Are you asking me if there's evidence for explosives being harmful? Or are you suggesting that coleslaw is blast resistant?
Dowsing
- Thread starter Pattree
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
I agree. Good questions that I think require an answer.
Not heard of 'ADE 651' before. I'll have to have a deeper dive into that later. How on earth did that find it's way into military application! It definitely highlights the more serious results of some of these claims. Like you, I find that very concerning.
I can provide as much evidence as times someone has done that.
I think there's about as much reason and desire to produce scientific evidence for dowsing as there is for my example.
Plenty of people commenting on this thread can dowse, and it is of no profit or benefit to them to lie.
There are a small number of people who cannot accept it can work without mainstream science proving it via studies.
Perhaps in this case mainstream science might be wrong, as it has been a great many times before?
Plenty of people commenting on this thread can dowse, and it is of no profit or benefit to them to lie.
There are a small number of people who cannot accept it can work without mainstream science proving it via studies.
Perhaps in this case mainstream science might be wrong, as it has been a great many times before?
What an interesting viewpoint.
How many people desire to know the answer to this?
"Could you produce measurable evidence gathered in a controlled manner that igniting pyrotechnics immediately before dining on them with coleslaw is harmful to health?"
I can see at least three people that desire to have scientific evidence of how dowsing works but I have never know anyone to ask about pyrotechnic and coleslaw ingestion. Is it many? I suspect none. Not really a valid arguement.
As to the reason to have scientific evidence....
Proof that it's not chance, bias, environmental factors (ie a dip in the ground), subconcious movement, some other untested force. For any of these it's about the advancement of knowledge. If it's none force related then could it help furtehr train people. If it's an unknown force, it could help direct further study. I can see some people here don't want to have any critical thinking of the process but thankfully not all scientists would have that view of the world else we would be quite stuck. I don't see why some people are so scared of others asking the question?
“but at the same time I just cannot accept claims as true without measurable evidence which has been gathered in a controlled manner.”
This, and I say this with respect @Chris, is a bit lazy. With respect because I do, and also because your view is very widespread and normal, the “well, prove it” or “I need proof” approach. If you need proof, go and find it, it’s all out there or it’s not all out there.
If I wish to prove something to myself, I don’t expect somebody else to go out of their way to try and convince me, I go and find enough information, history, occurrences, sightings, reports etc to satisfy my interest to the point I’m prepared to accept the probability is in favour of it being true. Dowsing is ancient, there are old woodcuts of people with Hazel twigs and pendulums, it’s a subject that almost everyone is aware of. Many of us know people who can dowse, people here can dowse. That’s pretty much good enough for me.
From my own perspective, I think the claims regarding dowsing are pretty bold. If there is truth to it, then the implications are huge, life changingly so. I can't even begin to fathom what effect it would have on the world.
For that reason, I find it very difficult to understand why the desire to explore it further is casually dismissed as being unnecessary.
It's a bit like psychic mediums. The ability to communicate with the dead would be absolutely mind blowing. Again, such vast potential I could barely imagine. Yet, they always seem content to just set up a little side business and pretty much go about life as normal.
When I say 'prove it', I don't mean that people have to prove it to me in order for them to continue believing it. Just that in order for me to believe it, I'd need it to be proved scientifically. Certainly not here to tell people what they can and can't believe, just that in response to the initial post asking if I believe it, the answer is 'no' until evidence is presented to change my mind. Though I think you and I will have to agree to disagree regarding where the burden of proof sits.
The only caveat is that when people say "Yes, it definitely works" then I don't think it's unfair to ask for evidence, given the broad scientific consensus is that it does not work. As mentioned above, these claims can be dangerous in some circumstances and it's responsible to challenge them.
I think you ought to find a dowser, and go and spend a couple of hours chewing the fat with that person.
Have a go, and see how you feel about it then.
Have a go, and see how you feel about it then.
