road surface which in turn produced a read-out when looking for oil in Surrey many years ago. So maybe those read-outs can also locate underground streams/rivers or lakes?
Knowing that dowsing works nobody would employ a company to use that machinery and manpower when a dowser can do it in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately some people refuse to accept that there are probably as yet unknown outside forces at play here. Lack of imagination and the ability to think for themselves could be their problem.
Regurgitating/parroting other peoples theories etc, using them to validate themselves is not very clever at all. Quoting what someone else has said or cutting and pasting snippets is just plain boring
Bricwoods account of his witnessing dowsing at work was informative, interesting to read and totally believable.
Knowing that dowsing works nobody would employ a company to use that machinery and manpower when a dowser can do it in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost.
Unfortunately some people refuse to accept that there are probably as yet unknown outside forces at play here. Lack of imagination and the ability to think for themselves could be their problem.
Regurgitating/parroting other peoples theories etc, using them to validate themselves is not very clever at all. Quoting what someone else has said or cutting and pasting snippets is just plain boring
Bricwoods account of his witnessing dowsing at work was informative, interesting to read and totally believable.
I wonder why that is?
Sep 6th 2010, 3:31 pm
#94
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,749
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Most people dont actually like learning and take any teaching as an afront to their intelligence.
Same reason that many of these people like religion, because there is nothing proven and everything has been rephrased in such a way that you can't disprove anything either. So they dont ever have to use their brains!
I dont trust openly religious people, it feels like they must be incapable of logical argument, we wouldnt get along!
Same reason that many of these people like religion, because there is nothing proven and everything has been rephrased in such a way that you can't disprove anything either. So they dont ever have to use their brains!
I dont trust openly religious people, it feels like they must be incapable of logical argument, we wouldnt get along!
Sep 6th 2010, 3:36 pm
#95
FreeThinker
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: the moors and levels
Posts: 9,702
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
With all claims such as this it is very important to fix exactly what the claim is. What is this "Dowsing" which we are talking about? Is it the ability to find water in a field or is it the ability to find water in a field only by using dowsing rods? There is a big difference. I can see that a chap with a good eye for landscape might well discover ground water by examining the lie of the land, vegetation etc. He might even unconsciously cause the rods to move due to the Ideomotor Effect. None of that is mysterious - in fact it is very clever and if it is how dowsing is done then fine, dowsing works.
To test whether or not the presence of water effects the rods without any other clues, visual or otherwise has been done, a brief description is here on wiki. I'll quote it as some people are reluctant to follow links.
That last sentence is particularly telling.
That and the complete failure of any dowser to claim Randi's million dollars says to me that the common view of dowsing - twitching rods etc. - is fallacious.
I would love to be proved wrong.
To test whether or not the presence of water effects the rods without any other clues, visual or otherwise has been done, a brief description is here on wiki. I'll quote it as some people are reluctant to follow links.
A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[17] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results. [18]
In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[19]
Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim,"[20] stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[21] he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[22] The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[23] a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect", but Enright remained unconvinced.[24]
More recently a study[25] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however the results were no better than chance.
In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[19]
Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim,"[20] stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[21] he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[22] The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[23] a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect", but Enright remained unconvinced.[24]
More recently a study[25] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however the results were no better than chance.
That and the complete failure of any dowser to claim Randi's million dollars says to me that the common view of dowsing - twitching rods etc. - is fallacious.
I would love to be proved wrong.
Last edited by jimenato; Sep 6th 2010 at 4:09 pm.
Sep 6th 2010, 3:58 pm
#96
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Not true.
Google is your friend. There are endless details of extensive tests and experiments trying to work out how it's done.
Lots and lots of theories, however I've not yet seen a one with a definite, indisputable conclusion.
They only thing they seem to know for sure is that it does work and it can be done.
Much the same as with the pigeons, I suppose.
Sep 6th 2010, 4:05 pm
#97
FreeThinker
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: the moors and levels
Posts: 9,702
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Not true.
Google is your friend. There are endless details of extensive tests and experiments trying to work out how it's done.
Lots and lots of theories, however I've not yet seen a one with a definite, indisputable conclusion.
They only thing they seem to know for sure is that it does work and it can be done.
Much the same as with the pigeons, I suppose.
Google is your friend. There are endless details of extensive tests and experiments trying to work out how it's done.
Lots and lots of theories, however I've not yet seen a one with a definite, indisputable conclusion.
They only thing they seem to know for sure is that it does work and it can be done.
Much the same as with the pigeons, I suppose.
Sep 6th 2010, 4:24 pm
#98
On the road again.
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: On Top of the World
Posts: 17,507
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
With all claims such as this it is very important to fix exactly what the claim is. What is this "Dowsing" which we are talking about? Is it the ability to find water in a field or is it the ability to find water in a field only by using dowsing rods? There is a big difference. I can see that a chap with a good eye for landscape might well discover ground water by examining the lie of the land, vegetation etc. He might even unconsciously cause the rods to move due to the Ideomotor Effect. None of that is mysterious - in fact it is very clever and if it is how dowsing is done then fine, dowsing works.
