|
|
Post by kensington on Jun 23, 2009 5:45:02 GMT
Recently I posted two videos of the patron of Australian Skeptics Dick Smith speaking at Skeptics in the Pub in Sydney, Australia. One of the videos was about tests he and James Randi were involved in during the 1980's to test the theory of water divining. To find out more about those tests have a look at the video on the relevant thread. Unsurprisingly, none of the people who took the tests were particularly successful. The prize fund of $40,000 is still there for anyone who thinks they can prove they can divine.
Any way I digress. One thing that Dick Smith and James Randi agree on is that unlike all psychics, mediums and faith healers, diviners tend not to be out to make money out of people but genuinly believe deeply in their abilities to the extent that it consumes them and dominates their whole lives.
About a week after I attended the talk by Dick Smith the friend of a friend happened to be in Sydney to give lectures on water divining. He claims to be a water diviner from Western Australia and if you watch the video he seems pretty certain of his beliefs. You will also notice when I challenge him and ask him about scepticism he hesitates.
You will also notice I give him what some might say was an easy ride and played the good cop. I felt in this instance that was the better tactic as I wanted to hear what he had to say, make the video appeal to sceptics and believers alike and also agree to get him to be formally tested. I feel I achieved all three. The likes of Dick Smith and other testers use similar tactics with diviners to get them to work with them. I felt that going in guns blazing in this instance would only make him close up and not respond to my questions. Plus I want the viewer to make up their own minds.
Any way whether or not you believe his claims, and I do say in the video I am understandably sceptical, it does show how diviners really are convinced by their own claims to the extent that they will invest their whole lives in that one main belief. I apologise for the noise in the background as it was pouring with rain and that restaurant was the only refuge we could find. I hope that the video illustrates what Dick Smith was saying earlier on about the power of belief. The link is below:
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Jun 23, 2009 7:54:30 GMT
Water diviner and rain, wow that is spooky.  |
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jun 23, 2009 9:13:35 GMT
Real scary |
|
|
|
Post by terry on Jun 23, 2009 10:18:06 GMT
Any movement, be it rods or pendulum is the Ideo Motor Response. An unconscious movement of the hands.
I use it as a demonstration for. "What you think is what you get"
Dowsers will swear that they do not move their hands, but they do. They do believe that there is some sort of power guiding them.
I have used the pendulum to help golfers improve their game. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Jun 23, 2009 10:56:57 GMT
Any movement, be it rods or pendulum is the Ideo Motor Response. An unconscious movement of the hands. I use it as a demonstration for. "What you think is what you get" Dowsers will swear that they do not move their hands, but they do. They do believe that there is some sort of power guiding them. I have used the pendulum to help golfers improve their game. ;D Same principle at work with the old Ouija board and the dangling crystal, they'll be adamant that they're not responsible but aren't aware of how a tiny imperceptible movement in the muscles can be magnified by a piece of string or a rod. morganp |
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jun 23, 2009 11:47:21 GMT
I agree. I have seen people use pendulums and divining rods and every time I have seen their hands or wrists move even though they have sworn they have not. I actually believe most of the time they do not believe they have moved their hands or wrists though it has been plainly visible to me. The power of belief really does consume them. I do sometimes wonder if their insistance on what they do is at times a form of denial but the more they repeat their claims the more they genuinly believe them.
My views of David...I believe he genuinly believes in his abilities. I believe he deeply wants to make a difference and cares deeply about the environment around him. I do not know enough about land to comment on his ideas about the environment but I found them interesting and would love to see them looked into. Where I do have issues is of course with his dowsing claims. I am not convinced by his abilities and he knows that but I hope that him having his divining skills tested will at least give an official record that he was tested.
If unsuccessful I am sure like many before him he will find reasons to explain his lack of success. At least, though, there would be a record of him being tested and a chance for all of us to know the results and how reliable his ability is. On the other hand he could prove us all wrong and few people would be happier than me. I do not buy his excuses why other failed. He claims that people in tests held the rod wrongly. Well what were they doing when they claimed they had a 90 per cent success rate in every day life? Secondly he uses the excuse of bad spirits. Sorry but when you get into the world of unicorns and pixies you lose me.
I sent him an email telling him that I was sceptical of his divinging abilities though was more open to his other ideas about the environment which I do not believe are mutually inclusive. I told him that if he wants his ideas on the environment to be taken more seriously he really needs to stop pushing the divining to the extent he does. Mixing the two just loses people.
|
|
|
|
Post by terry on Jun 23, 2009 13:28:55 GMT
On Deren Browns show, he ask a man that had been on the moving table if he had pushed it, his answer was. 'How could I move it when I was going backwards?' he forgot that the others on the other side of the table were pushing and vice-versa.
