|
|
Post by asdfg on Jul 11, 2009 8:50:11 GMT
Thats a bit daft relating the probability point It is actually one of the major criticisms of dowsers' claims of accuracy.  |
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jul 11, 2009 9:57:06 GMT
Well if there was no water they are hardly likely to find any whether dowsing or not as there is none. It really is down very much to coincidence and probability or even knowing the land well. I do not see any evidence that it has anything to do with a sixth sense or the divining rods.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Jul 11, 2009 13:22:20 GMT
That's also a daft thing to say as the person who owns the land can't find any bloody water and asks a dowser to do it. Obviously if a dowser finds water where it is sparse and meters can't, how do you explain. Obviously some are doing better than others and some are fakes but the point is still there.
How far have you looked into the numbers on this? Rather than just skimming for posts.
Obviously I am not totally convinced either but some people make a very good living out of this and have good reputations, why is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Jul 11, 2009 14:05:42 GMT
Obviously I am not totally convinced either but some people make a very good living out of this and have good reputations, why is that? BLACKADDER
Maybe because they're better at creative manipulation of their actual non abilities? The're basically like very good salesmen/women. They can sell the sizzle not the sausage (a sausage that IMO does not actually exist).
morganp
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jul 11, 2009 14:07:08 GMT
That's also a daft thing to say as the person who owns the land can't find any bloody water and asks a dowser to do it. Obviously if a dowser finds water where it is sparse and meters can't, how do you explain. That's a daft thing to ask. Dowsers may well be able to find water at above chance levels based on experience of working in a particular environment for example (the experience/knowledge point explained previously) but the key question is: can dowsers find water by dowsing? Don't assume that whenever a dowser finds water that dowsing was the cause of the find (!) If dowsers can find water (or some other target) at above chance levels (something that I would like to see evidence for) then there will be other more likely explanations for it. Remember, in tests dowsing doesn't work and we know that prior belief and expectation coupled with the ideomotor effect is what makes the rods/pendulums move. Dowsing is a prime example of how our psychological foibles can fool us. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder on Jul 11, 2009 15:10:59 GMT
I'm not assuming anything, i'm just saying it's explained poorly.
Also their are lots of tests and excuses for people finding water that is not dowsing but that goes for everything.
I ate toast yesterday and farted today.
? was it the toast or the beans the day before that? and on and on aand on in pointless excusing possibilities.
It doesn't mean a definitive answer from muscle movement explanations it's just one of many and we basically are saying we don't believe it because someone else says it's rubbish with small amounts of so called supporting evidence.
And not all dowsers know the areas they work in as they travel the world also?
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Jul 11, 2009 17:20:03 GMT
I'm not assuming anything You are. You're assuming that dowsing needs an explanation other than the ones we already have. If dowsing worked, dowsers would be able to use it to find targets in double-blind tests - but they can't. If they could then we would need to start looking for new explanations for it. |
|
|
|
Post by morganp on Jul 11, 2009 19:30:24 GMT
ate toast yesterday and farted today.
I ate toast yesterday and farted today.
? was it the toast or the beans the day before that? and on and on aand on in pointless excusing possibilities.
It doesn't mean a definitive answer from muscle movement explanations it's just one of many and we basically are saying we don't believe it because someone else says it's rubbish with small amounts of so called supporting evidence. BLACKADDER
I firmly believe that food with above average concentrations of fibre ie Toast (granary bread) and Beans are responsible for
annus horriblis (farting). It's been proven by science - a long time ago, it's not in any doubt, it's got lots of supporting evidence.
UNLIKE DOWSING, which hasn't. You can't realistically compare the two Blackadder. One's accepted by science the other is wishful thinking, the drawing of false conclusions, pure luck, research and plain quackery.
morganp
|
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Jul 11, 2009 20:43:27 GMT
Ah blackadder many dowsers do own their own land and dowse it. The dowser in the video interview owns the land on which he often dowses. Dowsers have been tested over and over again and none have been able to prove or provide evidence for their abilities. Have you asked yourself why? It would seem not. All their claims are anecdotal. I suggest you read more about dowsing and look at the evidence before assuming there may be some possible supernatural explanation. Jigsaw, Morgan and I have answered your questions and concerns. As Jigsaw says many dowsers may have experience of the land and so will not only understand their own land but also that of others and know what to look for. That does in no way mean or suggest that divining played a part and that is the important question. I can understand why many people including yourself look for a more fantastical explanation as the truth is often more dull and less exciting. It is all too easy to believe what we want to believe rather than base our conclusions on the evidence provided. So far it really appears to be down to little more than coincidence and probability and the results of tests prove that. How far have I looked into this? Further than you it would seem |
|