To test whether or not the presence of water effects the rods without any other clues, visual or otherwise has been done, a brief description is here on wiki. I'll quote it as some people are reluctant to follow links.
That last sentence is particularly telling.
That and the complete failure of any dowser to claim Rand's million dollars says to me that the common view of dowsing - twitching rods etc. - is fallacious.
I would love to be proved wrong.
To test whether or not the presence of water effects the rods without any other clues, visual or otherwise has been done, a brief description is here on wiki. I'll quote it as some people are reluctant to follow links.
That last sentence is particularly telling.
That and the complete failure of any dowser to claim Rand's million dollars says to me that the common view of dowsing - twitching rods etc. - is fallacious.
I would love to be proved wrong.
The results surprise me not at all.
Obviously they can't see the wood for the trees,simply because they are looking for what to them is the most obvious solution.
Remember horizontal thinking.
Who says it's the water itself is the cause of the reaction of the rods???????????
Such an experiment would likely totally eliminate the main cause of the reaction, namely the earths magnetic field.
IMHO what they normally come across in natural conditions is not neccessarily always water, but a disturbance of the natural underground emf which may or may not have been caused at some stage by water.
However there is a strong possibility that either underground water has or is flowing or else the magnetic field at that point has been altered at some time due to natural disturbance or man-made works.
I mentioned earlier a simple experiment with a compass.
However compass readings can occasionally go crazy even in open undisturbed countryside, the only likely explanation once again lies hidden beneath the surface.
Sep 6th 2010, 5:06 pm
#100
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Valencia
Posts: 1,164
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Really? I rather think you have overlooked the point here. Namely that most people don't use half a brain,
Here's a typical example. I actually believe that very few people really want advice or information to improve what they are doing.
I used to keep koi, and because when I do things I like to learn everything I can about the subject, I studied the subject fairly intensively.
You would see people who had spent hundreds of pounds on each koi, putting them in ponds with cloudy water, sometimes so gree that the fish were invisible when they were 1 foot below the surface.
Here's a typical example. I actually believe that very few people really want advice or information to improve what they are doing.
I used to keep koi, and because when I do things I like to learn everything I can about the subject, I studied the subject fairly intensively.
You would see people who had spent hundreds of pounds on each koi, putting them in ponds with cloudy water, sometimes so gree that the fish were invisible when they were 1 foot below the surface.
What type of person would spend hundreds or more usually thousands on koi and put them into filthy green water? Ive never met anyone like that.
Sep 6th 2010, 10:02 pm
#101
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Instead of doing what I said, he bought himself an expensive fish from Japan, and oh what a surprise, it came down with a bacterial rash and died.
He could have even then prevented that with a fiver's worth of bulk baking soda and two bags of salt like you put in water softners, in all 10 or 15 quid's worth of chemicals.
Instead of doing that he again ignored what I said and the fish died.
Trust me, you don't want to know the statistics.
Bear in mind that koi can live for 40 or 50 years. The average survival time of a koi when it leaves a dealer's pond is just 3 months, and 95% at least of all koi die in the year that they are purchased. The average pond is filled in within three years.
Actually, keeping them is pretty easy, provided you have a bit of knowledge.
I saw one idiot Yank buy a high end fish to win a competition, had to be more than 50,000 dollars, maybe more. I have seen fish that went for several times that. Anyway, he spent a fortune on the pond, but did it wrong and his fish died like flies, including I think the biggie. Again, completely impermeable to advice.
Sep 6th 2010, 10:14 pm
#102
FreeThinker
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: the moors and levels
Posts: 9,702
Sep 6th 2010, 10:16 pm
#103
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Vejer de la Fra., Cadiz
Posts: 7,653
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
I'd like an explanation of the comments about how that test would negate the earth's magnetic field. That ought to be worth a Nobel prize at least.
Sep 7th 2010, 5:13 am
#104
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2009
Location: Alicante province
Posts: 5,753
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
If you totally hand over your life to strictly proven scientific facts, what on earth have you got left apart from extreme boredom? I accept that there are extremely unlikely to be vampires and werewolves running about in the dark, there is no hard evidence that aliens have landed on our planet (apart from a mysterious hole in the ground in Colorado), and Frankenstein was too far ahead of his time; but I do love to read about all of those things in our wonderful world of fiction.
I can read all about those imagined wonders and still prefer evolution to creationism, and still get apprehensive in a dark wood at night, or walking past an isolated graveyard at dusk.
I could, of course, pause and calmly analyse my fears and realise that they are unnecessary, there are no ghosts according to strict science.
But I prefer the uncertainty of the unexplained, at times; I prefer reading King to Dawkins.
I can read all about those imagined wonders and still prefer evolution to creationism, and still get apprehensive in a dark wood at night, or walking past an isolated graveyard at dusk.
I could, of course, pause and calmly analyse my fears and realise that they are unnecessary, there are no ghosts according to strict science.
But I prefer the uncertainty of the unexplained, at times; I prefer reading King to Dawkins.
Sep 7th 2010, 6:58 am
#105
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,749
Re: Angels, Crystals and Auras, oh my!
Nature itself is the wonder! Those who cant get excited about nature have lost touch with humanity