They are not aware that they are moving the pendulum, when I pointed out to a man demonstrating their special pendulum at a big MBS fair, that he was moving his hand, he was most indignant. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by terry on Jun 26, 2009 12:07:50 GMT
On the Mentalist last night our hero demonstrated what Derren Brown has used on one of his shows. Again it is based on the ideo motor response. A man hides something, DB puts his hand on the mans shoulder and starts him walking, the man, unwittingly gives an indication which way to turn, (the ideo motor response) eventually finding the object. It is known as. The Idiot Savant. Looks like magic. ;D Last night he took the ladies hand in a small room, and picked up her camera, (a vital clue on the camera.) Not sure what he did would have worked. I know it's only a TV show.   |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Jun 26, 2009 15:55:11 GMT
A t v show it may be but, I just love it. Well not so much the show, just Patrick, he his yummie. He can mentalist me any day of the week.   |
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jun 26, 2009 17:35:47 GMT
My views of David...I believe he genuinly believes in his abilities. I believe he deeply wants to make a difference and cares deeply about the environment around him. This leads to a bit of a problem with such beliefs. The people who hold them often are genuine and sincerely want to do good, help people, etc. It can make skeptics look somewhat mean when we challenge such belief systems. But, what if someone who believes in something like dowsing and wants to use it for good gets elected or promoted into a position of power? Making decisions about water policy in an arid place like Australia could end being very costly indeed! There was a case a couple of years back where Jersey spent something like £67,000 drilling bore holes to test the claims of a dowser (see: www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series11/week4_napoli.shtml). Imagine the cost if they'd simply listened to him! Skeptics often get accused of being 'nasty' for challenging people's beliefs but I think we really do need to. Being sincere and wanting to help may well be laudable, but good intentions do not make bad ideas better. Most 'irrational' beliefs are quite harmless most of the time for most people but they do have their consequences. Irrational beliefs do not necessarily lead to harm, but they certainly are a risk factor for harm ( What's the harm?).
Also, the Ideomotor Effect explained: www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=ideomotor_effect.php |
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jun 26, 2009 17:37:53 GMT
On the Mentalist last night our hero demonstrated what Derren Brown has used on one of his shows. Again it is based on the ideo motor response. A man hides something, DB puts his hand on the mans shoulder and starts him walking, the man, unwittingly gives an indication which way to turn, (the ideo motor response) eventually finding the object. It is known as. The Idiot Savant. Looks like magic. ;D That sounds like "muscle reading" to me. It's an old mentalists' routine. It's a genuine effect as well - it's not just a trick or illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jun 27, 2009 14:35:24 GMT
Jigsaw, I totally agree and that is where I have problems with the view that irrational beliefs are harmless. I've heard it said that conviction is a greater enemy of truth than lies. I think there is a lot in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by oh2bhappy on Jul 5, 2009 23:13:34 GMT
I've had a go with rods. They did move, and moved over the same spot.
No idea why though. Very funny feeling it was too. Not lying here, just how it was.
Wasn't 'looking' for anything. The chap who does believe in it walked over the same area and they didn't move.
I think a lot depends on how aggresive people are with their arguments on to how others percieve them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jul 7, 2009 19:02:53 GMT
Thanks for your message and very interesting to read. What I do notice is that you say you were not sure what you were divining for and that the guy who does believe did not get any response. There could be a number of reasons for your rod moving including you subconciously moving it. Have you any thoughts on why it moved?
|
|
|
|
Post by oh2bhappy on Jul 8, 2009 13:07:09 GMT
I think it was because of tree roots.
He reckons he was trying to find water, traced his "path" - and it led to drains in the road.
I could well have been doing this subconciously, but never the less it was enough to make me drop them the first time.
Excellent fun. Not claims to anything as I wasn't 'divining' for anything, but in my books, they did move as they were being held very lightly.
|
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jul 9, 2009 10:25:30 GMT
Thanks though I would say the more lightly you hold them and the less firm the grip the more lightly they would move and the easier it would be to move them subconciously.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Jul 10, 2009 14:03:06 GMT
I agree with most points about diviners but I am wondering how a person can move either intensionally or intensionally and find water with divining rods?
Points towards it actually meaning something real and not made up muscle movements etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Jul 10, 2009 15:19:07 GMT
The fact that the ideomotor reflex kicks in and wobbles the rods in the place where there happens to be water/gold/gas pipes/jam butty mines is purely co-incidental. I'll wager that the diviners will always focus on just the hits and excuse/discregard the misses which WILL always outnumber the hits.
morganp
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jul 10, 2009 16:49:32 GMT
Apart from coincidence there's also things like ignoring prior probability and other relevant experience.
If a dowser claims to be 95% accurate because he finds water 95% of the time he will be making the fallacy of ignoring prior probability if water is present underground in 95% of locations. In other words, if water is present at 95% of underground locations then finding water 95% of the time is simply what chance guessing would predict.
Dowsers may have other relevant experience. They often make a big deal about water board workers using dowsing rods to find underground pipes when they are uncertain of their location and being highly successful; but, who is more likely to make accurate guesses at where the water board's underground pipes are than the people who routinely work on them?
Dowsing rods cross when the dowser knows they are over their target or when they believe they are over their target.
Control things like prior probability (by setting it in a test) and remove the chance for context-dependent knowledge (bury the pipes yourself at random locations) and dowsers score at chance levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Jul 10, 2009 22:33:39 GMT
Thats a bit daft relating the probability point, as the reason for someone using a dowser for water is there is no water and they have been asked to find it?
|
|