It's actually the broad scientific consensus, this isn't a 'small number of people'. I'd argue that the minority is actually the side in favour of it working.
Your question about eating explosives actually does have a broad range of data supporting it. The effects of explosives on human beings are well understood and well researched and well experimented. Not to mention the thousands, if not millions, of verifiable deaths which have been caused by bombs, gas leaks and the like. It's a bit of a strange comparison to be honest. Someone minded to test the explosive coleslaw experiment in a controlled manner would be able to provide a verifiable result, though those who have tested dowsing in a verifiable and controlled manner, in all circumstances, have failed to prove it works.
Nor do I think anyone in the thread is trying to lie about it. I can't argue with their personal experiences. It is possible for someone to try something and come to an honestly held conclusion about something and for that thing to still be not true due to circumstances they simply are not aware of, though.
What is your response to the experiments carried out where the participants agreed and signed to state the experiment was fair, which then showed dowsing to be no more effective than luck? How would that be explained?
I am intrigued by some current thinking on the subject of “Reality”.
That the dowsing rods swing is directly observable. That the holder is causing them to swing is equally observable and could be measured.
The cause of the cause is very debatable as evinced by this thread.
The paragraph below opens up all sorts of possibilities but New Scientist publishes exactly that: new science, new thinking. It might be right, it might be partially right out it might trigger other thoughts in any direction. That is the value of the magazine. It explains my stance to a degree.
Edited to untangle my quotes!
That the dowsing rods swing is directly observable. That the holder is causing them to swing is equally observable and could be measured.
The cause of the cause is very debatable as evinced by this thread.
The paragraph below opens up all sorts of possibilities but New Scientist publishes exactly that: new science, new thinking. It might be right, it might be partially right out it might trigger other thoughts in any direction. That is the value of the magazine. It explains my stance to a degree.
Edited to untangle my quotes!
I disagree, for the very vast majority of human history we've got on very well without the existence of science, and have likely been just as happy and certainly did not cause toxic potentially terminal damage to our planet which is tied in with science.
I have no issue with critical thinking regards the process, just that the critical thinking seems to have been based on very limited studies which may well have been manipulated like a great many studies are. Science is corrupt. Some of it isn't, but some of it is. There is generally a motive somewhere. There are probably quite a few folk who would be interested in further proof/disproof but I doubt many will put up the funding. Do you have any proof that the 'broad scientific consensus' are interested, or is that just an assumption? I doubt dowsing has even crossed the mind of most scientists, I'd suspect most are too busy chasing whatever results they are being paid to chase while ticking off the years to pension.
Perhaps some things are best left alone anyway. Perhaps- getting wacky here- really good dowsing- or psychic ability for that matter- is somehow gifted to people who will keep it low key and make good use of it, rather than make large profits or potentially cause social upheaval etc?
There's a list of experiments which have been conducted here if you'd like to read up on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#Studies
What would your response to the findings of these be?
This is an interesting read:
skepticalinquirer.org
It's a shame the German government didn't carry on with more studies!
Testing Dowsing: The Failure of the Munich Experiments | Skeptical Inquirer
The notion that certain skilled individuals can discover underground water by using a mysterious talent known as "dowsing" (or "witching" ...
skepticalinquirer.org
It's a shame the German government didn't carry on with more studies!
Apologies, that was in reponse to:
Perhaps the scientifically minded here could, individually or as a team, locate some doswers, try the process themselves, and try and conduct their own scientific study of dowsing? I imagine it would be a fascinating process to design a suitable experiment.
I hope you’re also immersed in The Telepathy Tapes, Neon Galactic, and American Alchemy
Nah above me I'm afraid!
I think it would be hard to beat the Munich experiment that lasted two years and tested 43 people over 843 tests.
I can believe that people can dowse but it's getting to the deeper science that I would like.
They are a load of rubbish, as I (and plenty of others I know) can dowse with a success rate much greater than mere probability.
Similar threads
